Jump to content

Talk:Lucy Letby: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Survey: Reply
DominicRA (talk | contribs)
403 edits
 
(330 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Notforum}}x
{{Not a forum}}
{{Canvass warning}}
{{Canvass warning}}
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|1RR=yes|blp}}
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|1RR=yes|blp}}
{{ITN talk|date1=18 August 2023|oldid1=1171069806|date2=22 August 2023|oldid2=1171701495}}
{{ITN talk|date1=18 August 2023|oldid1=1171069806|date2=22 August 2023|oldid2=1171701495}}
{{British English}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|living=yes|class=B|listas=Letby, Lucy|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=yes|listas=Letby, Lucy|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Cheshire|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Cheshire|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Hospitals|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Hospitals|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women }}
{{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}}
Line 18: Line 18:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(4d)
|algo = old(4d)
Line 30: Line 30:
{{Top 25 report|20 Aug 2023}}
{{Top 25 report|20 Aug 2023}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Old moves|date=8 August 2024|destination=Trial of Lucy Letby|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1239347631#Requested move 8 August 2024}}

{{Archives|banner=yes}}
{{Archives|banner=yes}}
{{TOC limit|4}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 ==
== Regarding the Private Eye article ==

[[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."<ref>Hammond, Phil writing as "M.D." (19 July 2024). "[https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby The Lessons of the Lucy Letby Case]", ''Private Eye'' 1628, pp. 38-39</ref>

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. [[User:Hotlorp|Hotlorp]] ([[User talk:Hotlorp|talk]]) 16:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

::See here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#UK_news_magazine_Private_Eye] 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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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]]? [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby published the article] on July 31]''. Nevertheless if it goes live and someone else shortens it, I am unlikely to object. [[User:Hotlorp|Hotlorp]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.private-eye.co.uk/special-reports/lucy-letby link in the reference] to point to it. [[User:Hotlorp|Hotlorp]] ([[User talk:Hotlorp|talk]]) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::He has also released a second article in the last edition that could be worth adding. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk:PerSeAnd|talk]]) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)


{{talk-ref}}

== Drafting a new RFC - continued ==

@[[User:Sirfurboy|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.{{pb}}
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? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk: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) [[User:Storsed|Storsed]] ([[User talk:Storsed|talk]]) 22:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

== Neutrality tag ==

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby&diff=next&oldid=1235625264 the neutrality tag was placed] by [[User:Sirfurboy]] has been suspended. [[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk:PerSeAnd|talk]]) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. Happy for it to go now per PerSeAnd. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

== RFC on first sentence ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1725897673}}
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=9417579}}
The [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE|first sentence]] of the article is currently {{tq|Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of seven others between June 2015 and June 2016.}}
Should the first sentence describe Lucy Letby as (in outline, and starting with the status quo)
*A: a former nurse who murdered and attempted ...
*B: a serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted ... / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted ...
*C: a former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting ...
*D: a former nurse convicted of serial murder and attempted murder ... ?
Please use the Survey section to express your preference(s) but the Discussion section for comments and debate. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 15:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

=== Survey ===
{{not a ballot}}
* '''C''' is my preference. '''D''' is good too. Since the last RfC there has been a further trial, following which reporting restrictions have been lifted. Doubts about the conviction have been reported in both British and overseas press. Although none of that alters the actual situation on the ground (she has been found guilty in a court of law and is in prison for the crimes), it does not seem unreasonable to report that as that she was ''convicted'' of murder. That does not raise any doubt in wikivoice - it takes no stance on the doubts. It is merely a neutral wording, followed by a variety of sources, e.g. [https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p2197]. The murders are regarded as serial murders, so it would not be wrong to add that back in, per D, although in encyclopaedic voice, I think we need to avoid expressing that too sensationally. I think D is appropriate so D as well as C are acceptable. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

* I also prefer '''C''' not because I think she is innocent, but because it states the evidential basis of our report that she is a murderer—the crimes went through the judicial process and were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think that the "serial" aspect needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''B'''. I've surveyed our serial killer articles and generally they seem to have a consistent opening style: "[Name] is a [nationality] serial killer who..." Although it's not 100% consistent, I can't really see any reason not to follow that. It's accurate, conveys much in few words and puts the key point of the article before the reader immediately. I dislike C and D because they ''subliminally'' introduce doubt. In normal language, and in our articles, usually, X is a murderer, fraudster, arsonist etc. ratther than "convicted of". C/D quietly introduces the thought that it's the outcome of a particular legal process (which could be wrong) rather than her essential description. I disagree that it is neutral. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Oh, i suppose I should mention that the RS pretty uniformly introduce her as "serial killer" when she is written about. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]], thanks for doing that comparison. [[Harold Shipman]] feels like the most relevant parallel article to me, and it begins with "'''...'''was an English [[General practitioner|doctor in general practice]] and [[serial killer]]". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::No, Shipman is not the best comparison as there are plenty of cases with nurses killing. Secondly, I am always wary about comparisons with other wikipedia articles. Rather we should look at what sources say. But, as long as we are playing that game, I note we use "convicted" rather commonly. For instance, [[Yolanda Saldívar]], [[Beverley Allitt]], [[Melanie McGuire]], [[Heather Pressdee]], [[Colin Norris]], [[Benjamin Geen]]. All 6 of them nurses. Not just nurses of course. E.g. [[Daniel Conahan]]. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*::This forthcoming book [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unmasking-Lucy-Letby-Untold-Killer-ebook/dp/B0D86TC1BF/ref=pd_ci_mcx_mh_mcx_views_0] which will be, as far as I can find, the first properly reliable secondary source as a book (and I have been looking hard), does not call her a serial killer in the title nor the synopsis. It introduces her as a killer nurse. It also has {{tq|Letby was convicted of murdering seven...}}. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::The title of one book (and its synopsis) of unknown quality and which has not even been published yet is pretty irrelevant. There are plenty of secondary RS in the media that habitually refer to her as a serial killer (as I've highlighted before [[WP:PRIMARY]] can only be relevant to news reporting). [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''' Which is perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''B'''. Tell it like it is, don't waffle.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''B''', came here from the ping. Agree with Marshall. The result of the last RFC didn't make the point that she's a serial killer clear enough. It's what she's known for and the sources say. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''' To reiterate what I said in the last RFC, we should remain as factual as possible and not editorialize. [[User:Lightoil|Lightoil]] ([[User talk:Lightoil|talk]]) 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''B''' as that is how most sources write about her. I dislike C and D for the same reasons as {{noping|DeCausa}}. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:As a second choice I would default back to A. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 18:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Just to say I don't see stating in wikivoice that someone is a murder is contentious when most reliable sources do the same. That there are some who contest the conviction is certain, but that has to be balanced against other sources and the outcome of the court case and it's appeals. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't see 'convicted of …' as expressing doubt, certainly no more doubt than always attaches to ''any'' verdict, A judge or jury examined the evidence carefully and concluded she was guilty, that it what is known, whether the judge/jury were wrong is ''always'' possible. {{TQ|it does not seem unreasonable to report that as that she was ''convicted'' of murder. That does not raise any doubt in wikivoice - it takes no stance on the doubts.}} [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::But it does seem out of place given the way most other articles are phrased. Also there are comments here with a preference for C/D ''because'' they believe there is doubt in the convictions, so that's definitely how it is taken by some. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::If WP says: "LL is a murderer, she herself denies, many experts doubt" then WP claims to know better than the experts. But we are just a handful of editors who try to produce a reasonable text. The claim "is a murderer" must not be backed by us. But where is the authority? It is the judge. So the correct statement is "LL is convicted for murder". Yes, there is also the news, but they only reported about what happened in the courtroom and have no independent authority. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::The claim "is a murder" is simply what is reported by the majority of reliable sources. Using language that castes doubt on that is placing the opinions of Wikipedia editors before secondary sourcing. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I think you misunderstood what I wanted to say. In many reliable sources US, USA and America are used without carefully distinguishing. But "Trump wants to erect a wall between America and the parts of America South of America" is really confusing. In a somewhat similar way "She is a murderer. Many people doubt whether she is a murderer" is confusing. So, slightly more precision is needed. That precision is obtained by saying "She is convicted of murder". That is precisely true, and the other formulations are approximations suitable when care is not needed. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::That's because you formulation gives to much weight to the doubts. Doubt in the conviction is the minority position and should be put in context as such. If doubt was the majority position then the article would state she was wrongly convicted. "She is a murder", and then somewhere lower in the article introducing that there are still those with doubts, isn't confusing. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Here we differ. I think doubt is the majority position among the experts who studied the case. I do not understand what your problem is with just stating the facts. We should follow BLP, and "murderer" is not an uncontested statement, while all agree on "convicted of murder". [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::How do we evaluate that doubt is a majority position? We cannot. And therefore we don't take sides. She is convicted of murder, and that, I am afraid, is good enough to (in general) describe her as a murderer, until such time as she may be exonerated (or perhaps she will confess, putting the matter beyond doubt). I say in general, though. In the lead I think it is very appropriate to say "she was convicted of murder", not because it admits to doubt, but because it clearly expresses the manner by which her guilt and the ensuing shorthand is determined. But let's not go down the rabbit hole of insisting that the article take a stand on the strength of the doubts. That would not be neutral point of view. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Even if the doubt that the conviction was safe was small, we need to acknowledge it. "She is a murderer" totally disregards any doubt - and thus contravenes NPOV. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 12:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Doubt in the conviction is not the majority position (the conviction stands), but I would reject the idea that doubts about the conviction are fringe (or FRINGE). There is definitely a minority that have serious doubts about the conviction, it's just that editors shouldn't allow there own believe in those doubts to give the article a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''' or '''A''' ''(pinged here)'' both of which are {{TQ|perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice.}} I, like many people I suspect, have no idea what a serial killer is, apart from knowing that they have killed several/many and tend to do kill obsessively. C and A employ simple factual language to relate the central shocking contradiction, which revolves around her being a neonatal nurse, who appears to have killed babies. I believe UK sources focus on that issue, rather than any 'serial killer' aspect.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 18:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Presumably the sentence would link to [[Serial killer]], which should help anyone who has no idea what a serial killer is. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*::While links are helpful clarifiers, it shouldn't be necessary to follow one to understand a defining sentence. C and A also follow the standard WP biog format of name … nationality … profession … reason for notability. I appreciate that this is a matter of judgement, but I always find 'labels' in the opening sentence intrusive, rather than informative. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 04:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''B''' (or '''A'''). Prisons are full of people claiming to be innocent of the crimes for which they've been convicted. However the general principle in the media is to state that they committed the crimes, not that they were convicted of the crimes. Generally Wikipedia takes the same approach and we should do the same here. I haven't seen a convincing argument why the Lucy Letby article should be treated differently to those of other murderers. What's the special case here? [[User:Nigej|Nigej]] ([[User talk:Nigej|talk]]) 19:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C'''. A and B take a position on what is now a contentious question, and B and D slightly sensationalise.
:The doubts are now so widespread among those with relevant expertise that Wikipedia shouldn’t take a firm position on Letby’s actual guilt and instead just report the facts. I think anyone taking part in this RfC should first familiarise themselves with the doubts by reading and considering the articles in the New Yorker, Telegraph, Guardian and elsewhere. Without doing so it would be too easy to assume that they are less substantial than they are. To opt for A or B is to reject that the doubts have any significant weight; that shouldn’t be done without first knowing what they are. Wikipedia also shouldn’t ''necessarily'' treat the legal findings of any country as fact; legal procedures can get things wrong anywhere and we shouldn’t ''always'' defer to their findings.
:I would also add that even if one didn’t accept my above points, “serial” would still be redundant, and “who murdered” adds very little of value. “Serial” will be made perfectly clear by the end of the sentence (“7 infants”) and adds nothing informative (other than ruling out the possibility that she killed them all at once, which readers are unlikely to assume). And the great majority of readers are likely to take “convicted of murdering” to mean “murdered” anyway. “Convicted of” is neutral and factual; it doesn’t highlight the doubts but nor does it take a stance on a contentious question—it simply reports what we know to be true. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C''', per WP:NPOV's [[WP:VOICE]] which says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". There is no doubt now that the assertion that she is guilty ''is'' seriously contested. (Responded to ping). -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Are "serial killer" and "former nurse who murdered and attempted..." {{tq|seriously contested assertions}}? [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Some1|Some1]], that she ''is'' a killer, and that she ''murdered'' anyone are seriously contested by numerous experts and specialists in the various fields that were relied upon for the convictions, yes. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
* '''C'''. A and B make Wikipedia take a contested position against NPOV (and BLP). About D: One can be convicted of murder, but can one be convicted of serial murder? I do not think that is a legal term. C it should be. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 23:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''B''' - nothing has changed my view since the last RfC. She's still a [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/07/lucy-letby-smiling-nurse-female-killers serial] [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-court-attempted-murder-baby-b2574558.html killer].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''B''' - a serial killer. Dictionary definition is someone who murders multiple people over a period of time. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 10:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]], serious doubts, by serious experts and specialists, have been cast on the circumstantial evidence used unchallenged to secure her convictions though. Doesn't that carry any weight in your mind? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 19:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''B''' (with A as second choice). Whether intentional or not, C and D open the door to weaselly misinterpretations. Anything that can be read with a whispered subtext of "not really" would be doing our readers a disservice. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 12:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''B'''. Agree entirley with [[User:DanielRigal]] above. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 15:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''B''' per DeCausa and Nigej. Until and unless she succeeds on appeal to overturn all these charges, we describe her as reliable sources do. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''C'''. I think DominicRA puts it beautifully. I am alarmed by the idea that Wikipedia would be somehow claiming that Letby was innocent simply by reporting the unquestionable fact that she was convicted. This seems like it would set a terrible precedent where Wikipedia must actively take a strong stance on contested issues in order to avoid implying the opposite stance. That's not how neutrality works! — [[User:Moriwen|Moriwen]] ([[User talk:Moriwen|talk]]) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''C''' per DominicRA. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''C''' per DominicRA. This article does not come close to neutrally representing the reliable coverage of the case and it begins with the very first sentence. It is not a contentious claim that Letby was convincted, it is a contentious claim that she did it. [[User:Say ocean again|Say ocean again]] ([[User talk:Say ocean again|talk]]) 01:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===
'''OP comment - why now, why like this?''' We had an [[Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3#RFC on Lead sentence|RFC on this in December 2023–January 2024]]. Since then, much has happened and much more material has become available.
*Letby has twice been refused permission to appeal her conviction.
*In a retrial on a charge on which the previous jury could not agree, she has been found guilty of murder on that charge too. This probably ends the judicial process, unless the [[Criminal Cases Review Commission]] eventually intervenes.
*Details about the evidence with questions and doubts implying a miscarriage of justice were published in the US but could not be reported in the UK due to legal restrictions. Following the retrial, most restrictions were lifted and details and doubts have been published in the UK. Our article now includes a section on them.
*After seeing those published details and doubts, a number of editors have tried to insert "convicted of" into the first sentence, or otherwise change it, and there has been much discussion on the talk page.
In the light of the above, please can we consider whether our consensus is as before or what initial description we should have instead?{{pb}}
The previous RFC offered two options, but discussion was difficult partly because preferences differed in two ways, whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer"; the close landed on a middle path. The four options above are an attempt to include each combination of those two differences. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

