Talk:Lucy Letby

Doubts section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

section Initial investigations

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

Same section, paragraph "In September 2016",

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

Section 2023 trial

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

Section Evidence

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

Thanks. These are good points. On the board, aren't we just talking about the hospital board? We can make it explicit I suppose. On the last point, she was on shift but assigned to a different baby when Baby C fell ill. She was suspended from the unit in 2016, and thereafter worked in the risk and safety office. She did not return to the unit after her grievance was upheld. She did not work while on bail. Fixing this with sources is certainly possible, and thanks for pointing out the issues. There remains a lack of secondary sources to work from, and much of this article was piece together from trial reports - not ideal. I note that there is a forthcoming book [2] that may allow for a substantial rewrite, although as our existing best secondary source is a documentary by the same people, this will still need careful handling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Drafting a new RFC - continued

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

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

B: former nurse who murdered and attempted

C: former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting

D: former nurse convicted of serial murder and attempted murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 the neutrality tag was placed by User:Sirfurboy has been suspended. Kire1975 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the tag, it was there as there was discussion on the inclusion of Letby maintaining her innocence, which has now been resolved. PerSeAnd (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

RFC on first sentence

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

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

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

Survey

• 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. [3]. The murders are regarded as serial murders, so it would not be wrong to add that back in, per D, although in encyclopaedic voice, I think we need to avoid expressing that too sensationally. I think D is appropriate so D as well as C are acceptable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I also prefer C not because I think she is innocent, but because it states the evidential basis of our report that she is a murderer—the crimes went through the judicial process and were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think that the "serial" aspect needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• B. I've surveyed our serial killer articles and generally they seem to have a consistent opening style: "[Name] is a [nationality] serial killer who..." Although it's not 100% consistent, I can't really see any reason not to follow that. It's accurate, conveys much in few words and puts the key point of the article before the reader immediately. I dislike C and D because they subliminally introduce doubt. In normal language, and in our articles, usually, X is a murderer, fraudster, arsonist etc. ratther than "convicted of". C/D quietly introduces the thought that it's the outcome of a particular legal process (which could be wrong) rather than her essential description. I disagree that it is neutral. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, i suppose I should mention that the RS pretty uniformly introduce her as "serial killer" when she is written about. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, thanks for doing that comparison. Harold Shipman feels like the most relevant parallel article to me, and it begins with "...was an English doctor in general practice and serial killer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, Shipman is not the best comparison as there are plenty of cases with nurses killing. Secondly, I am always wary about comparisons with other wikipedia articles. Rather we should look at what sources say. But, as long as we are playing that game, I note we use "convicted" rather commonly. For instance, Yolanda Saldívar, Beverley Allitt, Melanie McGuire, Heather Pressdee, Colin Norris, Benjamin Geen. All 6 of them nurses. Not just nurses of course. E.g. Daniel Conahan. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  This forthcoming book [4] which will be, as far as I can find, the first properly reliable secondary source as a book (and I have been looking hard), does not call her a serial killer in the title nor the synopsis. It introduces her as a killer nurse. It also has Letby was convicted of murdering seven.... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  The title of one book (and its synopsis) of unknown quality and which has not even been published yet is pretty irrelevant. There are plenty of secondary RS in the media that habitually refer to her as a serial killer (as I've highlighted before WP:PRIMARY can only be relevant to news reporting). DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• C Which is perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• B. Tell it like it is, don't waffle.—S Marshall T/C 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. 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. 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 DeCausa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  As a second choice I would default back to A. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. it does not seem unreasonable to report that as that she was convicted of murder. That does not raise any doubt in wikivoice - it takes no stance on the doubts. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  But it does seem out of place given the way most other articles are phrased. Also there are comments here with a preference for C/D because they believe there is doubt in the convictions, so that's definitely how it is taken by some. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• C or A (pinged here) both of which are perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice. I, like many people I suspect, have no idea what a serial killer is, apart from knowing that they have killed several/many and tend to do kill obsessively. C and A employ simple factual language to relate the central shocking contradiction, which revolves around her being a neonatal nurse, who appears to have killed babies. I believe UK sources focus on that issue, rather than any 'serial killer' aspect.Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Presumably the sentence would link to Serial killer, which should help anyone who has no idea what a serial killer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  While links are helpful clarifiers, it shouldn't be necessary to follow one to understand a defining sentence. C and A also follow the standard WP biog format of name … nationality … profession … reason for notability. I appreciate that this is a matter of judgement, but I always find 'labels' in the opening sentence intrusive, rather than informative. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• B (or A). Prisons are full of people claiming to be innocent of the crimes for which they've been convicted. However the general principle in the media is to state that they committed the crimes, not that they were convicted of the crimes. Generally Wikipedia takes the same approach and we should do the same here. I haven't seen a convincing argument why the Lucy Letby article should be treated differently to those of other murderers. What's the special case here? Nigej (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• C. A and B take a position on what is now a contentious question, and B and D slightly sensationalise.

The doubts are now so widespread among those with relevant expertise that Wikipedia shouldn’t take a firm position on Letby’s actual guilt and instead just report the facts. I think anyone taking part in this RfC should first familiarise themselves with the doubts by reading and considering the articles in the New Yorker, Telegraph, Guardian and elsewhere. Without doing so it would be too easy to assume that they are less substantial than they are. To opt for A or B is to reject that the doubts have any significant weight; that shouldn’t be done without first knowing what they are. Wikipedia also shouldn’t necessarily treat the legal findings of any country as fact; legal procedures can get things wrong anywhere and we shouldn’t always defer to their findings.

