Jump to content

Talk:Lucy Letby

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nhart129 (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 19 July 2024 (talk to HouseplantHobbyist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

Please change "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." to "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016. 2603:6010:CF01:DD1:BCDB:FF02:134C:47D2 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this requirement is quite backwards in this situation? There are reliable sources referenced in the responses section which make a good case questioning the validity of the verdict. As well, other sources state that many still believe in her innocence and the possibility of a miscarriage.
The fact there's credible sources dounting her guilt means that "murdered seven infants" is the statement actively making a claim, while "was convicted of murdering seven infants" is a neutral statement. The latter doesn't even read as doubting the conviction, just not taking it as absolute certainty that she did it. 2A0A:EF40:45A:5401:6421:5F92:445B:BDAB (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request for comment on the lead sentence five months ago that settled on the current wording. Please see the link below, thank you.
→ RFC for Lead sentence
JAYFAX (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

In the May 20, 2024 issue of the New Yorker Magazine, there is an article by Rachel Aviv, called "Conviction, Did a neonatal nurse really kill seven newborns?". The article suggests that the allegations against and trial and conviction of Lucy Letby, the accused, may be faulty and based on data from which erroneous conclusions were made. My suggestion is rather than starting the bio with the characterization "murderer of seven infants" it be changed to a more ambiguous description such as "neonatal nurse accused and convicted by UK Court". Perhaps include some of the points made in the New Yorker article to leave for consideration, the possibility of other possible causes (the hospital was understaffed and mismanaged, currently they are experiencing a jump in complications in women in the post-natal unit) and also, the seeming bias toward conviction of some of the witnesses and police agency. Thank you, Karen Blume 71.212.172.63 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian - 9 July

I don't have time at the moment to write or edit anything, but this is in the Guardian today [1]. A quick reading of it didn't show me anything we have not seen before, but it may support some information that we formerly chose not to include as it was not published in a reliable source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Doubts about the conviction' section is highly biased

There's a fair bit in there about conspiracy theorists and amateur investigators, but apart from mentioning Gill and MacKenzie, there's nothing on the wealth of other people with relevant expertise who have weighed in on the case.

Two stories in leading broadsheets from both sides of the political spectrum came out this week. They quote consultant neonatologists, legal professionals, statisticians, forensic scientists, and various other highly qualified individuals. These are paid lip service in the third paragraph, but the sole quote is given to a columnist from Spiked magazine.

2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:213B:61A5:EDC4:518C (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. When I noted the Guardian article above, I meant I had no time to read it carefully and create new prose on our page, not that I had no time to mention it exists. The spiked magazine quote is odd too. We should not be just reporting opinions of columnists. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I am concurring with the argument here, not necessarily the section title. "Highly biased" is a subjective assessment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are significant issues with that section. Over half of the section is dedicated to responses from those who do not hold doubts, many of which are only tangentially related. Much of the remaining text is about her friends and colleagues and amateur sleuths, which is surely less relevant compared to the experts that have come forward in the media over the past week, including numerous eminent neonatologists.
My suggested improvements would be:
1. Have the opening paragraph refer to more relevant commentators that are named are named in the new sources
2. Par back the amount of text given to responses, a single paragraph stating that other journalists and experts still believe the convictions to be safe
3. The penultimate paragraph should probably be removed, or at least cut right back and merged into another
4. The final paragraph could also be parred back, it doesn’t need two long quotes from the barristers to get the point across
Perhaps we are not quite at this stage yet, but is it worth considering moving into its own section instead of having it buried so deep as a subsection? PerSeAnd (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think ideally the section would give equal space to the doubters and the ones who still think the conviction is safe. I don’t think there is really any issues with it how it is as it already does that, some of the quotes are a bit long but there is mention of a number of those who doubt the conviction and some detail is given to Aviv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.129.77 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very biased article