=====Methodology=====

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

Of the sources on the page, I discounted all of the following because they are articles from before the conviction. It is clear that she would not have been called a serial killer, nor could she be said to be convicted, before the conviction, so these will provide no evidence.
{{Collapse top|title=Content prior to conviction}}
* {{cite web |date=28 March 2013 |title=Staff Profile – Lucy Letby |url=https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/74654/chester_standard_babygrow_page_1070kb__28.03.2013_.pdf |access-date=18 August 2023 |archive-date=5 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221205060026/https://www.coch.nhs.uk/media/74654/chester_standard_babygrow_page_1070kb__28.03.2013_.pdf |url-status=live}} - Staff profile from before the issues arose - no evidence
* {{cite news|title=Home searched after baby murder arrest belongs to Chester children's nurse |url=https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/16332233.home-searched-baby-murder-arrest-belongs-chester-childrens-nurse/ |access-date=27 October 2022 |work=The Standard |date=4 July 2018 |archive-date=27 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027192329/https://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/16332233.home-searched-baby-murder-arrest-belongs-chester-childrens-nurse/ |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby found caring for less sick babies 'boring', trial told |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65029970 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=21 March 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825215129/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65029970 |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence
* {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised |work=The Guardian|title=Timeline of Lucy Letby's attacks on babies and when alarm was raised|date=18 August 2023|access-date=20 August 2023|last1=Halliday|first1=Josh|last2=Blight|first2=Garry|last3=Fischer|first3=Harry|last4=Kirk|first4=Ashley|archive-date=20 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820175554/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-timeline-attacks-babies-when-alarm-raised|url-status=live}} - Assumes familiarity but has {{tq|Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another six}}. I don't think that is evidence.
* {{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-44696813 |title=Countess of Chester Hospital: Woman held in baby deaths probe|date=3 July 2018|access-date=27 January 2023 |work=BBC News |archive-date=30 January 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230130022933/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-44696813|url-status=live}} - Before conviction, no evidence.
* {{cite news |last1=Matthews-King |first1=Alex |title=Lucy Letby: Newborn deaths doubled at hospital where nurse arrested on suspicion of babies' murders worked |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-baby-murders-newborn-death-rate-name-of-hospital-neo-natal-unit-police-a8433011.html |access-date=20 August 2023 |work=Independent |date=5 July 2018 |archive-date=20 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820181219/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-baby-murders-newborn-death-rate-name-of-hospital-neo-natal-unit-police-a8433011.html |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity - No evidence
* {{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66553970 |title=Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses were misled, former chair claims|work=BBC News|date=19 August 2023|access-date=19 August 2023|archive-date=20 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820123721/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66553970|url-status=live}} - Assumes familiarity - No evidence
* {{cite news |date=4 July 2018 |title=Nurse Lucy Letby arrested over Chester Hospital baby deaths |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44709766 |access-date=5 July 2018 |work=[[BBC News]] |archive-date=5 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180705051804/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-44709766 |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence
* {{cite news |last1=Parveen |first1=Nazia |last2=Halliday |first2=Josh |date=4 July 2018 |title=Cheshire baby deaths: police widen inquiry to second hospital |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/cheshire-baby-deaths-nurse-questioned-suspicion-murder-lucy-letby |access-date=5 July 2018 |archive-date=4 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180704163609/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/cheshire-baby-deaths-nurse-questioned-suspicion-murder-lucy-letby |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite web |date=6 July 2018 |title=Update on Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit investigation |url=https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/update-on-countess-of-chester-hospital-neonatal-unit-investigation/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190226112746/https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/update-on-countess-of-chester-hospital-neonatal-unit-investigation/ |archive-date=26 February 2019 |access-date=13 July 2018 |website=cheshire.police.uk |publisher=[[Cheshire Constabulary]]}} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/13/nurse-lucy-letby-released-on-bail-in-chester-baby-deaths-inquiry |title=Nurse released on bail in Chester baby deaths inquiry|agency=[[PA Media|Press Association]]|work=The Guardian|date=13 June 2019|access-date=14 October 2023}} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |date=10 November 2020 |title=Chester hospital baby deaths probe: Nurse Lucy Letby rearrested |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-54886213 |work=BBC News |access-date=25 October 2022 |archive-date=27 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027035241/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-54886213 |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |date=11 November 2020 |title=Nurse Lucy Letby charged with murder after Chester hospital baby deaths |work=The Guardian |agency=PA Media |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/11/nurse-lucy-letby-charged-with-murder-over-chester-hospital-baby-deaths |access-date=25 October 2022 |archive-date=15 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015090403/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/11/nurse-lucy-letby-charged-with-murder-over-chester-hospital-baby-deaths |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |last1=Goddard |first1=Ben |date=13 November 2020 |title=Hereford Nurse Lucy Letby Refused Bail |work=Hereford Times |url=https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/18871228.nurse-accused-murdering-eight-babies-appears-court/ |access-date=18 November 2022 |archive-date=18 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118002328/https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/18871228.nurse-accused-murdering-eight-babies-appears-court/ |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960506|title=Lucy Letby: Jury retires in trial of nurse accused of baby murders|first=Daniel|last=O'Donoghue|work=[[BBC News]]|date=10 July 2023|access-date=27 February 2024|archive-date=27 February 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240227185830/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960506|url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |last=McIntyre |first=Alex |date=30 September 2022 |title=Lucy Letby trial to begin as nurse denies murdering babies at Chester Hospital |url=https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/lucy-letby-trial-set-begin-25147312 |access-date=28 October 2022 |work=CheshireLive |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028155256/https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/lucy-letby-trial-set-begin-25147312 |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |date=12 October 2022 |title=Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby's attempt to kill newborn baby, court told |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/12/lucy-letby-mother-bathed-baby-court |access-date=13 October 2022 |archive-date=12 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012225319/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/12/lucy-letby-mother-bathed-baby-court |url-status=live }} - Before convction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |date=10 October 2022 |title=Lucy Letby was 'constant malevolent' presence on neonatal ward, court hears |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/10/lucy-letby-constant-malevolent-presence-neonatal-ward-court-hears |access-date=13 October 2022 |archive-date=12 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012185735/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/10/lucy-letby-constant-malevolent-presence-neonatal-ward-court-hears |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |title=Lucy Letby's parents arrive at court |newspaper=Yahoo News |date=26 October 2022 |agency=ITN |url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lucy-letbys-parents-arrive-court-121820117.html |access-date=28 October 2022 |via=uk.news.yahoo.com |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028145714/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lucy-letbys-parents-arrive-court-121820117.html |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news|title=Latest updates: Hereford nurse Lucy Letby goes on trial accused of baby murders |url=https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23017427.lucy-letby-hereford-nurse-goes-trial-accused-baby-murders/ |access-date=28 October 2022 |work=Hereford Times |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028145714/https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23017427.lucy-letby-hereford-nurse-goes-trial-accused-baby-murders/ |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |date=14 October 2022 |title=Who are the children alleged to have been murdered by Lucy Letby? |url=https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-10-14/who-are-the-children-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby |access-date=28 October 2022 |work=ITV News |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028125900/https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-10-14/who-are-the-children-alleged-to-have-been-murdered-by-lucy-letby |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=11 October 2022 |title=Mother walked in on nurse Lucy Letby trying to kill baby, court told |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/lucy-letby-mother-walked-in-nurse-trying-kill-baby-court-told |access-date=28 October 2022 |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028145704/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/11/lucy-letby-mother-walked-in-nurse-trying-kill-baby-court-told |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=19 October 2022 |title=Lucy Letby: Nurse searched for parents on Facebook, jury told |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63315104 |access-date=28 October 2022 |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028145713/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63315104 |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial: Nurse killed baby and sent parents card, trial told |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63228147 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=12 October 2022 |archive-date=7 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607075320/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63228147 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=24 October 2022 |title=Lucy Letby trial: Nurse thought 'not again' over baby collapse |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63378514 |access-date=28 October 2022 |archive-date=27 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027163619/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63378514 |url-status=live}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial hears how doctor raised concerns but was told 'not to make a fuss' |url=https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-hears-how-doctor-raised-concerns-but-was-told-not-to-make-a-fuss-12729381 |access-date=28 October 2022 |work=Sky News |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028145706/https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-hears-how-doctor-raised-concerns-but-was-told-not-to-make-a-fuss-12729381 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |last1=Ball |first1=Tom |last2=Bunyan |first2=Bunyan |title=Lucy Letby trial: Doctor told 'not to make a fuss' over deaths of babies |work=[[The Times]] |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-trial-doctor-told-not-to-make-a-fuss-over-deaths-of-babies-76x9t6wpr |access-date=28 October 2022 |issn=0140-0460 |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028124625/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-trial-doctor-told-not-to-make-a-fuss-over-deaths-of-babies-76x9t6wpr |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby denies covering up murder of premature baby girl |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65790929 |access-date=3 August 2024 |work=BBC News |date=2 June 2023}} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |last=Powell |first=Tom |date=4 July 2018 |title=Nurse's home searched by police following baby murder arrests |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-search-home-of-nurse-lucy-letby-after-healthcare-worker-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murdering-eight-babies-at-chester-hospital-a3878676.html |access-date=28 October 2022 |work=Evening Standard |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028125901/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-search-home-of-nurse-lucy-letby-after-healthcare-worker-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murdering-eight-babies-at-chester-hospital-a3878676.html |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes found in home search released |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65311400 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=18 April 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825214758/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65311400 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence
* {{Cite news |title=Revealed: The 'I am evil' handwritten note by Lucy Letby found at her Chester home |url=https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/23046837.revealed-i-evil-handwritten-note-lucy-letby-found-chester-home/ |first=Mark|last=Dowling|access-date=28 October 2022 |work=The Leader |date=13 October 2022 |archive-date=28 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221028195619/https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/23046837.revealed-i-evil-handwritten-note-lucy-letby-found-chester-home/ |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial: Murder-accused nurse wrote 'I am evil', trial told |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63238989 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=13 October 2022 |archive-date=23 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230823174311/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63238989 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite magazine |title=Nurse Lucy Letby Sobs on Witness Stand, Claims She Was 'Incompetent' But Meant No Harm |url=https://people.com/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-sobs-witness-stand-claims-incompetent-meant-no-harm/ |access-date=3 May 2023 |magazine=People Magazine |archive-date=3 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230503024119/https://people.com/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-sobs-witness-stand-claims-incompetent-meant-no-harm/ |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news|last=Lennox |first=Aaran |date=13 October 2022 |title=Lucy Letby a 'dedicated' nurse in 'system which has failed', court hears |url=https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/lucy-letby-dedicated-nurse-system-25257464 |access-date=27 October 2022 |work=North Wales Live |archive-date=27 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221027201018/https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/lucy-letby-dedicated-nurse-system-25257464 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial: Rigid wire or tube could have caused baby's 'extraordinary bleeding', court told |url=https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-rigid-wire-or-tube-could-have-caused-babys-extraordinary-bleeding-court-told-12750428 |access-date=19 November 2022 |work=Sky News |archive-date=19 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221119021335/https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-trial-rigid-wire-or-tube-could-have-caused-babys-extraordinary-bleeding-court-told-12750428 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=24 November 2022 |title=Lucy Letby: 'Extremely high' dose of insulin found in baby allegedly poisoned |url=https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-11-24/lucy-letby-extremely-high-dose-of-insulin-found-in-baby-allegedly-poisoned |access-date=24 November 2022 |work=ITV News |archive-date=24 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221124161223/https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-11-24/lucy-letby-extremely-high-dose-of-insulin-found-in-baby-allegedly-poisoned |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=23 November 2022 |title=Lucy Letby colleagues tell murder trial they did not give baby insulin |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63735668 |access-date=24 November 2022 |archive-date=23 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221123223930/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63735668 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction - no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes read 'I killed them', jury told |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65299827 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=17 April 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825215119/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65299827 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction, no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby denies rooting in bin after baby resuscitation |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65834779 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=7 June 2023 |archive-date=26 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230826005841/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65834779 |url-status=live }} - Before conviction, no evidence.
{{Collapse bottom}}