I would also add that even if one didn’t accept my above points, “serial” would still be redundant, and “who murdered” adds very little of value. “Serial” will be made perfectly clear by the end of the sentence (“7 infants”) and adds nothing informative (other than ruling out the possibility that she killed them all at once, which readers are unlikely to assume). And the great majority of readers are likely to take “convicted of murdering” to mean “murdered” anyway. “Convicted of” is neutral and factual; it doesn’t highlight the doubts but nor does it take a stance on a contentious question—it simply reports what we know to be true. DominicRA (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• 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). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are "serial killer" and "former nurse who murdered and attempted..." seriously contested assertions? Some1 (talk) 22:56, 6 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. Nhart129 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• B - nothing has changed my view since the last RfC. She's still a serial killer. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• B - a serial killer. Dictionary definition is someone who murders multiple people over a period of time. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:12, 6 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. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• B. Agree entirley with User:DanielRigal above. 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 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! — Moriwen (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Source Analysis

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

Methodology

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

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

Content prior to conviction

"Staff Profile – Lucy Letby" (PDF). 28 March 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 December 2022. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Staff profile from before the issues arose - no evidence "Home searched after baby murder arrest belongs to Chester children's nurse". The Standard. 4 July 2018. Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 27 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence "Lucy Letby found caring for less sick babies 'boring', trial told". BBC News. 21 March 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction - no evidence Halliday, Josh; Blight, Garry; Fischer, Harry; Kirk, Ashley (18 August 2023). "Timeline of Lucy Letby's attacks on babies and when alarm was raised". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity but has Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another six. I don't think that is evidence. "Countess of Chester Hospital: Woman held in baby deaths probe". BBC News. 3 July 2018. Archived from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 27 January 2023. - Before conviction, no evidence. Matthews-King, Alex (5 July 2018). "Lucy Letby: Newborn deaths doubled at hospital where nurse arrested on suspicion of babies' murders worked". Independent. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity - No evidence "Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses were misled, former chair claims". BBC News. 19 August 2023. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity - No evidence "Nurse Lucy Letby arrested over Chester Hospital baby deaths". BBC News. 4 July 2018. Archived from the original on 5 July 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018. - Before conviction - no evidence Parveen, Nazia; Halliday, Josh (4 July 2018). "Cheshire baby deaths: police widen inquiry to second hospital". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 July 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2018. - Before convction - no evidence. "Update on Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit investigation". cheshire.police.uk. Cheshire Constabulary. 6 July 2018. Archived from the original on 26 February 2019. Retrieved 13 July 2018. - Before convction - no evidence. "Nurse released on bail in Chester baby deaths inquiry". The Guardian. Press Association. 13 June 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2023. - Before convction - no evidence. "Chester hospital baby deaths probe: Nurse Lucy Letby rearrested". BBC News. 10 November 2020. Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022. - Before convction - no evidence. "Nurse Lucy Letby charged with murder after Chester hospital baby deaths". The Guardian. PA Media. 11 November 2020. Archived from the original on 15 October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022. - Before convction - no evidence. Goddard, Ben (13 November 2020). "Hereford Nurse Lucy Letby Refused Bail". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 18 November 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2022. - Before convction - no evidence. O'Donoghue, Daniel (10 July 2023). "Lucy Letby: Jury retires in trial of nurse accused of baby murders". BBC News. Archived from the original on 27 February 2024. Retrieved 27 February 2024. - Before conviction - no evidence. McIntyre, Alex (30 September 2022). "Lucy Letby trial to begin as nurse denies murdering babies at Chester Hospital". CheshireLive. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before convction - no evidence. Halliday, Josh (12 October 2022). "Doctor interrupted nurse Lucy Letby's attempt to kill newborn baby, court told". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 October 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022. - Before convction - no evidence. Halliday, Josh (10 October 2022). "Lucy Letby was 'constant malevolent' presence on neonatal ward, court hears". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 12 October 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby's parents arrive at court". Yahoo News. ITN. 26 October 2022. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022 – via uk.news.yahoo.com. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Latest updates: Hereford nurse Lucy Letby goes on trial accused of baby murders". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Who are the children alleged to have been murdered by Lucy Letby?". ITV News. 14 October 2022. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Mother walked in on nurse Lucy Letby trying to kill baby, court told". The Guardian. 11 October 2022. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby: Nurse searched for parents on Facebook, jury told". BBC News. 19 October 2022. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Nurse killed baby and sent parents card, trial told". BBC News. 12 October 2022. Archived from the original on 7 June 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Nurse thought 'not again' over baby collapse". BBC News. 24 October 2022. Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial hears how doctor raised concerns but was told 'not to make a fuss'". Sky News. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. Ball, Tom; Bunyan, Bunyan. "Lucy Letby trial: Doctor told 'not to make a fuss' over deaths of babies". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby denies covering up murder of premature baby girl". BBC News. 2 June 2023. Retrieved 3 August 2024. - Before conviction - no evidence. Powell, Tom (4 July 2018). "Nurse's home searched by police following baby murder arrests". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes found in home search released". BBC News. 18 April 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction - no evidence Dowling, Mark (13 October 2022). "Revealed: The 'I am evil' handwritten note by Lucy Letby found at her Chester home". The Leader. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Murder-accused nurse wrote 'I am evil', trial told". BBC News. 13 October 2022. Archived from the original on 23 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Nurse Lucy Letby Sobs on Witness Stand, Claims She Was 'Incompetent' But Meant No Harm". People Magazine. Archived from the original on 3 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023. - Before conviction - no evidence. Lennox, Aaran (13 October 2022). "Lucy Letby a 'dedicated' nurse in 'system which has failed', court hears". North Wales Live. Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 27 October 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Rigid wire or tube could have caused baby's 'extraordinary bleeding', court told". Sky News. Archived from the original on 19 November 2022. Retrieved 19 November 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby: 'Extremely high' dose of insulin found in baby allegedly poisoned". ITV News. 24 November 2022. Archived from the original on 24 November 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby colleagues tell murder trial they did not give baby insulin". BBC News. 23 November 2022. Archived from the original on 23 November 2022. Retrieved 24 November 2022. - Before conviction - no evidence. "Lucy Letby trial: Nurse's notes read 'I killed them', jury told". BBC News. 17 April 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction, no evidence. "Lucy Letby denies rooting in bin after baby resuscitation". BBC News. 7 June 2023. Archived from the original on 26 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - Before conviction, no evidence.