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

There was already an 'RFC' on this. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article is still very biased. Also, the number of reliable sources that express doubt increases all the time. Sooner or later, preferably sooner, the present text has to become more balanced. Nhart129 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is biased towards what reliable independent sources have said, you need to provide the sources that support your changes, otherwise it is just your personal opinion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent (today or yesterday) has a long article "Is Lucy Letby innocent? I’m a miscarriage of justice investigator – and here’s what I think...".
The Guardian, 9 Jul 2024: "Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence. Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies."
The NewYorker, 13 May 2024: "A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?"
The Telegraph, 10 Jul 2024: "Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case".
The Telegraph, 11 Jul 2024: "Letby case ‘has echoes’ of wrongly accused Canadian nurse, says expert" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhart129 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail, 13 Jul 2024: "What if Lucy Letby is innocent? Her case must be reopened as growing doubts about her conviction are raised by medical experts and criminologists".
National Review, 11 Jul 2024: "The Disturbingly Shaky Conviction of Lucy Letby"
BBC, 4 Jul 2024: "Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A471:E077:1:B62E:99FF:FE4C:71C3 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...
There are many sources that express doubt. Nhart129 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the section "Doubts about the conviction" includes many of those sources and more, The Daily Mail cannot be used for anything on Wikipedia though. Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry-picking and ignore my request: change in the first sentence the "who murdered" part into "who was convicted of murdering". WP must have a NPOV, and "who murdered" is not. If you dislike one of the six sources I mentioned, there are more. Nhart129 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For information: the lead sentence was intensively discussed in an RFC in December 2023 to January 2024. (RFCs are one of Wikipedia's formal processes for establishing community consensus, and their outcomes remain in effect indefinitely.) That discussion's now in our talk page archive at Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3#RFC on Lead sentence. NebY (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the section takes no content from any of these apart from the New Yorker, while giving half a dozen quotes to various rebuttals. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:819E:F67F:3D19:FCF3 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We try not to rehash RFC discussions every few months unless there's been a significant change in our RSs. Now that the retrial's over, UK sources would no longer be in contempt of court and are reporting or publishing doubts and challenges; this includes sources that we've already used for other content in this article. At some point we're going to have to consider again whether we should begin with "convicted of ..." (or similar) or keep the current "who murdered". Is there a good reason to wait, for example do we expect a lot more to appear in RSs soon? If not then we might open a new RFC quite soon, though it would probably be useful to briefly workshop some alternative phrasings before opening a new RFC that would fix on one. NebY (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the RFC. I think that the situation today is different. There is serious doubt, expressed in reliable sources. A NPOV cannot choose sides. So "convicted of ..." is really necessary, it is the NPOV. I cannot think of a reason to wait. This is a doubt that is not going to disappear (unless she confesses). Nhart129 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have a problem with "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." BUT Wikipedia works by consensus and until that consensus changes the wording remains as it is. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's attempting the murder of seven now, too. But otherwise that is a good starter for a possible new RfC. The RfC would need that option, and the status quo ante. Anything else? I expect that we could argue that with the completion of the retrial, and the lifting of reporting restrictions, along with the coverage it is getting, that now is a good time to revisit this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should accept that there was and might be much support for something close to the last RFC's option A. I think it was and still is essentially a choice between three options - in brief
A: serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted...
B: former nurse who murdered and attempted
C: former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting
Could we offer well-phrased versions of all three? NebY (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expect we should consider the term serial killer again. But that is almost a second question. We have "convicted" or not and "serial killer" or not. With two variables, we would need four options. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth permutation would be "serial killer and former nurse convicted of murdering". That seems a very unlikely choice but we could include it for completeness. NebY (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that one should be "convicted of the serial murder of..." or "convicted of the serial killing of..." as you are quite right, it seems an unlikely choice otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would make more sense. I'd guess it wouldn't be many editors' preference, but it's coherent and plausible, and completes the set of options. NebY (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:CONLEVEL, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". The 'wider scale' is that there was an RFC on the wording, and as Theroadislong says, until that consensus changes the wording remains as it is. The feelings of a couple of editors are not sufficient to re-open the RFC, especially when there is no consensus to do so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... how exactly would we establish a new CONLEVEL consensus if we said no one could open a new RfC? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a wide consensus that an RFC needs to be re-opened or re-started. Otherwise no RFC would ever be conclusive, and would be re-opened by editors who were not satisfied with the initial outcome. The RFC was very comprehensive and involved a large number of editors, the vast majority of whom have not been informed that the RFC may now be re-started and re-opened on the feelings of only a tiny minority of those who were involved in the RFC. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any rule that a quorum of previous participants is required to open a new RFC. There's a convention or norm (which I think is unwritten - it's not in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC) that we need circumstances to have changed, otherwise editors might call for a procedural close and trouting or worse. It does seem to me that circumstances have changed, with a swathe of fresh coverage in RSs of a sort we did not have before and a marked number of editors calling for the lead sentence to be changed in consequence of that coverage. If a new RFC is opened, I'd ping everyone who participated in the previous one including the closer, and everyone who has since come to this talk page saying the lead sentence should be changed only to be told an RFC has fixed it, and anyone else who has since argued for the current sentence or said that it's been fixed by an RFC. This would perforce exclude IP editors, and I wouldn't ping blocked or banned editors, but would put the standard notification on the talk pages of the projects listed above. I think that would be sufficient and sufficiently neutral without WP:CANVASSING. NebY (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC outlines how to restart a RFC that has not been closed. "Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed".
There would have to be a consensus that certain news coverage means that "circumstances have changed" enough to warrant a re-doing of the RFC. That is one interpretation, and we should not be getting into a situation whereby we restart an RFC every few months when there's a new Guardian or New Yorker article out. In fact, another interpretation is that Letby's guilt is actually more secure and confirmed now, considering that when the previous RFC was conducted it was before she was subsequently formally judged on two occasions that she had no arguable grounds for an appeal to be held, let alone for it be granted. She was then further convicted of another charge. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we are not the media, and we need to consider other things than just the line of certain newspapers. In legal terms, Letby is even more confirmed guilty than she was last time. Some in the media have written articles questioning the conviction, that is true, but it is debatable that this means that really "circumstances have changed" in regards to Letby. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find that There would have to be a consensus that certain news coverage means that "circumstances have changed" enough to warrant a re-doing of the RFC? That is not my experience and not a claim I remember seeing before, though I've participated in or observed quite a few. RFCs are sometimes procedurally closed if there is consensus that they're superfluous or vexatious, but we don't have to establish prior consensus that an RFC should be opened. NebY (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself said, there's a convention or norm that we need circumstances to have changed before re-opening an RFC. It is that question of whether circumstances have changed which is the point here. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper outlines that Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. Yes, there has been some news coverage which has expressed doubt of her conviction, but on the other hand, in legal terms her convictions are actually more secure now than they were last time considering her appeals hadn't been comprehensively rejected then yet. A further conviction has also been added on top of that. There has also been a fair amount of news coverage recently which has been equally sceptical of those questioning her guilt: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself said, I hope that future news about her allows us to revisit it, even if now is not the time.[10] Now you've presented evidence that this is the time. Remember, this would be an RFC that offers again the option you supported, "... serial killer and former neonatal nurse ...". NebY (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misinterpretation of what I said. I said that I hoped future news would demonstrate the need to not amplify the scope and legitimacy of doubt in a trial verdict with the opening wording. Sadly, I agree that the said 'future news' has not proved clearly that this is the time to replace it with 'serial killer', however, the 'news' has also not proved that it is the time to change it to be even less confirmatory of her guilt either. You set the criteria of circumstances needing to have changed to re-open an RFC. And my view is that they have not changed sufficiently to do so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so noted. NebY (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have an RfC about having an RfC. But maybe we should have an RfC as to whether that is an appropriate action first. :)
But this is meta now. HouseplantHobbyist, you are new to Wikipedia, aren't you? We can discuss/explain on your talk page if you like, but the general question is not relevant to this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised about this discussion. First: yes, circumstances have changed significantly. Earlier people in England could not discuss the case without risking "contempt of court". Now the case is closed and people can discuss, and it turns out that reliable sources express doubt about the safety of the conviction. That doubt should be expressed in the WP article, first of all in the lede, with "convicted of", but of course also in the section on Doubts. Right now there is a strange, non-encyplopaedic fragment of text "Some of Letby's friends and former colleagues ...", "believe in her innocence". But the matter is not whether anyone believes in her innocence, but whether the conviction was safe. Many, including a former commisioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission express doubt. So, also that section has to be rewritten (but I do not have a proposal yet). An RFC is rather superfluous. NPOV forces us to change.Nhart129 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents improvement of the body of the article, and broadly speaking that should be done before changing the lead, which (per the nutshell of WP:LEAD) should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. That would also inform an RFC on the lead sentence, which would be required to change that sentence. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise that relies upon consensus and you cannot set that consensus aside merely on your personal judgment that the text which emerged from an RFC is flawed. NebY (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no doubt you are more experienced as a Wikipedian. I was just surprised at the terrible quality of the present article. It is protected, perhaps I cannot edit it. Nhart129 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'd forgotten the article protection. There has been a lot of disruption here and elsewhere on Wikipedia over this case. NebY (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another talk page subject above about that section, where I have made some suggestions for improvements. I’m happy to have a go at rewriting it, but it would be helpful if any other editors have any comments. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far too partial. Also far too long. So, please go for short and NPOV.