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

{{Collapse top|title=Sources with no suitable summaries (38)}}
* {{cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |title=Lucy Letby found guilty of trying to kill two-hour-old baby |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-trying-to-kill-two-hour-old-baby |work=The Guardian |date=2 July 2024}} - Primary source. Assumes familiarity. "Former neonatal nurse found guilty". No evidence
* {{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-files-nurse-hospital-evidence-rkxchgqh9 |url-access=subscription|work=The Times |date=19 August 2023|last1=Lintern|first1=Shaun|last2=Collins|first2=David|title=Revealed: the files that show how Lucy Letby was treated as a victim|access-date=19 August 2023|archive-date=20 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820190349/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lucy-letby-files-nurse-hospital-evidence-rkxchgqh9|url-status=live}} - Paywalled - assumes familiarity - no evidence
* {{Cite news |title=How the police caught Lucy Letby |url=https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640 |first1=Megan|last1=Harwood-Baynes|first2=Tom|last2=Parmenter|access-date=18 August 2023 |work=Sky News |archive-date=18 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818203022/https://news.sky.com/story/how-the-police-caught-lucy-letby-12933640 |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity - no intro - no evidence.
* {{cite web |last=Halliday |first=Josh |date=2023-08-18 |title=Lucy Letby whistleblower says babies would have lived if hospital had acted sooner |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-whistleblower-babies-would-have-survived-if-hospital-had-acted-sooner |access-date=2024-05-15 |website=The Guardian |language=en-GB}} - Assumes familiarity - no intro
* {{cite news |last1=Pidd |first1=Helen |title=Lucy Letby trial: why the babies remain anonymous |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-trial-why-babies-remain-anonymous |access-date=18 August 2023 |work=The Guardian |date=18 August 2023 |archive-date=18 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818153702/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-trial-why-babies-remain-anonymous |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no summary. No evidence.
* {{cite news |title=The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120198 |access-date=9 July 2024 |work=BBC News |date=18 August 2023}} - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby appeal fund launched |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/23/lucy-letby-campaigners-freedom-launch-fundraising-appeal/ |access-date=24 August 2023 |work=The Telegraph |date=23 August 2023 |archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824022301/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/23/lucy-letby-campaigners-freedom-launch-fundraising-appeal/ |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses 'didn't allow investigators to see clinical notes' related to baby deaths, expert says |url=https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-hospital-bosses-didnt-allow-investigators-to-see-clinical-notes-related-to-baby-deaths-expert-says-12942917 |access-date=26 May 2024 |work=Sky News |date=19 August 2023 |archive-date=26 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240526195739/https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-hospital-bosses-didnt-allow-investigators-to-see-clinical-notes-related-to-baby-deaths-expert-says-12942917 |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence although it does prominently say "killer nurse".
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby sentencing live: Nurse to spend rest of life in prison |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66551231 |access-date=21 August 2023 |work=BBC News |date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821120846/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66551231 |url-status=live }} - Primary sourced live coverage Assumed familiarity. No intro, no evidence
* {{cite web |title=Letby Sentencing Remarks |url=https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LETBY-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf |website=judiciary.gov.uk |publisher=Manchester Crown Court |access-date=23 August 2023 |date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824084037/https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/LETBY-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf |url-status=live }} - Primary sourced closing remarks. No summary. No evidence.
* {{Cite news |last=Siddique |first=Haroon |date=21 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby becomes fourth woman in UK to receive whole-life jail term after murdering seven babies – latest updates |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentencing-hearing-life-sentence-updates |access-date=21 August 2023 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821190553/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentencing-hearing-life-sentence-updates |url-status=live }} - Live reporting, no summary, no evidence, primary.
* {{cite web |first1=Tom |last1=Symonds |first2=Aoife |last2=Walsh |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66660136 |title=Criminals to be forced to attend sentencing hearings |work=BBC News |date=31 August 2023 |access-date=11 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230904190234/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66660136 |archive-date=4 September 2023 |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence.
* {{cite news |title=Inside Low Newton: the high security prison that will house Lucy Letby' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/inside-low-newton-the-high-security-prison-that-is-housing-lucy-letby |access-date=21 August 2023 |newspaper=Guardian |date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824083539/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/inside-low-newton-the-high-security-prison-that-is-housing-lucy-letby |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence.
* {{cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |title=What were Lucy Letby's possible motives for murdering babies? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/what-were-lucy-letbys-possible-motives-for-murdering-babies |work=The Guardian |date=18 August 2023 |access-date=19 August 2023|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818234607/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/what-were-lucy-letbys-possible-motives-for-murdering-babies |archive-date=18 August 2023}} - No intro but +serial killer
* {{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-confirms-yet-confounds-our-ideas-of-a-serial-killer|title=Lucy Letby confirms yet confounds our ideas of a serial killer|first=David|last=Wilson|work=The Guardian|date=20 August 2023|access-date=15 March 2024|archive-date=7 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093538/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-confirms-yet-confounds-our-ideas-of-a-serial-killer|url-status=live}} +serial killer but no intro.
* [https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/ftpoutcomes/2023/march-2023/reasons-letby-icio-67757-20230313.pdf Nursing and Midwifery Council Investigating Committee] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818192036/https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/ftpoutcomes/2023/march-2023/reasons-letby-icio-67757-20230313.pdf |date=18 August 2023 }} nmc.org. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Primary, no summary, no evidence.
* {{cite web|url=https://www.nmc.org.uk/news/news-and-updates/nmc-responds-to-verdict-in-lucy-letby-trial/|title=NMC responds to verdict in Lucy Letby trial - The Nursing and Midwifery Council|website=www.nmc.org.uk|access-date=21 August 2023|archive-date=21 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821190623/https://www.nmc.org.uk/news/news-and-updates/nmc-responds-to-verdict-in-lucy-letby-trial/|url-status=live}} - No summary, no evidence
* {{Cite news |date=2024-02-07 |title=Lucy Letby renews bid to appeal her convictions |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-68233226 |access-date=2024-02-18 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=18 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240218141022/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-68233226 |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term)
* {{cite news |title=British nurse Lucy Letby loses appeal over babies' murder conviction |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-nurse-lucy-letby-loses-appeal-over-babies-murder-conviction-2024-05-24/ |access-date=21 June 2024 |work=Reuters |date=24 May 2024}} - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term)
* {{Cite web |date=2024-04-25 |title=Lucy Letby: Judges reserve judgement on appeal bid |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce965klgv01o |access-date=2024-04-26 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=26 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240426135448/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce965klgv01o |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term)
* {{cite news |title=A scrum of spectators and an elephant in the room during Lucy Letby retrial |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-retrial-scrum-of-spectators-courtroom |access-date=10 July 2024 |work=The Guardian |date=2 July 2024}} - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence.
* {{cite news|last= Vaughan|first= Henry|url= https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-more-families-told-their-children-may-be-victims-of-killer-nurse-12931797|title= Lucy Letby: More families told their children may be victims of killer nurse - as police review care of 4,000 babies|date= 18 August 2023|work= Sky News|access-date= 20 August 2023|archive-date= 19 August 2023|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230819233901/https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-more-families-told-their-children-may-be-victims-of-killer-nurse-12931797|url-status= live}} - No summary and thus no evidence, although uses the term "killer nurse".
* {{cite web |title=Cheshire Constabulary statement regarding Countess of Chester Hospital (4 October 2023) |url=https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2023/10/cheshire-constabulary-statement-regarding-countess-of-chester-hospital-4-october-2023/ |website=Cheshire Police |access-date=4 October 2023 |archive-date=4 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231004152422/https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2023/10/cheshire-constabulary-statement-regarding-countess-of-chester-hospital-4-october-2023/ |url-status=live }} - Primary, no summary, no evidence although includes {{tq|following the conviction}}
* {{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-orders-independent-inquiry-following-lucy-letby-verdict|title=Government orders independent inquiry following Lucy Letby verdict|website=gov.uk|date=18 August 2023 |access-date=18 August 2023|archive-date=18 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818154140/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-orders-independent-inquiry-following-lucy-letby-verdict|url-status=live}} - Primary, no summary, no evidence. Only includes {{tq|following the guilty verdict}}
* {{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66547863|work=BBC News|title=Lucy Letby: Government orders independent inquiry|date=18 August 2023|access-date=19 August 2023|archive-date=20 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820211315/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66547863|url-status=live}} - Assumes familiarity, no summary.
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: doctor who raised alarm calls for regulation of NHS executives |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/22/lucy-letby-doctor-stephen-brearey-regulation-nhs-executives-call |first=Geneva|last=Abdul|work=The Guardian |access-date=22 August 2023 |archive-date=22 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230822093812/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/22/lucy-letby-doctor-stephen-brearey-regulation-nhs-executives-call |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence
* {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/25/ministers-indicate-support-for-statutory-inquiry-into-lucy-letby-killings|title=Ministers indicate support for statutory inquiry into Lucy Letby killing|work=The Guardian|date=25 August 2023 |access-date=26 August 2023|archive-date=26 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230826050358/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/25/ministers-indicate-support-for-statutory-inquiry-into-lucy-letby-killings|url-status=live |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |last2=Mason |first2=Rowena }} - No summary, no evidence
* {{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66597122 |title=Lucy Letby: Inquiry given powers to compel witnesses to give evidence |work=BBC News |date=30 August 2023 |access-date=30 August 2023 |archive-date=30 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230830175127/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66597122 |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence (murder of seven babies could be argued as -serial killer, -convicted, but it is not written as a summary)
* {{cite news |title=Lady Justice Thirlwall appointed to lead public inquiry into Lucy Letby |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/lucy-letby-lady-justice-thirlwall-to-lead-public-inquiry |website=Guardian |date=4 September 2023 |access-date=4 September 2023 |last1=Siddique |first1=Haroon |archive-date=7 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093540/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/04/lucy-letby-lady-justice-thirlwall-to-lead-public-inquiry |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence (murder of seven babies could be argued as -serial killer, -convicted, but it is not written as a summary)
* {{cite web |title=RULING ON LIVESTREAMING/LIVE-LINKS |url=https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Ruling-on-Livestreaming.pdf |website=Thirlwall Public Inquiry |access-date=29 May 2024 |archive-date=29 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240529172933/https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Ruling-on-Livestreaming.pdf |url-status=live }} - Primary source, no summary, no evidence.
* {{Cite news |date=22 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby: NHS managers must be held to account, doctor says |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66578698 |access-date=24 August 2023|archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824013557/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66578698 |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence.
* {{cite web |last1=Maher |first1=Bron |title=New Yorker defies contempt risk to publish Lucy Letby story in UK print edition |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/new-yorker-lucy-letby-reporting-restrictions-contempt-of-court/ |website=[[Press Gazette]] |access-date=17 May 2024 |date=15 May 2024 |archive-date=16 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240516195426/https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/new-yorker-lucy-letby-reporting-restrictions-contempt-of-court/ |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence
* {{Cite web |last= |title=Reporting restrictions in the Lucy Letby trial |url=https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/reporting-restrictions-in-the-lucy-letby-trial/5117175.article |access-date=2024-07-30 |website=Law Gazette |language=en}} - No summary, no evidence
* {{Cite web |last=Maher |first=Bron |date=2024-05-13 |title=New Yorker latest to be faced with 'incredibly complex' task of reporting Lucy Letby case |url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/journalists-reporting-lucy-letby-trial-reporting-restrictions/ |access-date=2024-07-30 |website=Press Gazette |language=en-US}} - No summary, no evidence
* {{cite news |last=Knapton |first=Sarah |date=3 August 2024 |title=Hospital where Lucy Letby worked suffered bacteria outbreak ‘lethal’ to babies |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/03/countess-of-chester-hospital-lucy-letby-bacteria-outbreak/ |work=The Telegraph |location= |access-date=4 August 2024}}- No summary - no evidence
* {{Cite news |last=Halliday |first=Josh |date=19 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby: Police urged to investigate hospital bosses for corporate manslaughter |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/lucy-letby-police-urged-to-investigate-hospital-bosses-for-corporate-manslaughter |access-date=20 August 2023 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821022650/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/lucy-letby-police-urged-to-investigate-hospital-bosses-for-corporate-manslaughter |url-status=live }} - Assumes familiarity, no summary.
* {{cite web |title=RCPCH responds to verdict in Lucy Letby trial |url=https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-verdict-lucy-letby-trial |access-date=19 August 2023 |website=RCPCH |archive-date=19 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819133710/https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-verdict-lucy-letby-trial |url-status=live }} - No summary, no evidence.
* {{cite web |title=NHS England » Commenting on the verdict in the Lucy Letby trial |url=https://www.england.nhs.uk/2023/08/commenting-on-the-verdict-in-the-lucy-letby-trial/ |access-date=19 August 2023 |website=england.nhs.uk |archive-date=19 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819133717/https://www.england.nhs.uk/2023/08/commenting-on-the-verdict-in-the-lucy-letby-trial/ |url-status=live }} - Primary source, comment, assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence.
{{Collapse bottom}}