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

Sources with no suitable summaries (38)

Halliday, Josh (2 July 2024). "Lucy Letby found guilty of trying to kill two-hour-old baby". The Guardian. - Primary source. Assumes familiarity. "Former neonatal nurse found guilty". No evidence Lintern, Shaun; Collins, David (19 August 2023). "Revealed: the files that show how Lucy Letby was treated as a victim". The Times. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Paywalled - assumes familiarity - no evidence Harwood-Baynes, Megan; Parmenter, Tom. "How the police caught Lucy Letby". Sky News. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity - no intro - no evidence. Halliday, Josh (2023-08-18). "Lucy Letby whistleblower says babies would have lived if hospital had acted sooner". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-05-15. - Assumes familiarity - no intro Pidd, Helen (18 August 2023). "Lucy Letby trial: why the babies remain anonymous". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity, no summary. No evidence. "The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies". BBC News. 18 August 2023. Retrieved 9 July 2024. - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence "Lucy Letby appeal fund launched". The Telegraph. 23 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence "Lucy Letby: Hospital bosses 'didn't allow investigators to see clinical notes' related to baby deaths, expert says". Sky News. 19 August 2023. Archived from the original on 26 May 2024. Retrieved 26 May 2024. - Assumes familiarity, no summary, no evidence although it does prominently say "killer nurse". "Lucy Letby sentencing live: Nurse to spend rest of life in prison". BBC News. 21 August 2023. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Primary sourced live coverage Assumed familiarity. No intro, no evidence "Letby Sentencing Remarks" (PDF). judiciary.gov.uk. Manchester Crown Court. 21 August 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - Primary sourced closing remarks. No summary. No evidence. Siddique, Haroon (21 August 2023). "Lucy Letby becomes fourth woman in UK to receive whole-life jail term after murdering seven babies – latest updates". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Live reporting, no summary, no evidence, primary. Symonds, Tom; Walsh, Aoife (31 August 2023). "Criminals to be forced to attend sentencing hearings". BBC News. Archived from the original on 4 September 2023. Retrieved 11 March 2024. - Assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence. "Inside Low Newton: the high security prison that will house Lucy Letby'". Guardian. 21 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence. Halliday, Josh (18 August 2023). "What were Lucy Letby's possible motives for murdering babies?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - No intro but +serial killer Wilson, David (20 August 2023). "Lucy Letby confirms yet confounds our ideas of a serial killer". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 15 March 2024. +serial killer but no intro. Nursing and Midwifery Council Investigating Committee Archived 18 August 2023 at the Wayback Machine nmc.org. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Primary, no summary, no evidence. "NMC responds to verdict in Lucy Letby trial - The Nursing and Midwifery Council". www.nmc.org.uk. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence "Lucy Letby renews bid to appeal her convictions". BBC News. 2024-02-07. Archived from the original on 18 February 2024. Retrieved 2024-02-18. - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term) "British nurse Lucy Letby loses appeal over babies' murder conviction". Reuters. 24 May 2024. Retrieved 21 June 2024. - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term) "Lucy Letby: Judges reserve judgement on appeal bid". BBC News. 2024-04-25. Archived from the original on 26 April 2024. Retrieved 2024-04-26. - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. (about convictions and thus uses that term) "A scrum of spectators and an elephant in the room during Lucy Letby retrial". The Guardian. 2 July 2024. Retrieved 10 July 2024. - Assumes familiarity, no intro, no evidence. Vaughan, Henry (18 August 2023). "Lucy Letby: More families told their children may be victims of killer nurse - as police review care of 4,000 babies". Sky News. Archived from the original on 19 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - No summary and thus no evidence, although uses the term "killer nurse". "Cheshire Constabulary statement regarding Countess of Chester Hospital (4 October 2023)". Cheshire Police. Archived from the original on 4 October 2023. Retrieved 4 October 2023. - Primary, no summary, no evidence although includes following the conviction "Government orders independent inquiry following Lucy Letby verdict". gov.uk. 18 August 2023. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Primary, no summary, no evidence. Only includes following the guilty verdict "Lucy Letby: Government orders independent inquiry". BBC News. 18 August 2023. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity, no summary. Abdul, Geneva. "Lucy Letby: doctor who raised alarm calls for regulation of NHS executives". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 22 August 2023. Retrieved 22 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence Rawlinson, Kevin; Mason, Rowena (25 August 2023). "Ministers indicate support for statutory inquiry into Lucy Letby killing". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 August 2023. Retrieved 26 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence "Lucy Letby: Inquiry given powers to compel witnesses to give evidence". BBC News. 30 August 2023. Archived from the original on 30 August 2023. Retrieved 30 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence (murder of seven babies could be argued as -serial killer, -convicted, but it is not written as a summary) Siddique, Haroon (4 September 2023). "Lady Justice Thirlwall appointed to lead public inquiry into Lucy Letby". Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 4 September 2023. - No summary, no evidence (murder of seven babies could be argued as -serial killer, -convicted, but it is not written as a summary) "RULING ON LIVESTREAMING/LIVE-LINKS" (PDF). Thirlwall Public Inquiry. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2024. - Primary source, no summary, no evidence. "Lucy Letby: NHS managers must be held to account, doctor says". BBC News. 22 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence. Maher, Bron (15 May 2024). "New Yorker defies contempt risk to publish Lucy Letby story in UK print edition". Press Gazette. Archived from the original on 16 May 2024. Retrieved 17 May 2024. - No summary, no evidence "Reporting restrictions in the Lucy Letby trial". Law Gazette. Retrieved 2024-07-30. - No summary, no evidence Maher, Bron (2024-05-13). "New Yorker latest to be faced with 'incredibly complex' task of reporting Lucy Letby case". Press Gazette. Retrieved 2024-07-30. - No summary, no evidence Knapton, Sarah (3 August 2024). "Hospital where Lucy Letby worked suffered bacteria outbreak 'lethal' to babies". The Telegraph. Retrieved 4 August 2024.- No summary - no evidence Halliday, Josh (19 August 2023). "Lucy Letby: Police urged to investigate hospital bosses for corporate manslaughter". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - Assumes familiarity, no summary. "RCPCH responds to verdict in Lucy Letby trial". RCPCH. Archived from the original on 19 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - No summary, no evidence. "NHS England » Commenting on the verdict in the Lucy Letby trial". england.nhs.uk. Archived from the original on 19 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Primary source, comment, assumes familiarity. No summary, no evidence.