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

This is NOT a forum, please present sources for any changes you want to make. Wikipedia has no interest in any of our opinions on this matter. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not so angry. PerSeAnd asks for suggestions and I give some items that one might mention under "Doubts". The article is protected, I am not editing anything. If anyone needs reliable sources for any of these statements I'll be happy to try and provide them. Nhart129 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I can edit now. Have removed two spurious (and unbalanced) fragments of text from "Doubts". Will try to slowly polish this article, making it shorter and more balanced. Nhart129 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit as a consensus has not been reached here for such a change. There may need to be certain edits dine to that section, but the change of that magnitude has not been agreed upon. 'More balanced' is also subjective. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits don't need a consensus before they are applied (unless previously reverted, when WP:ONUS applies). Bold edits are encouraged. What was the actual reason for taking these out, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have just reverted and so, as you say, ONUS now applies. I reverted it for concerns over it's balance. As previously said, WP:IMPARTIAL states that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Whether we agree or not with the views is irrelevant, we must give the views of those whatever opinions they have. There would be a bias if only the views of Letby campaigners are included, with no right of reply for others. Removing, therefore, the direct response from Dewi Evans, sourced to a perfectly reliable source in the BBC, is not appropriate. That response from him was given due prominence by the BBC. This is particularly concerning considering that Theroadislong already had to warn Nhart129 above not to use this page as a forum for expressing their own evidently pro-Letby views on the matter. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what ONUS says is:

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

In this edit [11] inclusion is already disputed above - it is just no one removed it yet. There were two edits, and the other added or changed content, but this edit was a removal of disputed content. You reverted both. Per ONUS I'll go ahead and remove it again. My reasoning is this: this is an encyclopaedic article about the subject of Lucy Letby. Dewi Evan's medical opinion at trial is directly relevant to that page subject and should be included. His claims to have received abuse online are not, however, about Letby. They are clearly tangential to the page subject, but they are not directly relevant. Likewise I do not think that speculation about why people might harbour doubt about her conviction is directly relevant to the page. It is relevant that some do, and the linked sources will link to the opinion pieces that discuss the phenomenon. But speculation by individuals, without any empirical evidence or study, would be undue. The removal was, in my opinion, a good edit.
Nhart129, could you fill in the edit summary field when making edits on the page. It will tell other editors what you intend or your reasoning for the edit, which in this case might have avoided the reversion of your edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I will also remove content which I dispute the inclusion of, per ONUS.
1) The lead section which gives undue prominence to the fact that she pled not guilty and told a disciplinary council she is innocent. The trial found her guilty and her appeals were rejected, so why is such undue prominence given to her views? Her claims of innocence can be included in the body, they should not be given such prominence in the lead.
2) The first paragraph of the 'doubts about conviction' section. This has been extensively edited in previous months to be progressively worded to be more favourable to Letby. Phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed, despite these phrases being the exact words used by the sources. This is an apparent violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources".
Per ONUS, this material should also not be re-added without consensus. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, removing disputed content is not disruption. Unless you're saying that your own removal of content, in the middle of our own dispute about ONUS, is also disruptive behaviour and an attempt to make a point? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't dispute the content, you dispute a couple of words in it and yet you removed the whole paragraph and sources. That is WP:POINTy, as is immediately removing information elsewhere in the article to make a point about ONUS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? You don't get to tell me what I do or don't think. I dispute the content, now this talk page is the place to discuss. Stop edit warring. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your rationale for removing a paragraph with multiple references, and expunging all mention of Richard Gill is because someone replaced "a small number" with "some". Haven't we been here before? How did it end for you last time? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we can try and discuss this calmly and in a conciliatory manner? Let us look at the wider picture here as I think we are maybe both guilty of getting a bit heated here. An overview:

This started when I reverted [12] a new editor's large changes and additions to a controversial article, Lucy Letby, in the middle of an ongoing talk page discussion where no consensus had yet been reached and the user had themselves been warned by User:Theroadislong to stop using the page as a forum to promote apparently pro-Letby views: Talk:Lucy Letby#Very biased article. I gave my reasonings in my edit summary and then clarified further on the talk page: [13]. Because I had mentioned the policy of WP:ONUS as explaining why the content should not be re-added, Sirfurboy then did an edit that seems a bit WP:POINTy and invoked ONUS to do his own removal of content: [14]. Bare in mind this is all while the talk page discussion is still ongoing.

Sirfurboy then reverted me when I then removed content myself which I disputed, citing WP:POINT: [15]. I reverted, reminding him that there was an ongoing talk page discussion going on on ONUS, and asked him to stop edit warring: [[16]. His response? To go onto my talk page and warn me for edit warring: [17]. Sirfurboy has therefore twice used policies which I invoked or mentioned to immediately make the case for his own new edit, which seems itself a bit WP:POINTy. In fairness I have been accused of doing this as well. I wasn't actually trying to make a WP:POINT considering we were already discussing ONUS problems with the article, but I accept if editors deem my edit here incorrect.

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

Furthermore, a procedural point: I did not "expunge all mention of Richard Gill". The Richard Gill mention is still there untouched. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to summarise the history, it is right there in the paragraphs above (with some context you omitted). If you want to discuss in a conciliatory matter, you will self revert your reverted in POINTy edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conciliatory thing to do would be to revert to before any edit which could be considered POINTy, which would include mine but also your tact use of a discussion about ONUS to simultaneously remove your own choice of content on ONUS grounds: [18]. Should you self-revert this, then I will return the favour my self-reverting my edit. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

Secretary of State for Justice (UK) should be without the (UK) 86.147.210.198 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To HouseplantHobbyist

User:HouseplantHobbyist, you act as if you own this page, and I would need your permission to change anything. I am rather new here, but still I do not think a page has an owner.

You reverted two edits of mine. Why precisely? One removed material too far removed from the topic of this page. That the lead witness received threats. I do not think that belongs here. This page has to be condensed.

The present page read something like "LL is a murderer, a monster. Some have doubts but they are amateurs and nitwits". Not precisely a NPOV. One does not have to report on fringe positions, but doubting is not a fringe position. I see David James Smith, a former commissioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission write about his doubts ("I’m a miscarriage of justice investigator"). Since he is not an amateur, and also statisticians and medical experts are not amateurs, the first sentence of the doubts section was inappropriate and I removed that. Do you insist on those "amateurs from the internet" words? You see, in order to keep the article honest the part "Doubts" should in a fair way, and well-sourced, describe the views of those who doubt.

So, I do not think you should have reverted. I only improved the page, in a rather neutral way.

You think I am biased but I am not sure why. I try to achieve a balanced article.

You remove somebody's fragment "Letby pleaded not guilty". Don't you think that in a balanced article the fact that LL claims to be innocent should be mentioned as an important item? Nhart129 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Letby&oldid=1235550799"