This left me with the following 48 sources to review. I have included relevant quotes and comment on each line:
{{Collapse top|title=Sources with in scope summaries (48)}}
* {{Cite news |last1=Ball |first1=Tom |last2=Mitib |first2=Ali |last3=Wace |first3=Charlotte |date=18 August 2023 |title=Who is Lucy Letby? The nurse who became Britain's most prolific child killer |work=The Times |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-is-lucy-letby-nurse-killed-family-babies-background-family-friends-education-s7njrswmc |url-access=subscription |access-date=19 August 2023 |archive-date=20 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820205750/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-is-lucy-letby-nurse-killed-family-babies-background-family-friends-education-s7njrswmc |url-status=live }} - Paywalled. "The nurse who became Britain’s most prolific child killer"
* {{cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Katie |title=The evidence seen during Lucy Letby's murder trial, from handwritten notes to cards for parents |url=https://news.sky.com/story/the-evidence-seen-during-lucy-letbys-murder-trial-from-handwritten-notes-to-cards-for-parents-12944606 |access-date=25 August 2023 |work=Sky News |date=22 August 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825093527/https://news.sky.com/story/the-evidence-seen-during-lucy-letbys-murder-trial-from-handwritten-notes-to-cards-for-parents-12944606 |url-status=live }} - {{tq|UK's most notorious child killer}} -serial killer -convicted
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: Quiet 'geek' who became a killer feared she would never have children of her own |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/18/how-lucy-letby-became-britains-most-prolific-baby-killer/ |access-date=26 August 2023 |work=The Telegraph |date=18 August 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825203936/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/18/how-lucy-letby-became-britains-most-prolific-baby-killer/ |url-status=live }} {{tq|Lucy Letby: Quiet ‘geek’ who became a killer}} Paywalled. Seems to be -serial killer, -convicted based on headline.
* {{cite news |title=Who is Lucy Letby? The 'average' nurse who became one of Britain's most notorious child killers |url=https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-lucy-letby-the-average-nurse-who-became-britains-most-prolific-child-killer-12943602 |access-date=26 August 2023 |work=Sky News |date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825092123/https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-lucy-letby-the-average-nurse-who-became-britains-most-prolific-child-killer-12943602 |url-status=live }} - {{tq|The 'average' nurse who became one of Britain's most notorious child killers}} -serial killer, -convicted
* {{cite AV media| people = [[Sky News]]| date = 19 August 2023| title = Sky News Special Programme: How the police caught Lucy Letby| type = News special| url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHxvO6bLqg| access-date = 25 August 2023| archive-date = 25 August 2023| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230825161602/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHxvO6bLqg| url-status = live}} - primary, live reporting. {{tq|Britain's most prolific child killer}} -convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: Corporate manslaughter probe at Chester hospital |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67006930 |access-date=15 May 2024 |date=4 October 2023 |archive-date=2 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240602093649/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67006930 |url-status=live }} {{tq|The former nurse, 33, was jailed in August for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.}} -serial killer, -convicted.
* {{cite news |url=https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/government-orders-independent-inquiry-into-nurse-who-murdered-babies-at-hospital |title=Lucy Letby: Government orders inquiry into nurse who murdered babies at hospital |work=ITV News |date=18 August 2023 |access-date=18 August 2023 |archive-date=18 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818143427/https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/government-orders-independent-inquiry-into-nurse-who-murdered-babies-at-hospital |url-status=live }} - Poor summary: {{tq|33-year-old went on a year-long killing spree}} -serial killer, -convicted
* {{cite news|last1=O'Donoghue|last2=Moritz|last3=Hirst|last4= Lazaro|first1= Dan|first2= Judith|first3=Lauren|first4=Rachael|title= Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies on neonatal unit|date=18 August 2023|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514 |access-date=18 August 2023 |work=BBC News |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818190742/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514 |archive-date=18 August 2023}} {{tq|Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven babies}}
* {{cite web |title=Thirlwall Inquiry: terms of reference |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thirlwall-inquiry-terms-of-reference/thirlwall-inquiry-terms-of-reference |website=GOV.UK |access-date=22 November 2023 |archive-date=22 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231122130745/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thirlwall-inquiry-terms-of-reference/thirlwall-inquiry-terms-of-reference |url-status=live }} - Primary, {{tq|On 21 August 2023, after a trial at Manchester Crown Court, Lucy Letby was sentenced to life imprisonment and a whole life order on each of 7 counts of murder and 7 counts of attempted murder}} -serial killer, ~convicted - it describes the conviction which is essentially "convicted" but it should be low weighted as a primary source.
* {{cite web |title=RSS statement on the statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby case |url=https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2024/general-news/rss-statement-on-the-statistical-aspects-of-the-lu/ |website=RSS |access-date=3 August 2024}} - {{tq|In August, Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six}} -serial killer, ~convicted. Found guilty is essentially the same.
* {{Cite news |date=23 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby: Killer nurse to be stripped of NHS pension after baby murders |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-babies-parents-petition-prison-b2397695.html |access-date=23 August 2023 |work=Independent |archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824084617/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-prison-parents-latest-news-b2398457.html |url-status=live}} - {{tq|Letby will spend the rest of her life in prison after being found guilty of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder six others}} -serial killer, ~convicted (found guilty is essentially the same).
* {{cite web |title=Lucy Letby found guilty of baby murders |url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-baby-murders |website=Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) |access-date=25 August 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825231327/https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-baby-murders |url-status=live }} {{tq|A nurse has been convicted of murdering newborn babies}} -serial killer, +convicted
* {{cite news |last=Halliday |first=Josh |date=18 August 2023 |title=Calls to force court appearances as Lucy Letby refuses to attend sentencing |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/calls-to-force-court-appearances-as-lucy-letby-refuses-to-attend-sentencing |access-date=18 August 2023 |archive-date=18 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230818153637/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/calls-to-force-court-appearances-as-lucy-letby-refuses-to-attend-sentencing |url-status=live }} - {{tq|Nurse convicted of killing seven babies}} -serial killer +convicted.
* {{cite web|url=https://www.nationalworld.com/news/crime/whole-life-order-killers-female-uk-criminal-parole-lucy-letby-awaits-sentence-4261606 |title=Every female British murderer given a whole life order |work=National World |date=21 August 2023 |access-date=21 August 2023}} - Killer nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven more
* {{cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |title=Lucy Letby to face retrial on charge of trying to murder baby girl, court told |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/lucy-letby-retrial |access-date=25 September 2023 |work=The Guardian |date=25 September 2023 |archive-date=7 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093539/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/lucy-letby-retrial |url-status=live }} - {{tq|Former nurse, convicted of murdering seven babies at Countess of Chester hospital}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0dddgn9leyo |access-date=2 July 2024 |title=Letby denies trying to harm any baby in her care |publisher=BBC news |archive-date=2 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240702051514/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0dddgn9leyo |url-status=live }} {{tq|Former nurse Lucy Letby has told a jury she has never intended or tried to harm any baby in her care. The 34-year-old is accused of attempting to murder a baby girl at the Countess of Chester Hospital on 17 February 2016. Jurors at Manchester Crown Court have been told Letby was convicted last August}} - -serial killer, +convicted
* {{cite web |title=Lucy Letby found guilty of attempting to murder baby following retrial |url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-attempting-murder-baby-following-retrial |website=Crown Prosecution Service |access-date=10 July 2024 |date=2 July 2024}} - {{tq|Convicted child murderer Lucy Letby has been found guilty of trying to kill another baby}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do|title=Lucy Letby guilty of trying to kill baby girl|access-date=1 July 2024|publisher=BBC News|archive-date=2 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240702141440/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q74dn91do|url-status=live}} - {{tq|Former nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of trying to kill a premature baby girl. The 34-year-old was convicted of attempting to murder the child}} -serial killer +convicted
* {{Cite news |last1=Halliday |first1=Josh |date=20 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby may have harmed dozens more babies, police fear |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-dozens-more-babies-police-believe-chester-liverpool |access-date=20 August 2023 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821021318/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-dozens-more-babies-police-believe-chester-liverpool |url-status=live }} - {{tq|Police believe Lucy Letby, the nurse convicted of murdering seven babies}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{Cite magazine |last=Aviv |first=Rachel |date=13 May 2024 |title=A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240513112618/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it |archive-date=13 May 2024 |magazine=The New Yorker}} - {{tq|Last August, Lucy Letby, a thirty-three-year-old British nurse, was convicted of killing seven newborn babies and attempting to kill six others. }} - +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite news |last1=Wagner |first1=Laura |title=Why Brits can't read a New Yorker exposé about a British murder case |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/05/16/lucy-letby-new-yorker-story-blocked/ |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |access-date=17 May 2024 |date=16 May 2024 |archive-date=21 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240521104438/https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/05/16/lucy-letby-new-yorker-story-blocked/ |url-status=live }} - {{tq|Lucy Letby, a British nurse convicted last year of killing seven babies at the hospital where she worked.}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite web |title=Why a New Yorker Story on a Notorious Murder Case Is Blocked in Britain |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/world/europe/new-yorker-story-murder-letby-britain.html |website=[[New York Times]] |access-date=17 May 2024 |date=16 May 2024}} - {{tq|The article challenges the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, of multiple murders last year}} - +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/15/mp-uses-parliamentary-privilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-in-uk|title=MP uses parliamentary privilege to ask why Lucy Letby story blocked in UK|work=The Guardian|date=15 May 2024|last1=Lawrence|first1=Felicity|access-date=16 May 2024|archive-date=7 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707094051/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/15/mp-uses-parliamentary-privilege-to-ask-why-lucy-letby-story-blocked-in-uk|url-status=live}} - {{tq|Letby was convicted last summer of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester hospital, where she was a neonatal nurse.}} -serial killer, +convicted
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: a miscarriage of justice? |url=https://theweek.com/crime/lucy-letby-a-miscarriage-of-justice |access-date=3 August 2024 |work=The Week |date=28 July 2024 |language=en}} - {{tq|In early July, Lucy Letby, a former nurse now aged 34, was convicted of attempted murder.}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question|title=Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence|work=The Guardian|date=9 July 2024|last1=Lawrence|first1=Felicity|access-date=10 July 2024|archive-date=9 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709071539/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question|url-status=live}} - {{tq|Letby has been convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. She is serving whole-life sentences.}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite news |title=Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c727jgdm7r4o|last1=Moritz |first1=Judith |last2=Coffey |first2=Jonathan |access-date=10 July 2024 |work=BBC News |date=4 July 2024}} - {{tq|When former nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering babies last year, news channels rolled on the story,}} +convicted, -serial killer
* {{cite AV media | people = [[Channel 4 (UK)]] | date = 19 August 2023 | title = Lucy Letby: the full story of the serial killer nurse | type = News feature | url = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In0WVQ7lswU | access-date = 25 August 2023 | archive-date = 25 August 2023 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230825161605/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In0WVQ7lswU | url-status = live }} - Starts with assumption of familiarity. No summary but "why did a nurse murder?" questions up front. It doesn't support either serial killer or convicted on the face of that summary.
* {{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/|title=Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice?|work=The Telegraph|date=9 July 2024|last1=Knapton|first1=Sarah|access-date=10 July 2024|archive-date=9 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240709111717/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/|url-status=live}} - {{tq|When Lucy Letby was convicted of the murders of seven newborns and the attempted murders of six more in August 2023}} +convicted. ~serial killer, because the headline asks if she is a serial killer or whether this is a miscarriage of justice.
* {{cite news |last=Halliday |first=Josh |date=21 August 2023 |title=Lucy Letby sentenced to whole-life jail term for murdering seven babies |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentence-whole-life-jail-term-for-murdering-seven-babies |access-date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821144644/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentence-whole-life-jail-term-for-murdering-seven-babies |url-status=live }} - {{tq|The serial killer nurse, Lucy Letby,}} +serial killer, - convicted. Primary.
* {{Cite web |date=2024-01-29 |title=Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby has 'keys to her own cell' and leads cushy life |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-serial-killer-nurse-prison-b2486468.html |access-date=2024-02-11 |website=The Independent |language=en |archive-date=4 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240204061418/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-serial-killer-nurse-prison-b2486468.html |url-status=live }} {{tq|Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby has ‘keys to her own cell’ and leads cushy life}} +serial killer, -convicted. Primary.
* {{cite news |last1=Malnick |first1=Edward |last2=Sawer |first2=Patrick |last3=Bird |first3=Steve |title=Doctors wage war on NHS managers after Letby murders |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/19/doctors-wage-war-on-nhs-managers-after-lucy-letby-murders/ |access-date=20 August 2023 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |date=19 August 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230819205849/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/19/doctors-wage-war-on-nhs-managers-after-lucy-letby-murders/ |archive-date=19 August 2023}} - No summary but includes {{tq|in the case of child serial killer Lucy Letby.}} -convicted, +serial killer.
* {{cite news |last=Sawyer|first=Patrick|title= Lucy Letby joins Myra Hindley on list of UK's worst child serial killers|url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/18/lucy-letby-ian-brady-uk-worst-serial-child-killers/ |work= The Telegraph|date= 18 August 2023|access-date=19 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819124715/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/18/lucy-letby-ian-brady-uk-worst-serial-child-killers/ |archive-date=19 August 2023}}
* {{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514 |title=Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies on neonatal unit|work=BBC News|date=18 August 2023|access-date=21 August 2023|archive-date=24 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824084038/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514|url-status=live}} - {{tq|Lucy Letby joins Myra Hindley on list of UK’s worst child serial killers}} and {{tq|found guilty}} + serial killer, +ish convicted
* {{Cite web|url=https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-serial-killer-nurse-found-guilty-of-attempted-murder-of-extremely-premature-baby-13161769|title=Lucy Letby: Serial killer nurse found guilty of attempted murder of extremely premature baby|website=Sky News|access-date=2 July 2024|archive-date=2 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240702143817/https://news.sky.com/story/lucy-letby-serial-killer-nurse-found-guilty-of-attempted-murder-of-extremely-premature-baby-13161769|url-status=live}} {{tq|Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of }} +serial killer, ~convicted. (found guilty of is much the same but this is primary reporting)
* {{Cite news |last=Evans |first=Holly |date=27 August 2023 |title=Friends and colleagues of murderer Lucy Letby insist baby killing nurse is innocent |work=Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-killer-nurse-friends-b2400211.html |access-date=28 August 2023 |archive-date=28 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230828215353/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-killer-nurse-friends-b2400211.html |url-status=live }} - {{tq|A number of friends and former colleagues of serial killer nurse Lucy Letby continue to believe in her innocence, despite the fact she has been jailed for life for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another six.}} +serial killer, ~convicted. "Jailed for" is similar and it is talking about the conviction.
* {{Cite news |last=Davis |first=Nicola |date=2023-10-03 |title=Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/03/lucy-letby-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial |access-date=2023-10-06 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=7 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093605/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/03/lucy-letby-inquiry-statistical-evidence-used-in-trial |url-status=live }} - {{tq|In August, Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more}} but line above has serial killer, so +serial killer, ~convicted.
* {{Cite news |last=Moreau |first=Charlotte |date=19 August 2023 |title=Hereford 'very much home' for serial killer Lucy Letby |work=Hereford Times |url=https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23733719.hereford-very-much-home-serial-killer-lucy-letby/ |access-date=19 August 2023 |archive-date=20 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230820185736/https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/23733719.hereford-very-much-home-serial-killer-lucy-letby/ |url-status=live }} - Local - "UK's most highly convicted child serial killer" + convicted, + serial killer
* {{cite news |date=21 August 2023 |title=Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby given whole-life sentence |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569311 |access-date=21 August 2023 |archive-date=21 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230821154940/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569311 |url-status=live }} -- {{tq|Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby, who is the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history, will spend the rest of her life behind bars. The 33-year-old was convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies}} +serial killer, +convicted
* {{cite news |title=Killer nurse Lucy Letby found unfit to practise and struck off register |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67691395 |access-date=15 May 2024 |date=12 December 2023 |archive-date=22 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222165755/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67691395 |url-status=live }} {{tq|Child serial killer Lucy Letby has been struck off the nursing register at a hearing which was told she maintains her innocence over her convictions. Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies}} +serial killer, +convicted
* {{cite news |title=Convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby struck off nursing register |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/12/convicted-child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-struck-off-nursing-register |website=Guardian |date=12 December 2023 |access-date=12 December 2023 |last1=Media |first1=P. A. |archive-date=7 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093538/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/12/convicted-child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-struck-off-nursing-register |url-status=live }} - {{tq|Convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby struck off nursing register}} +convicted, +serial killer
* {{cite web |title=Child killer Lucy Letby 'to be stripped' of NHS pension after conviction |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/killer-lucy-letby-nurse-nhs-pension-steve-barclay-b1102409.html |website=Evening Standard |date=23 August 2023 |access-date=23 August 2023 |archive-date=24 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824084617/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/killer-lucy-letby-nurse-nhs-pension-steve-barclay-b1102409.html |url-status=live}} {{tq|Lucy Letby faces being stripped of her NHS pension after being convicted of the “sadistic” murders of seven babies, it was revealed on Wednesday. It is understood the Government is looking at ways to prevent the benefit being paid to the serial killer who was this week sentenced to a whole life term in prison.}} +convicted, +serial killer
* {{cite AV media | people = [[BBC One]] | date = 18 August 2023 | title = Panorama, Lucy Letby: The Nurse Who Killed | type = TV documentary | url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl | access-date = 23 August 2023 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230821041234/https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q7dl |url-status=live}} - {{tq|Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering and harming babies. What turned a likeable nurse into a serial killer? }} +convicted, +serial killer
* {{cite web |title=Lucy Letby: A timeline of the most prolific child killer in modern Britain - BBC Newsnight |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVLx9U6MFXU |publisher=BBC News |access-date=25 August 2023 |date=22 August 2023 |archive-date=25 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825161610/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVLx9U6MFXU |url-status=live }} +serial killer
* {{cite news |first1=Helen |last1=Pidd |title=Child serial killer Lucy Letby loses initial attempt to challenge convictions |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/30/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-loses-initial-attempt-challenge-convictions |website=The Guardian |date=30 January 2024 |access-date=30 January 2024 |archive-date=7 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093539/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/30/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-loses-initial-attempt-challenge-convictions |url-status=live }} +serial killer
* {{Cite web |first1=Daniel |last1=O'Donoghue |first2=Judith |last2=Moritz |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67488797 |title=Lucy Letby public inquiry formally opened by judge |date=22 November 2023 |access-date=22 November 2023 |work=BBC News |publisher=BBC |archive-date=22 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231122154423/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-67488797 |url-status=live }} {{tq|The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes}} +serial killer. No further summary
* {{cite web|title=Lucy Letby inquiry should be live-streamed, say victims' families|publisher=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo|access-date=2 July 2024|archive-date=7 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707094051/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo|url-status=live}} - {{tq|The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes}} +serial killer, no further summary
* {{cite news |last1=Grimes |first1=David R. |title=David Robert Grimes: Lucy Letby is Britain’s most prolific serial child killer. But doubts linger about the evidence |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2024/07/20/lucy-letby-was-convicted-of-being-britains-most-prolific-serial-child-killer-but-was-she-guilty/ |access-date=3 August 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/cLjw4|archive-date=10 July 2024 |work=The Irish Times |language=en}} - {{tq|Lucy Letby is Britain’s most prolific serial child killer. But doubts linger}} - +serial killer
* {{cite web |title=Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence |url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/headlines/2024/jul/lucy-letby-killer-or-coincidence-why-some-experts-question-evidence |website=UCL News |access-date=3 August 2024 |language=en |date=9 July 2024}} - {{tq| a British nurse convicted last year of killing seven babies at the hospital where she worked.}} - No summary, no evidence.
{{Collapse bottom}}