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

Sources with in scope summaries (48)

Ball, Tom; Mitib, Ali; Wace, Charlotte (18 August 2023). "Who is Lucy Letby? The nurse who became Britain's most prolific child killer". The Times. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Paywalled. "The nurse who became Britain’s most prolific child killer" Williams, Katie (22 August 2023). "The evidence seen during Lucy Letby's murder trial, from handwritten notes to cards for parents". Sky News. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - UK's most notorious child killer -serial killer -convicted "Lucy Letby: Quiet 'geek' who became a killer feared she would never have children of her own". The Telegraph. 18 August 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 26 August 2023. Lucy Letby: Quiet ‘geek’ who became a killer Paywalled. Seems to be -serial killer, -convicted based on headline. "Who is Lucy Letby? The 'average' nurse who became one of Britain's most notorious child killers". Sky News. 21 August 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 26 August 2023. - The 'average' nurse who became one of Britain's most notorious child killers -serial killer, -convicted Sky News (19 August 2023). Sky News Special Programme: How the police caught Lucy Letby (News special). Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - primary, live reporting. Britain's most prolific child killer -convicted, -serial killer "Lucy Letby: Corporate manslaughter probe at Chester hospital". 4 October 2023. Archived from the original on 2 June 2024. Retrieved 15 May 2024. 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. "Lucy Letby: Government orders inquiry into nurse who murdered babies at hospital". ITV News. 18 August 2023. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Poor summary: 33-year-old went on a year-long killing spree -serial killer, -convicted O'Donoghue, Dan; Moritz, Judith; Hirst, Lauren; Lazaro, Rachael (18 August 2023). "Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies on neonatal unit". BBC News. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven babies "Thirlwall Inquiry: terms of reference". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 22 November 2023. Retrieved 22 November 2023. - Primary, 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. "RSS statement on the statistical aspects of the Lucy Letby case". RSS. Retrieved 3 August 2024. - In August, Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six -serial killer, ~convicted. Found guilty is essentially the same. "Lucy Letby: Killer nurse to be stripped of NHS pension after baby murders". Independent. 23 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - 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). "Lucy Letby found guilty of baby murders". Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. A nurse has been convicted of murdering newborn babies -serial killer, +convicted Halliday, Josh (18 August 2023). "Calls to force court appearances as Lucy Letby refuses to attend sentencing". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 18 August 2023. - Nurse convicted of killing seven babies -serial killer +convicted. "Every female British murderer given a whole life order". National World. 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Killer nurse Lucy Letby, who was convicted of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of seven more Halliday, Josh (25 September 2023). "Lucy Letby to face retrial on charge of trying to murder baby girl, court told". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 25 September 2023. - Former nurse, convicted of murdering seven babies at Countess of Chester hospital +convicted, -serial killer "Letby denies trying to harm any baby in her care". BBC news. Archived from the original on 2 July 2024. Retrieved 2 July 2024. 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 "Lucy Letby found guilty of attempting to murder baby following retrial". Crown Prosecution Service. 2 July 2024. Retrieved 10 July 2024. - Convicted child murderer Lucy Letby has been found guilty of trying to kill another baby +convicted, -serial killer "Lucy Letby guilty of trying to kill baby girl". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2 July 2024. Retrieved 1 July 2024. - 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 Halliday, Josh (20 August 2023). "Lucy Letby may have harmed dozens more babies, police fear". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - Police believe Lucy Letby, the nurse convicted of murdering seven babies +convicted, -serial killer Aviv, Rachel (13 May 2024). "A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 13 May 2024. - 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 Wagner, Laura (16 May 2024). "Why Brits can't read a New Yorker exposé about a British murder case". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 21 May 2024. Retrieved 17 May 2024. - Lucy Letby, a British nurse convicted last year of killing seven babies at the hospital where she worked. +convicted, -serial killer "Why a New Yorker Story on a Notorious Murder Case Is Blocked in Britain". New York Times. 16 May 2024. Retrieved 17 May 2024. - The article challenges the evidence used to convict Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, of multiple murders last year - +convicted, -serial killer Lawrence, Felicity (15 May 2024). "MP uses parliamentary privilege to ask why Lucy Letby story blocked in UK". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 16 May 2024. - Letby was convicted last summer of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester hospital, where she was a neonatal nurse. -serial killer, +convicted "Lucy Letby: a miscarriage of justice?". The Week. 28 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024. - In early July, Lucy Letby, a former nurse now aged 34, was convicted of attempted murder. +convicted, -serial killer Lawrence, Felicity (9 July 2024). "Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 10 July 2024. - Letby has been convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. She is serving whole-life sentences. +convicted, -serial killer Moritz, Judith; Coffey, Jonathan (4 July 2024). "Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth". BBC News. Retrieved 10 July 2024. - When former nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering babies last year, news channels rolled on the story, +convicted, -serial killer Channel 4 (UK) (19 August 2023). Lucy Letby: the full story of the serial killer nurse (News feature). Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - 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. Knapton, Sarah (9 July 2024). "Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice?". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 9 July 2024. Retrieved 10 July 2024. - 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. Halliday, Josh (21 August 2023). "Lucy Letby sentenced to whole-life jail term for murdering seven babies". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - The serial killer nurse, Lucy Letby, +serial killer, - convicted. Primary. "Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby has 'keys to her own cell' and leads cushy life". The Independent. 2024-01-29. Archived from the original on 4 February 2024. Retrieved 2024-02-11. Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby has ‘keys to her own cell’ and leads cushy life +serial killer, -convicted. Primary. Malnick, Edward; Sawer, Patrick; Bird, Steve (19 August 2023). "Doctors wage war on NHS managers after Letby murders". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. - No summary but includes in the case of child serial killer Lucy Letby. -convicted, +serial killer. Sawyer, Patrick (18 August 2023). "Lucy Letby joins Myra Hindley on list of UK's worst child serial killers". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. "Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies on neonatal unit". BBC News. 18 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. - Lucy Letby joins Myra Hindley on list of UK’s worst child serial killers and found guilty + serial killer, +ish convicted "Lucy Letby: Serial killer nurse found guilty of attempted murder of extremely premature baby". Sky News. Archived from the original on 2 July 2024. Retrieved 2 July 2024. 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) Evans, Holly (27 August 2023). "Friends and colleagues of murderer Lucy Letby insist baby killing nurse is innocent". Independent. Archived from the original on 28 August 2023. Retrieved 28 August 2023. - 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. Davis, Nicola (2023-10-03). "Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 2023-10-06. - 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. Moreau, Charlotte (19 August 2023). "Hereford 'very much home' for serial killer Lucy Letby". Hereford Times. Archived from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 19 August 2023. - Local - "UK's most highly convicted child serial killer" + convicted, + serial killer "Serial killer nurse Lucy Letby given whole-life sentence". BBC News. 21 August 2023. Archived from the original on 21 August 2023. Retrieved 21 August 2023. -- 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 "Killer nurse Lucy Letby found unfit to practise and struck off register". 12 December 2023. Archived from the original on 22 December 2023. Retrieved 15 May 2024. 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 Media, P. A. (12 December 2023). "Convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby struck off nursing register". Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 12 December 2023. - Convicted child serial killer Lucy Letby struck off nursing register +convicted, +serial killer "Child killer Lucy Letby 'to be stripped' of NHS pension after conviction". Evening Standard. 23 August 2023. Archived from the original on 24 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023. 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 BBC One (18 August 2023). Panorama, Lucy Letby: The Nurse Who Killed (TV documentary). Retrieved 23 August 2023. {{cite AV media}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help) - Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering and harming babies. What turned a likeable nurse into a serial killer? +convicted, +serial killer "Lucy Letby: A timeline of the most prolific child killer in modern Britain - BBC Newsnight". BBC News. 22 August 2023. Archived from the original on 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 August 2023. +serial killer Pidd, Helen (30 January 2024). "Child serial killer Lucy Letby loses initial attempt to challenge convictions". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 30 January 2024. +serial killer O'Donoghue, Daniel; Moritz, Judith (22 November 2023). "Lucy Letby public inquiry formally opened by judge". BBC News. BBC. Archived from the original on 22 November 2023. Retrieved 22 November 2023. The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes +serial killer. No further summary "Lucy Letby inquiry should be live-streamed, say victims' families". BBC News. Archived from the original on 7 July 2024. Retrieved 2 July 2024. - The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes +serial killer, no further summary Grimes, David R. "David Robert Grimes: Lucy Letby is Britain's most prolific serial child killer. But doubts linger about the evidence". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 10 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024. - Lucy Letby is Britain’s most prolific serial child killer. But doubts linger - +serial killer "Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence". UCL News. 9 July 2024. Retrieved 3 August 2024. - a British nurse convicted last year of killing seven babies at the hospital where she worked. - No summary, no evidence.

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.

Source Analysis summary

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

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

• Coffey, Jonathan; Moritz, Judith (October 2024). Unmasking Lucy Letby: The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse. London: Seven Dials.

So that is what the sources actually say. 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I misread you comment below, that being said my decision is still the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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:

1. It's not an analysis of all the wider publicly available sources. So Sirfurboy you say "I have spent way too many hours reviewing every single source on this page, to see how the media really do write about her", well, to see what 'the media really do write about her', let's look at all the sources then shall we? (more to follow)
2. You yourself Sirfurboy have repeatedly expressed problems with the sourcing on this page, adding the primary source tag "This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources". I.e., that many of the sources are from mid-trial reports. Of course those ones wouldn't refer to her being a serial killer yet as she hadn't been convicted yet. Even without that, you yourself acknowledge that the sourcing used on this page is flawed, so why do you think just the sources on this page are the only ones that should be consulted?
3. Multiple editors now have expressed serious and numerous concerns about the 'doubt about conviction' section, which you can see in the discussion below: Talk:Lucy Letby#Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section. A section where there are numerous concerns about the excessive and POV-style content are going to, on the whole, be referenced to sources which describe Letby in more glowing terms and avoid referring to her as a serial killer or killer. You yourself have expressed agreement that there are a number of problems with that section and it's tone: User talk:DeCausa#Letby page. So of course the sources used on this article are going to be lopsided towards not describing her as a serial killer, especially considering the excessive amount of space given to that POV section which you acknowledge, and how on earth can you therefore think that just using the flawed sources used on this page to decide 'how the media really do write about her'? You literally yourself acknowledge the problems with some of the content and it's sourcing on this page?

Wrong fallacy. Let's do a proper analysis of all the public sources. Knock yourself out. Please put your analysis in a new discussion section. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The obvious place to start would be the BBC: [5]. Twelve out of the last thirteen articles the BBC has published about Letby were made during the recent retrial of Letby, so obviously they took a softer and most likely reporting-restriction-compliant tone, describing her as a nurse. Yet before their first article about the trial on 12 June, when they were free to write anything, the BBC consistently introduced Letby as a serial killer:

1. [6] - "Serial killer Lucy Letby's..."
2. [7] - "Child serial killer Lucy Letby"
3. [8] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
4. [9] - "child serial killer Lucy Letby"
5. [10] - " serial killer Lucy Letby"
6. [11] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but says "the Lucy Letby killings"
7. [12] - no reference to serial killer
8. [13] - "Lucy Letby is the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
9. [14] - "serial killer Lucy Letby murdered babies"
10. [15] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
11. [16] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "Letby, 33, was given multiple whole life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more"
12. [17] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "The nurse was jailed for life last month for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants at the Countess of Chester hospital. She deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin."
13. [18] - "Letby, who became the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
14. [19] - "making her the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
15. [20] - No reference to serial killer
16. [21] - "where the serial killer was born"
17. [22] - "Lady Justice Thirlwall has been appointed to chair the inquiry into the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
18. [23] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does provide a link to the separate article 'Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?'
19. [24] - not described as a serial killer but still a 'killer'
20. [25] - 'baby killer'
21. [26] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
22. [27] - "the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history", and also a prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
23. [28] - "the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
24. [29] - "after the serial killer had been arrested"
25. [30] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but describes 'the murders committed by nurse Lucy Letby'
26. [31] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
27. [32] - "the worst child serial killer in modern British history"
28. [33] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
29. [34] - "where serial killer Letby worked"
30. [35] - no reference to serial killer
31. [36] - "Letby, the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
32. [37] - "the UK's most prolific serial child killer"
33. [38] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
34. [39] - "unmasked as the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"
35. [40] - the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
36. [41] - "the impact the serial killer has had on their lives"
37. [42] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
38. [43] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"
39. [44] - no specific reference to serial killer
40. [45] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe her "attacks on babies"
41. [46] - "where serial killer Lucy Letby worked"
42. [47] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe "the babies attacked by Lucy Letby"
43. [48] - "most prolific child killer" and refers to David Wilson's related "interest in healthcare serial killers"
44. [49] - "behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders"
45. [50] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times."
46. [51] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does refer to how she "went on to attack five more babies"
47. [52] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
48. [53] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
49. [54] - literally titled "Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?""
50. [55] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"