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

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

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

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

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:1em auto; text-align:center;"
|+ Source Analysis summary
|- style="background:paleturquoise"
! style="width:12%" | "convicted"
! style="width:12%" | "serial killer"
! style="width:12%" | RfC Option (A-D)
|-
| {{Nonfree|}}F (20%)|| {{Nonfree|}}F (54%)|| A
|-
| {{Nonfree|}}F (20%)|| {{Usually|}}T (33%)|| B
|-
| {{Usually|}}T (67%) || {{Nonfree|}}F (54%) || C
|-
| {{Usually|}}T (67%)|| {{Usually|}}T (33%) || D
|}

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

* {{cite book |last1=Coffey |first1=Jonathan |last2=Moritz |first2=Judith |title=Unmasking Lucy Letby: The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse |date=October 2024 |publisher=Seven Dials |location=London |url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unmasking-Lucy-Letby-Untold-Killer/dp/1399625160/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=}}

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

:I did look through the sources before making my comment. All I'll say here is that I wouldn't have necessary used all the sources you have or only the sources you have, or given them all the same weighting, and that I stand by my original comment. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, but if I picked a subset of the sources, the argument would be made that I was selecting sources on criteria that favoured my desired outcome. By selecting them all, the analysis is fair. I added my own caveat regarding weighting. I doubt it changes the situation, but we can discuss weighting if you like. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::You haven't picked ''all'' sources, as you said in your reply below, and as per my reply I've said all I'm going to say here. I'm happy with my analysis. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I looked at ''all'' the sources. The discarded ones do not have any evidence that can be added to the analysis for the reasons I described. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry I misread you comment below, that being said my decision is still the same. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

::No, there's a serious problem with that analysis - indeed ironically it amounts to a [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]] that those pro-Letby editors have been so keen to include in the article!! That's an analysis of '''only the sources used on this page''', not wider sources as a whole, and there's '''multiple problems''' with that:
#It's not an analysis of all the wider publicly available sources. So Sirfurboy you say "I have spent way too many hours reviewing every single source on this page, to see how the media really do write about her", well, to see what 'the media really do write about her', let's look at all the sources then shall we? (more to follow)
#You yourself Sirfurboy have repeatedly '''expressed problems with the sourcing on this page''', adding the primary source tag "This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources". I.e., that many of the sources are from mid-trial reports. '''Of course those ones wouldn't refer to her being a serial killer yet as she hadn't been convicted yet.''' Even without that, you yourself acknowledge that the sourcing used on this page is flawed, so why do you think just the sources on this page are the only ones that should be consulted?
#Multiple editors now have expressed serious and numerous concerns about the 'doubt about conviction' section, which you can see in the discussion below: [[Talk:Lucy Letby#Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section]]. A section where there are numerous concerns about the excessive and POV-style content are going to, on the whole, be referenced to sources which describe Letby in more glowing terms and avoid referring to her as a serial killer or killer. '''You yourself''' have expressed agreement that there are a number of problems with that section and it's tone: [[User talk:DeCausa#Letby page]]. So of course the sources used on this article are going to be lopsided towards not describing her as a serial killer, especially considering the excessive amount of space given to that POV section which you acknowledge, and how on earth can you therefore think that just using the flawed sources used on this page to decide 'how the media really do write about her'? You literally yourself acknowledge the problems with some of the content and it's sourcing on this page?
:Wrong fallacy. {{tq|Let's do a proper analysis of ''all'' the public sources}}. Knock yourself out. Please put your analysis in a new discussion section. Thanks. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

=====The BBC=====
:The obvious place to start would be the BBC: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cvp59396q42t?page=1]. Twelve out of the last thirteen articles the BBC has published about Letby were made during the recent retrial of Letby, so obviously they took a softer and most likely reporting-restriction-compliant tone, describing her as a nurse. Yet before their first article about the trial on 12 June, when they were free to write anything, the BBC '''consistently introduced Letby as a serial killer''':
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0448mp5x33o] - {{tq|"Serial killer Lucy Letby's..."}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9773l3qzl4o] - {{tq|"Child serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo] - {{tq|"serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxr3w69prx9o] - {{tq|"child serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd14gzl84z0o] - {{tq|" serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68620676] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but says "the Lucy Letby killings"
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-68378755] - no reference to serial killer
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68233226] - {{tq|"Lucy Letby is the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67828719] - {{tq|"serial killer Lucy Letby murdered babies"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67488797] - {{tq|"serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67161158] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "Letby, 33, was given multiple whole life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more"
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66865817] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "The nurse was jailed for life last month for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants at the Countess of Chester hospital. She deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin."
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777] - {{tq|"Letby, who became the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66758624] - {{tq|"making her the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66736641] - No reference to serial killer
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66739479] - {{tq|"where the serial killer was born"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66713671] - {{tq|"Lady Justice Thirlwall has been appointed to chair the inquiry into the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66670643] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does provide a link to the separate article 'Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?'
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66660136] - not described as a serial killer but still a 'killer'
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66667942] - 'baby killer'
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66668023] - prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66597122] - {{tq|"the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}, and also a prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66603671] - {{tq|"the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66651325] - {{tq|"after the serial killer had been arrested"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66596591] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but describes 'the murders committed by nurse Lucy Letby'
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66587740] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-66573845] - {{tq|"the worst child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66586463] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66578698] - {{tq|"where serial killer Letby worked"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66584142] - no reference to serial killer
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66575531] - {{tq|"Letby, the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66574792] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific serial child killer"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66568477] - prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66570819] - {{tq|"unmasked as the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569311] - {{tq|the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66570308] - {{tq|"the impact the serial killer has had on their lives"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569303] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66545358] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66243542] - no specific reference to serial killer
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66562938] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe her "attacks on babies"
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66553970] - {{tq|"where serial killer Lucy Letby worked"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66553245] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe "the babies attacked by Lucy Letby"
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004] - {{tq|"most prolific child killer"}} and refers to David Wilson's related {{tq|"interest in healthcare serial killers"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66547863] - {{tq|"behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514] - {{tq|"the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times."}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does refer to how she "went on to attack five more babies"
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260] - prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120198] - prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65058159] - literally titled {{tq|"Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?""}}
#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66108747] - prominent sub-section titled {{tq|"Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
:That then takes you up to when Letby was originally convicted in her first trial. So since Letby was first convicted, and other than during the recent retrial which she was also then found guilty at, Letby has been described by the BBC in it's articles as a serial killer in 36 out of the 50 articles. So 72% refer to her as a serial killer. Pretty overwhelming, and the BBC is a very prominent source. Even in the articles where the specific phrase 'serial killer' is not used, other phrases such as "murdered", "killings", "killed" or "attacked" are used. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 17:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Phrasings like "was given multiple whole life sentences" and "was jailed for life" seem most closely equivalent to "was convicted", as in C and D, so I'm confused why you're counting those towards the A/B style of phrasing.— [[User:Moriwen|Moriwen]] ([[User talk:Moriwen|talk]]) 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Because we are seeing which phrase is used more often in reliable sources to describe her, "serial killer" or "former nurse". From that total of fifty BBC articles, a measly two refer to her as a "former nurse". I won't disappoint you by telling you how much more of them refer to her as a "serial killer". [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Aha, gotcha -- you're comparing the AC pair versus the BD pair. (Of course all proposed phrasings, and the current page, include the "former nurse" descriptor.) Sure, that seems like a reason to use either B or D.— [[User:Moriwen|Moriwen]] ([[User talk:Moriwen|talk]]) 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Glad you think so, Moriwen. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Look, I just clicked on ''one'' of those at random.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260] Your comment is {{tq|prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"}}. The article describes Letby as:{{tqb|Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering seven babies}}. You have misrepresented it, because you began with a wording you wanted to support and tried to shoehorn everything into that. So the way that article introduces her - the information that it finds to be key to tell the reader who she is - is as follows:
::# She was a nurse
::# She was convicted of murder
::# Of babies
::And this is a pattern we see repeated over and over. It is not universal, but it is clearly - even in these sources - the norm. My analysis above demonstrates this. These are the aspects the sources tend to stress. The term "serial killer" is not wrong. You don't seem to have noticed that I argued that in my !vote and am fine with it. But when I looked at the sources, it was not the aspect that sources begin with, because more important to the writers than the fact she killed serially is that she was a nurse who killed babies. {{paragraph break}}You will, of course, come back with more. But let's just cut off this nonsense about looking at ''every'' source. You have so far looked at 3 or 4 news sources. You have about 350 newspapers to go. For instance, this source [https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/08/21/au-royaume-uni-l-infirmiere-tueuse-de-nouveau-nes-condamnee-a-la-prison-a-vie_6186122_3210.html] has {{tq|Lucy Letby, l’infirmière tueuse de bébés}}. The baby-killing nurse. Again, taken at random. I searched on her name only, without any other keywords. It is an utterly impossible job to look at and read every single newspaper article in existence on Letby. And even if you did (and I note that you are not even reading the ones you are posting), you would still only have the newspaper sources, so you would have just begun. It is a noble enough effort to attempt to look at all the sources, but it is ''utterly'' ''impossible''.
::So what to do? Well if you search for a word, you'll find it. But then you have selection bias. I did consider use of Google trends, but it doesn't answer the question as to how sources introduce Letby. That was why I chose the method I did: I looked at (and read) every source in the article. It is a subset, but it is an editor curated subset that supports what we say. Now [[WP:LEAD]] says that the article lead is a summary of the main text, and the sources that support the main text are part of that whole. So choosing that subset (which is already a very large number of sources) provides a suitable sample to work with. It is curated by multiple editors, none of them me. I haven't, as far as I recall, added any sources to this page. {{paragraph break}}And this is how we do it. We start with a sample. If I want to count the number of left handed people in the world, I don't survey the whole world population. I find a sample - the best I can manage - and I count the proportion of them who are left handed. I work out a proportion and multiply up. That is a good estimate. But, of course, my sample may be skewed. Maybe I choose a population that has, through some unrecognised factor, more left-handed people than usual. Yes, in that case my estimate will be off. So when someone wants to challenge this, they will come up with a better sampling strategy, perhaps over a mix of sample populations. What they don't do is say "your sample could be skewed, so I am going to ask everyone in the world if they are left handed and post up my results, one by one."{{paragraph break}}So maybe you should just collapse this section and then start again. If you have a better strategy for doing the analysis, then do that. But what you have here, I am afraid, is just you attempting to assert your preferred wording with link spam. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I think you're taking this a bit too personally, Sirfurboy. The fact is that there are four options on this RFC for how to introduce her. A, C and D propose using the phrase "former nurse" to define her. B proposes using "serial killer" to define her. You have said yourself that we should focus on how the sources themselves introduce her in their intros or summaries. If we look at those 50 BBC articles, not a single one uses the phrase "former nurse" in such a way. You can check that yourself. In contrast, the term "serial killer" is repeatedly used not just in the articles, but to '''specifically define her''' in the title or first introductory paragraph. Examples are here:
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0448mp5x33o] - {{tq|"Serial killer Lucy Letby's..."}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9773l3qzl4o] - {{tq|"Child serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo] - {{tq|"serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxr3w69prx9o] - {{tq|"child serial killer Lucy Letby"}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67488797] - {{tq|"serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66547863] - {{tq|"behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders"}}
:::#[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65058159] - literally titled {{tq|"Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?""}}

:::Please demonstrate how many of those BBC articles do the same but instead use the phrase "former nurse". The RFC essentially boils down to leading with defining her as a "former nurse" or a "serial killer". And as we can see, the phrase "serial killer" is overwhelmingly used much more than "former nurse" by the BBC to define her in the title or introductory paragraph of their article. That's not my opinion, that's an objective fact. Offering anything else on 'what the source's actually mean' or 'what they are really trying to say' is interpretation and subjective. The fact is, when comparing "former nurse" to "serial killer", "serial killer" is the preferred term of definition used by the BBC. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|former nurse}} - straw man. {{tq| B proposes using "serial killer"}} Wrong. B and D both use serial killer. The two binary variables are "convicted of" and "serial killer". You have ignored one of those and seem to be instead fixated on "former nurse" which is not up for discussion. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Straw man, lol. There are four options. Only B uses "serial killer". D says "convicted of the serial murder", so if you read it, saying it uses the phrase "serial killer" is wrong. Let's keep to the verbatim.
::::::Options A, C and D start by calling her a "former nurse", then say what she did or what she was convicted of. So she is first defined as a "former nurse". In terms of the BBC (and actually The Guardian/Observer which I've also looked at below on this), "former nurse" is not used as the primary definition or description of her. "Serial killer", however, is on multiple occasions. Between "former nurse" and "serial killer" as the first, primary definition of her, the BBC sides with serial killer. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 08:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ok I see where you are confused. You have misunderstood the RfC. In the workshopping discussion, we were quite clear that we would not, this time, provide final sentences where people could quibble over words never intended to be part of the discussion. Instead we proposed 4 options that would clearly state the two binary variables we would seek an answer on. These are the two terms that are consistently being added to and reverted from the lead. "Serial killer" and "convicted of". Whichever option is chosen as a result of this RfC, that is not the final frozen ''wording'', but it resolves which of those contested words should or should not be in the lead. Because you have missed it, I quote Neby from his OP statement above. the RfC will resolve {{tqb|whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer".}} All four options retain "former nurse". If you don't like that, you'll need another RfC. So... none of this answers the actual RfC question. You are answering the unasked question. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 09:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ok I see where you are confused. You have misunderstood the RfC. In the workshopping discussion, we were quite clear that we would not, this time, provide final sentences where people could quibble over words never intended to be part of the discussion. Instead we proposed 4 options that would clearly state the two binary variables we would seek an answer on. These are the two terms that are consistently being added to and reverted from the lead. "Serial killer" and "convicted" of. Whichever option is chosen as a result of this RfC, that is not the final frozen ''wording'', but it resolves which of those contested words should or should not be in the RfC. Because you have missed it, I quote Neby from his OP statement above. the RfC will resolve {{tqb|whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer".}} All four options retain "former nurse". If you don't like that, you'll need another RfC. So... none of this answers the actual RfC question. You are answering the unasked question. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 09:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Oh okay so you're going for the line "it doesn't matter whether we call her a primarily a former nurse or a serial killer" then? Right well, let's move onto this question of whether the sources say she "murdered" or was just "convicted of" it. Let's see how many of the BBC articles say she 'murdered', or use generally equivalent terms such as "killed", "attacked", "poisoned", "for killing", "for the murder", or "for murdering":

::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others] EDIT: this was a typo, the wrong URL was used. I think the one I meant to use here was this one, which does say 'for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others': [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo#:~:text=Former%20nurse%20Lucy%20Letby%20has,June%202015%20and%20June%202016].
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68620676 Letby murdered seven babies and attempted to murder another]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68233226 convictions for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another six]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67828719 the hospital trust where serial killer Lucy Letby murdered babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67488797 The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes has formally begun although hearings may not begin until next autumn. The inquiry will examine how the nurse was able to murder seven babies and try to kill six others]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67161158 The public inquiry into Lucy Letby's crimes will focus on "three broad areas" and ask 30 key questions. The probe, chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall, will examine how the nurse was able to murder seven babies and try to kill six others.... was given multiple whole life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66865817 jailed for life last month for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777 Among her crimes, Letby injected babies with air and poisoned two with insulin at the Countess of Chester Hospital]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66758624 jailed for the rest of her life last month for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66713671 The neonatal nurse murdered seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66667942 baby killer Lucy Letby refused to appear for sentencing]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66668023 handed multiple whole-life terms for murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others on 21 August. The first five murders all happened between June and October 2015 at the hospital's neonatal unit and despite months of warnings, Letby was still able to carry out two further killings in June 2016.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66597122 inquiry into how nurse Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66603671 inquiry into how neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66651325 The man who was chief executive of the NHS trust where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies said he was asked to take a top job in London after the serial killer had been arrested]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66596591 The inquiry into the murders committed by nurse Lucy Letby]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66587740 Parents of babies attacked by nurse Lucy Letby received a "total fob off" from a hospital boss when they pleaded for answers, their lawyer has said]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-66573845 jailed for life for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66586463 at the hospital where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66578698 She murdered seven babies and attempted to murder six others in a neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Cheshire]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66584142 given a whole-life sentence for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murders of six more]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66575531 Letby, who murdered seven babies and tried to kill six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital, "could have been stopped"]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-66574792 Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66568477 Letby murdered seven babies and tried to kill six more while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit between 2015 and 2016.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66570819 the hospital trust at which nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies later worked as head of a trust in West Sussex.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569311 convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66570308 Families of the babies who were murdered and attacked by Lucy Letby have told Manchester Crown Court of the horrific impact the serial killer has had on their lives. The former nurse will spend the rest of her life in prison, with no chance of parole, for murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569303 The mother of a baby boy killed by nurse Lucy Letby says she is "horrified that someone so evil exists" and it was like "something out of a horror story".]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66243542 Nearly a quarter of a century before Lucy Letby began attacking babies on a neonatal unit, another hospital experienced similarly sudden and unexpected losses.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66562938 A judge should lead the inquiry into the circumstances behind Lucy Letby's attacks on babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66553970 convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies and trying to murder another six at the Countess of Chester Hospital]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66553245 Families of some of the babies attacked by Lucy Letby have said the inquiry into the case should have powers to compel witnesses to come forward.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66104004 This was the same week she murdered two brothers.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66547863 inquiry into the circumstances behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65960514 Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120934 No action was taken and she went on to attack five more babies, killing two.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65176260 convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital.... Baby D, a baby girl, was the third child murdered by Letby in a two-week period.]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66120198 The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-65058159 But what have we learned about the woman who murdered and attempted to kill babies she was trusted to care for?]
::::::::[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66108747 Letby murdered one of their baby boys, and tried to kill the other twin the following day.]

::::::::The idea that the BBC avoids saying in it's articles whether she is an actual criminal or just a ''convicted'' one is laughable. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 10:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Now let's look at the amount of BBC articles that just refer to her being "convicted of" and make no reference to her having "murdered" or those equivalent terms looked at above (note not including "convicted for", since 'convicted for' means she was convicted as a result of doing it. 'Convicted of' implies she may or may not have done it):
:::::::::*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66736641 The nurse was jailed last month after being found guilty of murdering seven babies at at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. She was also convicted of trying to kill six other infants.] - doesn't really count though considering the picture caption says she was "jailed for life for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six more infants"
:::::::::*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66739479 The nurse was jailed last month after being found guilty of murdering seven babies at at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. She was also convicted of trying to kill six other infants.] - again, doesn't really count as caption says she was "jailed for life for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six more infants"
:::::::::*[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66553970 The nurse was convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies and trying to murder another six at the Countess of Chester Hospital.] - barely counts considering it also says "Letby targeted the babies between June 2015 and June 2016"
:::::::::So, barely three of the articles. Bruh. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 11:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]], you missed this one: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo "convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others"], how can we trust your analysis? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, I didn't 'miss it', if you read what I actually said. As it also includes this line: "will look into how the nurse was able to murder babies on the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit in 2015 and 2016". [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 11:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]], this list needs further qualifying. I only looked at the first one ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxwxdx0xneo "for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others"]), and the closest I could find to your statement was "convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others". So that supports "convicted of". And more importantly, it was published on 16 May 2024, long before the second trial, se before the serious doubts were allowed to be published by British media. How can this list be useful if it has misleading entries like that? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::That first one is a type, the wrong URL used. I'll try and find the correct URL. All the other ones are fine. EDIT: it's this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo#:~:text=Former%20nurse%20Lucy%20Letby%20has,June%202015%20and%20June%202016.[[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 11:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Are all the others from after the second trial? If not, they cannot have taken account of the serious doubts raised since then. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

=====The Guardian/Observer=====
Now let's look at ''The Guardian''/''The Observer''. As you can see here [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/lucy-letby], they have published 46 full articles about Lucy Letby since she was first convicted in August 2023, excluding four published during the recent retrial. Yet despite the papers' left-leaning outlook and usual support for alleged miscarriages, 25, a majority, refer to her as a serial killer in some form:
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-murdering-seven-babies-at-chester-hospital]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/18/the-guardian-view-on-lucy-letbys-conviction-the-nhs-must-learn-from-this-horror]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/trust-me-im-a-nurse-why-wasnt-lucy-letby-stopped-as-months-of-went-by]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/lucy-letby-inquiry-witnesses-must-be-compelled-to-testify-families-say]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/lucy-letby-police-urged-to-investigate-hospital-bosses-for-corporate-manslaughter]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-confirms-yet-confounds-our-ideas-of-a-serial-killer]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-nhs-trust-chair-says-hospital-bosses-misled-the-board]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lessons-the-nhs-needs-to-learn-after-lucy-letby-case]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/former-minister-suggests-broadcasting-lucy-letby-sentencing-to-her-cell]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-dozens-more-babies-police-believe-chester-liverpool]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-may-face-life-in-jail-when-she-is-sentenced-for-murdering-seven-babies]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentencing-parents-victims-tell-court-of-their-loss]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentence-whole-life-jail-term-for-murdering-seven-babies]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/26/lucy-letby-case-kayley-asher-survivor-of-beverley-allitt-attacks]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/24/lucy-letby-victims-families-treated-appallingly-former-hospital-boss-susan-gilby]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/24/lucy-letby-serial-killer-forensic-psychologist-murderer]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/22/lucy-letby-inquiry-countess-of-chester-hospital-doctors-nurse]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/07/lucy-letby-smiling-nurse-female-killers]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/16/lucy-letby-inquiry-should-be-livestreamed-to-public-families-of-her-victims-say]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/22/lucy-letby-child-serial-killer-fresh-attempt-appeal-convictions]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/30/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-loses-initial-attempt-challenge-convictions]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/19/lucy-letby-inquiry-to-consider-hospital-and-nhs-culture]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/lucy-letby-appeal-conviction]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/30/lucy-letby-inquiry-how-do-statutory-and-non-statutory-inquiries-differ]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Nice Google-fu. But {{tq|in some form}} makes this not an equivalent analysis, easily verified by reading a few of these. We need to know how sources describe Letby in summary or introductions. Our page already refers to her as a serial killer {{tq|in some form}}, but the argument needs to be that this is how the sources introduce her. This is why a search of "Lucy Letby" +"serial killer" is going to let you down. Take a look at the methodology I described. You need to establish a methodology that answers the question that is asked and not the question that is easy. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Except if you look, I'm not getting them from a Google Search, or a search of "lucy letby"+"serial killer". I'm getting them from looking at all that publications' articles on Lucy Letby, and looking individually at each one to see how they describe her. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::But you are not analysing them. For instance, this one that you include only has links to other articles calling her a serial killer and does not call her that in the article. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/19/lucy-letby-inquiry-witnesses-must-be-compelled-to-testify-families-say] Many more cases. That is why your hit count is high - you are double counting - a lot. Again, you need to establish a methodology that allows you to answer the question asked, not the question that is easy. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::So you missed the caption that says "The trial of Lucy Letby: Britain's worst child serial killer" then did you? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 19:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The caption is for a video inclusion that constitutes a different source, linked to that page. It is not part of ''that'' article. Presumably you are therefore double counting all pages that include that video. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::By the way I just checked the fifty BBC articles again to see "how they describe Letby in summary or introductions". A grand total of '''zero''' refer to her as a "former nurse" in the bold introduction/summary of the article. Meanwhile, nearly twenty explicitly refer to her in the same introductions/summaries as a "serial killer". Sorry! [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The first Gdn source above is headed ''"Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies at Chester hospital" ''text says ''"A neonatal nurse has been found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more, making her the worst child serial killer in modern British history"''. Next source names, but doesn't describe her until; ''"Working as a children’s nurse at the …"'' The next uses nurse or neonatal nurse foour times and only uses 'serial killer' in small print to caption a video. I gave up therafter.
:::::It is clear that sources ''use'' the term 'serial killer', but it is less clear that they use 'serial killer' as their primary descriptor. Many also some variant on ''"cold, calculated, cruel and relentless'', but no one would suggest using those to introduce the topic. Introducing a topic is always a question of editorial judgement as much as 'hits'. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 05:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, in terms of primary descriptor, the RFC offers either introducing her primarily as a "former nurse" (options A, C and D) or a "serial killer" (option B). If we look at all the ''Guardian/Observer'' articles about her, and see which of those phrases are used more often as the primary descriptor of her in titles, subtitles or the first introductory paragraphs, the results are this:
::::::*Only one refers to her just as a "former nurse", this one: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-retrial-scrum-of-spectators-courtroom].
::::::*These two describe her as a "former nurse" in the subtitle, but then immediately after in the introductory paragraph describe her as a "serial killer": [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/lucy-letby-appeal-conviction], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-sentence-whole-life-jail-term-for-murdering-seven-babies].
::::::*Meanwhile, these seven define her in the title, subtitle or introductory paragraph as a "serial killer", including two that specifically start "Child serial killer Lucy Letby" in the title: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/22/lucy-letby-child-serial-killer-fresh-attempt-appeal-convictions], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/30/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-loses-initial-attempt-challenge-convictions], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/18/lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-murdering-seven-babies-at-chester-hospital], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-confirms-yet-confounds-our-ideas-of-a-serial-killer], [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/07/lucy-letby-smiling-nurse-female-killers], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/30/lucy-letby-inquiry-how-do-statutory-and-non-statutory-inquiries-differ], [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-nhs-trust-chair-says-hospital-bosses-misled-the-board].
::::::So, boiling down to whether the ''Guardian/Observer'' uses "former nurse" or "serial killer" as the 'primary descriptor', "serial killer" is the clear favourite. That's not interpretation or opinion, that's literally just a comparison of which of those specific two terms on offer is used more often as the primary descriptor. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 08:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]], how many of those were published after the second trial, which was when the serious doubts of the recognised experts and scholars was published by the UK media? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