That then takes you up to when Letby was originally convicted in her first trial. So since Letby was first convicted, and other than during the recent retrial which she was also then found guilty at, Letby has been described by the BBC in it's articles as a serial killer in 36 out of the 50 articles. So 72% refer to her as a serial killer. Pretty overwhelming, and the BBC is a very prominent source. Even in the articles where the specific phrase 'serial killer' is not used, other phrases such as "murdered", "killings", "killed" or "attacked" are used. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section

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

This seems hostile and aggressive towards specific editors to a degree that's completely uncalled for. Surely there's room for disagreement about the exact amount of due emphasis to give to media coverage, without resorting to calling things a "little shrine" and a "sick clusterfuck".— Moriwen (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you User:DeCausa, and it's interesting to note that any attempt to provide just a tinge of balance is deleted by Sirfurboy: [56], [57]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ping the editors pinged to the related discussion above on whether the doubts about conviction justify removing any reference to her being a 'murderer' or a 'serial killer'. This doubts about conviction discussion is a wider issue on this article which could do with other eyes looking at it: Nemov MaximusEditor Isaidnoway De Facto NEDOCHAN Pincrete HandThatFeeds S Marshall Emir of Wikipedia Some1 ActivelyDisinterested Nigej DanielRigal buidhe Lightoil Wjfox2005 Dobblestein Suonii180 No such user DeCausa ObserveOwl EmilySarah99 BilledMammal Jfire. Theroadislong HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I’ll just start by saying that the emotion displayed in this comment along with all the superlatives really indicates a frame of mind that isn’t appropriate for editing. It’s probably a good thing if you remove yourself from this discussion, as you seem say you will.

However, I will address some of the accusations here, for the benefit of anyone else who may have similar concerns.

The question of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is a little complicated in this case. It’s true that among people aware of Letby’s case, only a small minority doubt the conviction. However, the page WP:RSUW reads, “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.”

When it comes to the evidence presented at the trial, the experts are surely those who professionally specialise in the relevant topics. For the shift chart, that would be statisticians; for the infants’ health, neonatologists, etc. Among experts who are relevant in such ways and who have studied the evidence of the Letby case, it is far from clear that the views presented in the doubts section are fringe. Of course, there are the experts who acted as witnesses for the prosecution. But in neither professional stature nor number can they be said to be more significant than the expert doubters. There may of course be experts who have studied the evidence and ended up firmly believing in the safety of the conviction, but they are not very visible and it is hard to know their number relative to the doubters. On this point it's perhaps notable that the ‘Reactions to doubt’ section of the article doesn’t actually seem to include any such experts, but instead the opinions of columnists, the babies' families, and one of the original prosecution experts.

Given this, I think the weight given to the doubts is not all at disproportionate. They occupy one section of a long article (a section which is immediately followed by criticism) and a single sentence in the introduction.

With regards to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, I would simply say that I don’t think any of my contributions are guilty of this. If anyone can point to something they think is an example, I’ll explain my reasoning or happily change it. In my contributions to the section I have simply described the contents of media from reliable sources and quoted experts as they were quoted in those sources.

P.S. regarding the SPA accusation: anyone can see my contributions and that I've had this account since 2016 and first edited the Letby article 3 days ago. DominicRA (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like to me that section is a coatrack of cherry-picked opinions spouting conspiracy theories, which ignores the overwhelming evidence against her. I guess that's the whole point of the section though, present fringe views as though they were the mainstream view. It needs to be trimmed and pruned back to a general overview. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The section is called 'doubts about the conviction', so the opinions quoted are those of doubters; that's not "cherry-picking". As far as I'm aware, no one quoted believes there was a conspiracy. I certainly don't. If you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are reasonable doubts about some of the evidence, you should inform yourself before throwing accusations or removing legitimate content from the article. DominicRA (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently, the jury didn't have any "reasonable doubts", considering she was found guilty on seven counts each of murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm more than aware of that. But as I said in the RfC survey, we shouldn't always defer to the legal findings of any given country. There are enough doubts from credible experts that they deserve a space in the article. I'm hardly advocating they go in the opening paragraph. DominicRA (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure a completely separate section is needed at all. I would suggest the cut down details could be included in other sections, as much of what is mentioned relates to her appeals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Agree, this section needs to be trimmed or removed completely. Looks like this article has attracted POV pushers. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Abroad there have been several similar cases, especially that of Lucia de Berk. The judges, following the tabloids, thought that they were judging a monster. But after she had been convicted, experts that studied the case pointed out that it was based on thin air. There was nothing tangible that LdB could be shown to have done, and much more likely was that all deaths had been natural. In the end she was exonerated. Many details resemble those of LL. The babies. The insulin. The diary.