=====The Independent=====
About 65 articles on Lucy Letby: [https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/lucy-letby?CMP=ILC-refresh]. 34 (a majority) refer to her as a serial killer:
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-conviction-david-davis-b2590673.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-court-attempted-murder-baby-b2574558.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/lucy-letby-nhs-thirlwall-inquiry-b2572526.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-child-killer-appeal-convictions-b2550798.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-sentence-latest-nurse-b2492276.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-court-latest-judge-b2501214.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lucy-letby-new-yorker-article-murder-b2546834.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/lucy-letby-inquiry-babies-hospital-b2451915.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/lucy-letby-alex-chalk-law-government-justice-secretary-b2435851.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/lucy-letby-steve-barclay-hereford-nhs-ministry-of-justice-b2432727.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/lucy-letby-inquiry-missed-chances-nurse-b2432671.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-corporate-manslaughter-cheshire-hospital-b2423783.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/lucy-letby-baby-murder-hospital-boss-camera-b2420113.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-news-trial-new-charges-b2417852.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-murder-nurse-appeal-b2412401.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mila-kunis-and-ashton-kutcher-apology-danny-masterson-b2409686.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-cheshire-police-crown-prosecution-service-child-chester-b2407427.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-news-baby-killer-new-probe-b2405022.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-statutory-probe-witness-oath-b2402336.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/judge-court-lucy-letby-sentencing-b2401835.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-serial-killer-nurse-b2400531.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-killer-nurse-godmother-b2400484.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-sentencing-court-killers-b2396642.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-killer-nurse-friends-b2400211.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/full-life-orders-lucy-letby-b2396675.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-armchair-detectives-serial-killer-b2399928.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/zara-aleena-rishi-sunak-lucy-letby-serial-killers-b2400016.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-baby-killer-appeal-latest-b2399182.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lucy-letby-nurse-killer-babies-friends-appeal-b2398695.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-nurse-appeal-campaign-b2398585.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lucy-letby-coded-notes-b2398465.html]
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/lucy-letby-prison-salary-pension-b2397815.html]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:And by the way, I've just checked again and nearly twenty of the articles in the ''Independent'' introduce her as a serial killer in the title, subtitle or first paragraph. The amount of articles that introduce her as a "former nurse" in the title, subtitle or first paragraph? Well, um... three. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]], same question here, how many of those were published after the second trial, which was when the serious doubts of the recognised experts and scholars was published by the UK media? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 11:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

=====ITV News=====
63 articles since Letby's first conviction: [https://www.itv.com/news/topic/lucy-letby-trial]. 29 refer to her being a "serial killer":

[https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/lucy-letbys-entire-employment-investigated-for-more-concerning-cases], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/lucy-letbys-victims-families-express-their-extreme-hurt-anger-and-distress], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/who-is-nurse-lucy-letby-and-what-led-her-to-kill], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/nurse-lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-murdering-neonatal-babies], [https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-21/child-serial-killer-nurse-lucy-letby-to-be-sentenced], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-19/lucy-letby-police-urged-to-probe-hospital-bosses-for-corporate-manslaughter], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-19/letby-hospital-accused-of-trying-to-protect-its-reputation-before-babies-safety], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-21/killer-nurse-lucy-letby-handed-whole-life-sentence-for-murdering-newborn-babies], [https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2023-08-22/paediatrician-who-gave-evidence-in-letby-trial-joins-calls-for-public-inquiry], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-23/the-culture-of-fear-is-not-isolated-calls-for-change-in-nhs-following-letby], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-23/nhs-ombudsman-accuses-hospital-of-cover-up-over-serial-killer-lucy-letby], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-25/lucy-letby-inquiry-should-be-judge-led-rishi-sunak-says], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-04/victims-families-to-work-with-senior-judge-on-lucy-letby-inquiry], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-07/date-set-for-retrial-decision-on-serial-killer-nurse-lucy-letby], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-08/special-service-to-remember-babies-killed-by-nurse-lucy-letby], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-22/killer-nurse-lucy-letby-could-not-wait-to-tell-others-about-babys-death], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-25/hearing-to-decide-if-killer-nurse-lucy-letby-will-face-retrial], [https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-10-20/families-deserve-inquiry-into-letbys-horrific-crimes-says-health-secretary], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-10-04/police-begin-corporate-manslaughter-investigation-into-letby-hospital], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-12-12/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-found-unfit-to-practise-nursing], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-01-30/lucy-letby-has-bid-to-appeal-convictions-refused], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-02-07/child-killer-nurse-lucy-letby-renews-bid-to-appeal-against-her-convictions], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-02-23/lucy-letby-given-date-for-convictions-appeal-bid], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-04-22/lucy-letby-attemps-to-appeal-convictions-in-final-process], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-07-02/lucy-letby-forced-to-hear-sentencing-remarks-she-refused-to-attend-court-for], [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-07-05/child-serial-killer-lucy-letby-sentenced-for-attempting-to-kill-another-newborn].

Meanwhile, an underwhelming ''eight'' use the term "former nurse" at any point: [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-09-25/hearing-to-decide-if-killer-nurse-lucy-letby-will-face-retrial], [https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-30/criminals-to-be-forced-to-face-sentencing-hearings-under-new-powers], [https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2023-08-22/inside-the-high-security-prison-where-lucy-letby-could-serve-life-sentence], [https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-21/doctor-who-helped-catch-lucy-letby-calls-for-full-public-inquiry], [https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2023-08-22/paediatrician-who-gave-evidence-in-letby-trial-joins-calls-for-public-inquiry], [https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-21/stop-dragging-your-heels-pm-told-to-force-killers-into-sentencing-hearings], [https://www.itv.com/news/2023-08-18/nurse-lucy-letby-tried-to-kill-our-children-she-took-everything-from-us]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 09:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Lucy Letby|answered=yes}}
:Surely any article written before the end of the second trial shouldn't be included, as it wasn't until after that that the reporting restrictions were lifted, and the media began including the views on the safety of the convictions. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Second para
::It's link spam anyway. Clicked on just one of these at random [https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-08-18/nurse-lucy-letby-found-guilty-of-murdering-neonatal-babies] from the "serial killer" list and it says:{{tqb|Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies, and attempting to murder a further six more.}} The headline is {{tqb|Lucy Letby: Neonatal nurse found guilty of murdering newborn babies.}} The only mention of "serial killer" is in a photo caption! A photo that gets re-used and thus counted again elsewhere. There has been no attempt to fairly evaluate these in any manner. This is not a source analysis, it is just a dump of search results. I know how I would be grading this. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
A murder charge in which the jury failed to find a verdict was retried in July 2024;
This refers to an *attempted murder* charge (not a murder charge) [[User:Marydsmyth|Marydsmyth]] ([[User talk:Marydsmyth|talk]]) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


:Fixed. Good spot. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 00:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
==== The role of the sources ====
:{{already done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> @[[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] Make sure to change the "answered=no" parameter to "answered=yes" when you answer a edit request so the request gets marked as answered. [[User:Shadow311|Shadow311]] ([[User talk:Shadow311|talk]]) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
[[WP:RS]] says {{tq|q=y|Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered}}. With that in mind, and with the knowledge that reliable sources report several experts and specialists who do not think she had a fair trial, we should temper the views that the convictions mean she is guilty with the views that the convictions are not safe. The lead should not favour one view over the other, but stick to the known facts. As [[WP:NPOV]] says {{tq|q=y|Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts}}, and as her conviction is undoubtedly seriously contested, we should stick with the fact that she was convicted, but avoid asserting as fact the view that that conviction implies guilt. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 19:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I'm aware of that section, but it's clearly not applicable to these serious and learned views as reported with significant [[WP:WEIGHT|weight]] in multiple reliable sources. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Four editors have expressed on here their view that these are minority or even fringe views: [[User:Isaidnoway]], [[User:DeCausa]], [[User:HandThatFeeds]], [[User:Nemov]]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps they haven't read [[WP:FRINGE]]. Or perhaps they haven't seen all the views, or appreciate that many of those espousing those views are the leading scholars in their fields. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:BLPCRIME]] outlines that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". It is not neutral to ignore a court of law. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not ignore, just treat alternative views with due weight. This is an exceptional case, given the weight and quality of the doubters, [[WP:NPOV]] is clear how this circumstance should be handled. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I know you are very impressed by the people who doubt her conviction. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That's illogical, you can't know that. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::So you aren't convinced by the doubts raised then? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Who said I was? I am convinced that the doubts are serious and that the safety of the convictions are seriously contested. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You said the Channel 5 documentary made "very worrying observations", implying that it had the effect of personally persuading you the convictions were unsafe. Worry is a human emotion. It must have had an emotional impact on you. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's a very poor interpretation of what I wrote. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Perhaps you could be more clear in future. You implied that from watching the documentary, you personally were affected by the doubts about her conviction. But you're saying they weren't that impactful? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 22:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's an even poorer interpretation (and a misquote) of what I wrote. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 07:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Where's the quote? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 08:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You said that I 'said the Channel 5 documentary made "very worrying observations"'. I did not. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Haha: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lucy_Letby#c-DeFacto-20240807202200-DeCausa-20240806201900]. Many, not very. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Her conviction is not seriously contested by the trial court judge or [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/02/lucy-letby-appeal-court-what-could-happen-next court of appeals] or members of the jury. That is the most important thing to remember here. She has been found guilty by a jury of her peers, convicted and sentenced, that is a fact, not a contested assertion. Anyone doubting her guilt or has concerns about her trial is certainly entitled to their opinion, and that is all they are, opinions. Their opinions are not the mainstream view that she was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. A summary of what sources have reported is all that is needed for their opinions, we don't a laundry list of everything they opined about.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Precisely, Isaidnoway. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::That she has been convicted is not contested at all, that is a fact. What is being seriously contested though is the safety of the convictions. Where NPOV comes into play is on how we balance the two opinions - that of the court and that of the multiple experts and multiple specialists. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The phrase is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Whether you like it or not, the jury determined that she had been proven guilty. Changing the opening sentence to say she was just 'convicted' but we can't say she was an actual killer or not is to spread doubt on the ability of the jury to competently decide if she was proven guilty, and as such is not neutral. The neutral thing to do is to report the judgement of the court, i.e. that she is a proven murderer. The doubts some had raised in the media notwithstanding, the court of appeal didn't even allow her arguments to be granted an appeal ''hearing'', let alone a successful appeal. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, that was the view of the jury. That conviction has been seriously contested though. It's the integrity of the evidence that is being questioned, not the jury. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okay, but her arguments on appeal were rejected? Do you really give newspapers more weight than the court of appeal? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's not the views of newspapers that we are talking about here, it's the views of the multiple experts and multiple specialists in their fields that the sorces are reporting on. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::...reported on in newspapers. The Letby defence team had the chance to call such witnesses if it wanted. It didn't. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What has the defence's failure to call these experts as witnesses got to do with the value of the experts' opinions? And do the value of those opinions somehow get diminished by the fact that they are reported by newspapers..? [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with {{u|DominicRA}}. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Because opinions in newspapers aren't evidence in a criminal trial given under oath. And at her attempted appeal, Letby tried to introduce Lee's expert opinion but this was struck down as she specifically failed to call him as a witness during the trial, which her defence team could have done, so it wasn't "new evidence". The appeals process requires fresh evidence, not evidence that was already available during the trial and the Letby defence just didn't use it. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 08:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::It is usually the case that we can accept the verdicts of judges and juries as you suggest, but it would be wrong and inflexible to suggest, as you seem to here, that those verdicts should always greatly outweigh the opinions of relevant experts. This is an unusual case in that there appear to be a large number of relevant experts, across several relevant fields, who doubt the verdicts. In such a case we should regard the issue as contested and give space to the doubts (alongside the verdicts of the legal system, of course). [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 22:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::When the {{tq|verdicts of judges and juries}} are the mainstream view, as in this case, we give them more weight than the doubters. The jury was persuaded by the ''totality'' of the evidence and the expert witness testimony put on by the prosecution. The appeal court said the trial judge had been "thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct". They also ruled that none of the four legal challenges advanced by Letby were "arguable" and said they did not consider that the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence had been met. That is the mainstream view. We can't change that, and we are not here to [[WP:RGW]]s. These doubter's opinions are not the mainstream view and they shouldn't be treated as such, their opinions should be briefly noted and summarized.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 23:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]], what do you mean by "the mainstream view"? Do you mean that, as per usual, the media initially followed the normal convention of accepting the court's view unchallenged and assumed guilt unconditionally? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The mainstream view is that she is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of seven others, and who is the UK's most [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66569311 prolific child serial killer] in modern British history, and will spend the rest of her life behind bars. But you already knew that. Don't ping me again with your nonsense.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 08:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]], as I said then. As the safety of that view has been challenged by numerous scholars and experts in the appropriate fields, NPOV requires we balance the article appropriately. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


== Letters ==
====Policy analysis by [[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]====
This page is full of careful analysis of the wording the sources use. I don't think that's really the right way to resolve this, though.{{pb}}Our core content policies reduce to this: Wikipedia articles have to mean what the best sources mean. But our copyright and plagiarism policies reduce to this: Wikipedia articles have to be written in [[WP:OUROWNWORDS|our own words]].{{pb}}Don't crib the sources' wording. Understand their meaning, and then write what they mean in our own words.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


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


This should be contested. Despite the Guardian reporting this has “since emerged”, at no point when cross examined during her trial did Letby mention this instruction by her GP. In direct police interview transcripts that have since also emerged, she was asked point blank by the interviewer where she wrote the notes and if she told anyone about them - she replied, ‘at home’ and ‘no’ respectively. This evidence is all freely available online. [[Special:Contributions/217.155.80.215|217.155.80.215]] ([[User talk:217.155.80.215|talk]]) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
== Grossly [[WP:UNDUE]]: Doubts about conviction section ==


== Lead neutrality ==
{{ping|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 [[WP:RGW|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. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)


The final part of the lead section begins, "Since the conclusion of her trials, after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted, experts have expressed doubts..." I removed "after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted" but {{u|DominicRA}} has re-inserted it.
: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".— [[User:Moriwen|Moriwen]] ([[User talk: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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby&diff=1238959150&oldid=1238958337], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby&diff=1238959206&oldid=1238959150]. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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: {{u|Nemov}} {{u|MaximusEditor}} {{u|Isaidnoway}} {{u|De Facto}} {{u|NEDOCHAN}} {{u|Pincrete}} {{u|HandThatFeeds}} {{u|S Marshall}} {{u|Emir of Wikipedia}} {{u|Some1}} {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} {{u|Nigej}} {{u|DanielRigal}} {{u|buidhe}} {{u|Lightoil}} {{u|Wjfox2005}} {{u|Dobblestein}} {{u|Suonii180}} {{u|No such user}} {{u|DeCausa}} {{u|ObserveOwl}} {{u|EmilySarah99}} {{u|BilledMammal}} {{u|Jfire}}. {{u|Theroadislong}} [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 23:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|DeFacto}} was not pinged. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I already pinged him in the list above? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Appears to be a typo, you pinged 'De(space)Facto' instead of 'DeFacto'. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the ping correction. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk: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. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like to me that section is a coatrack of cherry-picked opinions spouting [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/29/lucy-letby-inquiry-wont-be-livestreamed/ 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.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 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. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk: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 in England and Wales|life imprisonment]] with a [[whole life order]].[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 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. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps the defence didn't adequately identify the flaws in the prosecution argument? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:07, 7 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. [[User:Say ocean again|Say ocean again]] ([[User talk:Say ocean again|talk]]) 01:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


I have never seen another article make such a point in its lead. Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice, yet other articles don't feel the need to draw specific attention to them in this way as if something untoward has happened. The inclusion of the phrase here is, at best, confusing and, at worst, leading. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 19:49, 10 December 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk: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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
: Agree, this section needs to be trimmed or removed completely. Looks like this article has attracted POV pushers. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 01:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


:Yeah I don't like that sentence. "On certain reporting..." is vague. At the very least "certain" needs to go. Meidat sources usually just speak of reporting restrictions. But I don't see why that is needed in the lead at all. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: Abroad there have been several similar cases, especially that of [[Lucia_de_Berk_case|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.
:The reporting restrictions are relevant because they explain the timeline with regard to the expressions of doubt about the case. A natural question for many readers will be: why did the doubts suddenly begin being discussed in early July 2024, rather than when the evidence was first presented starting in 2022 or after the first trial ended in summer 2023? The answer is the reporting restrictions. This isn't contentious and explaining it is simply informative.
: 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. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think most countries have such restrictions and British people don't tend to have any reason to think about them, so we can't assume readers will just work this out. We have to tell them. If by "as if something untoward has happened", you mean that readers might think the restrictions were unique to this case, then you can change the wording to clarify that they're common in high-profile British cases. But otherwise there's nothing non-neutral at all about the phrase's inclusion. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 22:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{tq|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 pre''judice'' 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. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with DominicRA.
:::You are misinterpreting. I only claimed prejudice in the LdB case, in which case it is well-documented. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice}} - perhaps in the UK, but not in many other countries. This is an international encyclopedia and many readers will not be familiar with British legal oddities. Mentioning the embargo might also be useful for UK readers considering that it meant they had access to fewer reliable sources about the case than the rest of the world (and to some extent [https://theconversation.com/why-the-new-yorker-blocked-uk-website-readers-from-its-lucy-letby-story-an-expert-explains-230255 continue to do so], as covered further down in the article).
::::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. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|yet other articles don't feel ...}} - apart from the fact that this far-reaching claim about "other articles" looks entirely unsubstantiated, it is also a textbook [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] argument.
::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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 12:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::The word "embargo" is wrong. An embargo refers by the request or requirement of the ''source'' of news that the information provided by that source not be published prior to an agreed date and time. Trial reporting restrictions go well beyond a news embargo and prevent coverage on the trial using information from any source. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 09:49, 11 December 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Try Google. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 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]].) [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:UNDUE|undue]]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't believe having a separate section is helpful in this instance. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::The doubters are big names in their fields and have serious evidence and observations that need covering. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


== Evans' change of mind ==
: ''(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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 04:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


@[[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] reverted a reference to Evans' change of mind. I've re-instated the sentence which is cited with two sources that directly make the claim and another that can be used by readers to help verify it. I assume Bondegezou is taking the articles quoting Evans' denial to constitute serious contestation of the claim, but simple denial by someone doesn't constitute serious contestation.
:However, I agree that the 'doubts' section is probably UNDUEly detailed, just as we summarise the evidence, we should summarise the doubts more succinctly.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 04:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


Some of Evans' post-trial comments:
: 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. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk: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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby&diff=1238959150&oldid=1238958337], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Letby&diff=1238959206&oldid=1238959150]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HouseplantHobbyist|contribs]]) 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::I was the only one you didn't ping. {{tq|so it wouldn't be needed}} demonstrates that was deliberate on your part. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 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. [[User:PerSeAnd|PerSeAnd]] ([[User talk: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. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 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. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Isaidnoway}}, {{u|Nemov}}, {{u|HandThatFeeds}}, {{u|S Marshall}}, {{u|Pincrete}}, {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}, {{u|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. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 17:34, 7 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course consensus doesn't require conformity. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 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. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::There's no policy-based consensus to remove it - so removing it could be considered [[WP:Disruptive|disruptive]]. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:54, 7 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. [[User:Say ocean again|Say ocean again]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk: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?" [https://www.channel5.com/show/lucy-letby-did-she-really-do-it here]. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Oooooooooooooh Channel 5, impressive. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk:HouseplantHobbyist|talk]]) 20:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Watch it, it might help you understand the doubts. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I understand the doubts perfectly well, please don't patronise me. [[User:HouseplantHobbyist|HouseplantHobbyist]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|step away]] and allow others to comment. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Is that the [[royal we|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 {{tq|=y|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? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:03, 7 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.[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/09/lucy-letby-serial-killer-or-miscarriage-justice-victim/]
::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.[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question]
:[[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


"The stomach bubble was not responsible for [Child C's] death [...] His demise occurred the following day, around midnight, and due to air in the bloodstream."
== Requested move 8 August 2024 ==


"None of the babies were killed as a direct result of the injection of air, or fluid and air deliberately injected into their stomachs."
{{requested move/dated|Trial of Lucy Letby}}


[[:Lucy Letby]] → {{no redirect|Trial of Lucy Letby}} – Lucy Letby is notable for her trial. A check on Google Trends shows that "Lucy Letby trial" is more common a search term over time than "Lucy Letby". Most of the issues concerning weight and BLP would be better handled if the subject of this article was the trial, rather than Letby. A large volume of intellectually independent, reliable, secondary source material casts significant doubt on the judicial system and the outcome of the trial and should be properly, neutrally covered. [[User:Say ocean again|Say ocean again]] ([[User talk:Say ocean again|talk]]) 01:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Every source out there says the prosecution's position was that air in the stomach was a method of murder or one possible method (depending on the child). Some direct quotes from the trial show Evans saying the same. This is unambigiously at odds with his new claim that ''none'' of the infants were killed this way. Until a source agrees with Evans' denial and someone can find a quote from him at the trial contradicting what the rest of the prosecution were saying, we should accept the fact that he ''did'' change his mind. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Eronymous|Eronymous]] The sentence broke neither [[WP:NPOV]] nor [[WP:OR]]. The section discusses a dispute between McDonald and Evans. Readers will want to know what the facts behind the dispute are; telling them doesn't break NPOV. And the fact that Evans' new view is contrary to the prosecution's is stated clearly [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/17/lucy-letby-evidence-compelling-and-overwhelming-says-expert/ in] [https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-7.pdf these] [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/lucy-letby-witness-changed-mind/ sources]. To my knowledge ''no'' sources have denied that fact. They have reported Evans' denial, but that's a different thing. So reporting what the sources say doesn't break OR. The sentence should be re-instated. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 20:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose''' Too much unrest. An RFC about the intro. One about the Doubts section. A proposal to rename the page. I would prefer if such discussions were well separated in time. Also, wouldnt there be much material that does not really fit under "Trial", causing the creation of a new page "Lucy Letby", and a lot of duplication of material? [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 02:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::It is a disingenuous statement (Evans is not the prosecution) that is out of place, with the information already available [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby#Air_via_nasogastric_tube here] for the reader.[[User:Eronymous|Eronymous]] ([[User talk:Eronymous|talk]]) 22:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:The short treatment of her biography does not stand on its own. [[WP:COMMONNAME]] does not restrict background and subsequent activity from an article, so no, a second article would not be needed. [[User:Say ocean again|Say ocean again]] ([[User talk:Say ocean again|talk]]) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Evans led the prosecution's account... But anyway, I was simply being overly cautious by referring to the prosecution rather than to Evans, to allow for the very remote possibility that before the end of the trial he had already disavowed the air via nasogastric tube method. I'll simply change that.
:*::Have there not been two trials already? It is to be expected that this case is far from closed. [[User:Nhart129|Nhart129]] ([[User talk:Nhart129|talk]]) 02:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::It's quite obviously not out of place. Repeating that won't make it so. And in a long article that very few will read all at once it's unreasonable to say that a fact shouldn't appear more than once. [[User:DominicRA|DominicRA]] ([[User talk:DominicRA|talk]]) 22:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Independently notable, much like the others at [[:Category:British female serial killers]] and [[:Category:Female murderers of children]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 03:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:46, 18 December 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

[edit]

Second para A murder charge in which the jury failed to find a verdict was retried in July 2024; This refers to an *attempted murder* charge (not a murder charge) Marydsmyth (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Good spot. DominicRA (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done @DominicRA Make sure to change the "answered=no" parameter to "answered=yes" when you answer a edit request so the request gets marked as answered. Shadow311 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

[edit]

“After the trial, it emerged that the notes had been written on the advice of Letby's GP to help her process the extreme stress of being investigated.”

This should be contested. Despite the Guardian reporting this has “since emerged”, at no point when cross examined during her trial did Letby mention this instruction by her GP. In direct police interview transcripts that have since also emerged, she was asked point blank by the interviewer where she wrote the notes and if she told anyone about them - she replied, ‘at home’ and ‘no’ respectively. This evidence is all freely available online. 217.155.80.215 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead neutrality

[edit]

The final part of the lead section begins, "Since the conclusion of her trials, after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted, experts have expressed doubts..." I removed "after an embargo on certain reporting was lifted" but DominicRA has re-inserted it.

I have never seen another article make such a point in its lead. Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice, yet other articles don't feel the need to draw specific attention to them in this way as if something untoward has happened. The inclusion of the phrase here is, at best, confusing and, at worst, leading. Bondegezou (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't like that sentence. "On certain reporting..." is vague. At the very least "certain" needs to go. Meidat sources usually just speak of reporting restrictions. But I don't see why that is needed in the lead at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting restrictions are relevant because they explain the timeline with regard to the expressions of doubt about the case. A natural question for many readers will be: why did the doubts suddenly begin being discussed in early July 2024, rather than when the evidence was first presented starting in 2022 or after the first trial ended in summer 2023? The answer is the reporting restrictions. This isn't contentious and explaining it is simply informative.
I don't think most countries have such restrictions and British people don't tend to have any reason to think about them, so we can't assume readers will just work this out. We have to tell them. If by "as if something untoward has happened", you mean that readers might think the restrictions were unique to this case, then you can change the wording to clarify that they're common in high-profile British cases. But otherwise there's nothing non-neutral at all about the phrase's inclusion. DominicRA (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DominicRA.
Trial reporting restrictions are an entirely normal part of justice - perhaps in the UK, but not in many other countries. This is an international encyclopedia and many readers will not be familiar with British legal oddities. Mentioning the embargo might also be useful for UK readers considering that it meant they had access to fewer reliable sources about the case than the rest of the world (and to some extent continue to do so, as covered further down in the article).
yet other articles don't feel ... - apart from the fact that this far-reaching claim about "other articles" looks entirely unsubstantiated, it is also a textbook WP:OTHERCONTENT argument.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "embargo" is wrong. An embargo refers by the request or requirement of the source of news that the information provided by that source not be published prior to an agreed date and time. Trial reporting restrictions go well beyond a news embargo and prevent coverage on the trial using information from any source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evans' change of mind

[edit]

@Bondegezou reverted a reference to Evans' change of mind. I've re-instated the sentence which is cited with two sources that directly make the claim and another that can be used by readers to help verify it. I assume Bondegezou is taking the articles quoting Evans' denial to constitute serious contestation of the claim, but simple denial by someone doesn't constitute serious contestation.

Some of Evans' post-trial comments:

"The stomach bubble was not responsible for [Child C's] death [...] His demise occurred the following day, around midnight, and due to air in the bloodstream."

"None of the babies were killed as a direct result of the injection of air, or fluid and air deliberately injected into their stomachs."

Every source out there says the prosecution's position was that air in the stomach was a method of murder or one possible method (depending on the child). Some direct quotes from the trial show Evans saying the same. This is unambigiously at odds with his new claim that none of the infants were killed this way. Until a source agrees with Evans' denial and someone can find a quote from him at the trial contradicting what the rest of the prosecution were saying, we should accept the fact that he did change his mind. DominicRA (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eronymous The sentence broke neither WP:NPOV nor WP:OR. The section discusses a dispute between McDonald and Evans. Readers will want to know what the facts behind the dispute are; telling them doesn't break NPOV. And the fact that Evans' new view is contrary to the prosecution's is stated clearly in these sources. To my knowledge no sources have denied that fact. They have reported Evans' denial, but that's a different thing. So reporting what the sources say doesn't break OR. The sentence should be re-instated. DominicRA (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a disingenuous statement (Evans is not the prosecution) that is out of place, with the information already available here for the reader.Eronymous (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evans led the prosecution's account... But anyway, I was simply being overly cautious by referring to the prosecution rather than to Evans, to allow for the very remote possibility that before the end of the trial he had already disavowed the air via nasogastric tube method. I'll simply change that.
It's quite obviously not out of place. Repeating that won't make it so. And in a long article that very few will read all at once it's unreasonable to say that a fact shouldn't appear more than once. DominicRA (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Letby&oldid=1263835810"