In the LL case experts on air embolism consider the story of the prosecution very unlikely. Experts on insulin say that the established facts do not allow any conclusion. And so on. So, while it may be true that many readers of tabloids have been convinced of the guilt of this lady, the same does not hold for the experts. And even news sources that only called her a monster earlier have long articles about doubts these days. One of the people who voted "B" above explained this vote by saying "we describe her as reliable sources do". But many RS now express serious doubt. A neutral article about LL really needs a section on Doubts. Nhart129 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The judges, following the tabloids, thought that they were judging a monster. I have not seen any evidence that suggests the legal process was subverted by tabloid reporting. You are accusing the judges of prejudice here. I would suggest that anyone making such a claim, absent some very good evidence, may not be approaching this subject from a neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting. I only claimed prejudice in the LdB case, in which case it is well-documented. Nhart129 (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Although I was not aware of any such criticism in that case either. The issue, rather, was that statistical evidence was presented that misled the judge and jury, and a circumstantial case was made against her. I can see why the particulars are comparable, but there should be no suggestion that there was prejudice caused by tabloid reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If Letby convictions are ever overturned, as the conviction of Lucia de Berk was, then the article should reflect that. But many of the doubts expressed in that section have already been raised in Letby's appeal process, so they should be integrated into those section. This will allow the issue to be put in context with how they were used by her defence, the prosecutor's response, and the details of the judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the defence, for whatever reason, did not use any of the experts. So the context you refer to is absent. Nhart129 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it could be mentioned that the defence didn't see any reason for using those points in its appeal, or that they couldn't use them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source that reports why the defence did what it did, or what their thinking was. WP must not invent or speculate. Nhart129 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To make it clearer the problem I see is that "Doubts about the conviction" is just another way of saying "Criticism about the conviction", and that WP:CRITS is applicable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. As I put it in my separate comment, this is effectively a "Criticism of..." section, which has been deprecated on Wikipedia for years due to the inherent issues they bring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. However, editors here are often very biased and every attempt at integration is reverted. My first edit on this article removed two largish fragments from the Doubts section and HouseplantHobbyist reverted immediately. So, it seems improving this article is a slow process. As long as that is the case life is easiest when all doubts are collected in the Doubts section. (Furthermore, also WP:CRITS describes a separate section as sometimes the best solution, and gives the example of Eugenics.) Nhart129 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The editors who have come across this article via RFC like myself, are citing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Our only bias is following policy. Currently the doubt section is overly long/detailed and completely undue. Nemov (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Overly long and detailed? I agree, and hoped to condense, but that is a struggle. Undue? I do not agree. Reference is to reliable sources, and the subject matter is really important in the present article. Nhart129 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• (pinged here) For reasons completely unconnected with any 'doubts' I prefer less emphasis than others on 'serial killer', the term doesn't inform IMO. If we know that she has been convicted of murdering X babies, seemingly motive-lessly, we can add whatever private term we want in our own minds. I also prefer the 'convicted of murder' to 'murderer' format for reasons wholly unconnected to doubts. It relates neutrally and factually what we know to have happened. The fact that news sources don't follow that format is immaterial IMO, they have a more sensationalist agenda. Pincrete (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree that the 'doubts' section is probably UNDUEly detailed, just as we summarise the evidence, we should summarise the doubts more succinctly.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• It is notable that I was deliberately omitted from the ping, and singled out by an editor as defending this section. Notable and wrong. I have not defended anything written here. I have consistently advocated pruning back this article to something encyclopaedic. The section now goes beyond that, and adding more guff to it just makes it worse. The doubts about the conviction are due in the article because they are widely reported, but the specifics are not. We should be summarising the reporting, not expanding on it. This is why I tried to remove the whole reactions to doubt section, but was instantly reverted. The same happens when I try to prune out primary sourced blow by blow trial reporting. This happens every time I try to prune this article, which is a time sink. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t “deliberately omit” you from the ping, you literally get involved with every talk page discussion here automatically without fail, so it wouldn’t be needed when you’re always here on this page already. What is notable is how you say you yourself are not happy with the section, yet the only bit you removed was the part that provided the views of those who don’t agree there’s been a miscarriage of justice: [58], [59]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the only one you didn't ping. so it wouldn't be needed demonstrates that was deliberate on your part. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, 'it wouldn't be needed' is merely me expressing I hadn't even thought it would be necessary. You had already read and taken note of this talk discussion well before I even did the pings, since you went to talk about the discussion on User:DeCausa's talk page: User talk:DeCausa#Letby page. Why would I need to ping you to a discussion you had already seen? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because it avoids precisely this kind of problem. Not pinging one specific person creates an appearance of impropriety, even if that was not your intention. Next time, it's best to ping everyone involved when you create a new topic just to cut off such an accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• The doubts about Letby's conviction are utterly fictional and spurious, coming from the US-based conspiracy theory factory that gave us the Charlie Gard fiasco. But don't remove the section because it's best to keep the insanity in one place, and this article is going to be a crackpot magnet, with loons constantly trying to re-add their disinformation.—S Marshall T/C 07:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The doubts are coming from several, predominantly British, investigative journalists who report the doubts expressed by several subject area experts. They are neither “spurious” nor “fictional”, and stop with the ad hominem. PerSeAnd (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have to agree with DeCausa here. This is a serious WP:DUE violation, giving too much weight to a fringe minority opinion, and not sufficiently backed by reliable sources. It needs to come out, and any reliably sourced criticism of the conviction can be worked into the prose of the article. Otherwise, this is basically a "Criticism of..." section that has been deprecated on Wikipedia for years due to exactly these problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think reality is almost the opposite. Now that the juridical process has finished, and people are no longer prohibited in giving their opinion, I see newspapers, jurists, medical doctors, statisticians, politicians and others voice the opinion that this conviction may be unsafe. Among experts it is almost a fringe position to think that the conviction is safe. Nhart129 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)