Jump to content

Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January, 2023

Can an adjustment be made under the "Career" section to indicate that Lucy Letby was moved "primarily" to day shifts, removing the absolute nature of the phrasing current used? Citation #12 does use language "but when Letby was put onto day shifts," Citation #15shows via the chart that the change was not absolute. Furthermore, after the last event in the indictment, Letby was asked not to come in for a scheduled night shift "On June 27, 2016, Letby messaged a doctor colleague at 5.41pm: "Eirian [Lloyd Powell, neonatal unit manager] has just phoned telling me not to come in tonight & do days instead. I asked if there was a problem & she said No, just trying to protect me a bit & we can have a chat about it tomorrow but now I'm worried."" HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit too WP:SYNTH to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for referencing that, it was helpful. I agree and retract the request. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Doubt about conviction section needs cleaning up

The "Doubt about conviction" section looks very sloppy and biased. Many independent observers have expressed quite well-reasoned doubts about the verdict, so it is misleading to suggest that the doubts have only been raised by "a small number" of Letby's "friends and former colleagues" and a few "internet sleuths". And to include a high-profile expert like Richard Gill "amongst" these "internet sleuths" makes this section look very amateur and biased. Hopefully, somebody will be able to clean it up. KitePerson (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly OK but I agree that the way it linked Gill and Mackenzie with the "true crime" people was poor. I don't think that was intentional bias, just poor wording. I've split it now.
I think it would be good add a few words to say what Gill and Mackenzie's objections actually are. I don't think it merits more than a sentence though. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. I have added in a sentence relating to Gill's concerns. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for Option C, 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.

In this discussion, the primary argument for A was that she has been convicted of serial murder and that reliable sources describe her as a serial murderer; thus there isn't an issue, NPOV or otherwise, in calling her a "serial killer" or otherwise stating in wikivoice that she has murdered many people.

The primary argument for B, meanwhile, was tangential to this; it makes it clear that in her role as a neonatal nurse she committed serial murder.

These arguments aren't contradictory. For example, buidhe, in their !vote for B, argued not because of any doubt of the convictions but because A is redundant. Similarly, Nigej, in their !vote for A, argued Superficially there's not a vast difference between them. However I dislike B because the way it's phrased might give the impression that the convictions could be unsound. Best to be clear, which A is.

As such, while there is a clear numerical majority for A, and A is not incompatible with policy, it would be a disservice to stick rigidly to the specific proposals rather than to access the specifics of the !votes and identify wording that aligns with all of those. As such, I am finding for Option C, which was raised by NebY late in the discussion and unfortunately received no discussion but addresses the concerns of most editors.

There were some dissenting arguments; editors who argued that A was a violation of NPOV because she may be innocent. However, this position received little support from !voters, and is unsupported by policy.

Similarly, some editors argued explicitly for the inclusion of the wording "serial killer" or similar, but assessing the discussion I found that most editors supporting A were more concerned with it being clear that she is a murderer, rather than explicitly - instead of implicitly, as C does - stating she is a serial killer. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Followup note: I did consider the possibility that canvassing affected the result but I am convinced that it did not; the scope was limited, and even when we exclude the two editors who participated after a talk page notification as well as non-established editors the consensus remains the same. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


Which of the following lede sentences should open the article on Lucy Letby?

A. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

B. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

Please answer A or B, with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That's what the Discussion section is for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Survey

B - WP:NPOV is core to the mission of Wikipedia. Letby has been convicted of the murder and the conviction may well be sound. If she killed the babies she is a murderer, but she has still not admitted doing so, and the legal process is not exhausted. History shows a case with many comparable particulars where it was shown years later that the nurse involved could not have carried out the murders, and that there were no murders (Lucia de Berk), and there are statisticians and academics who have raised some concerns about this conviction. Wikipedia must never take sides on these subjects, and option 2 accurately reports facts, hides nothing, gives prominence to all salient details without making a judgement in wikivoice. A court of law has found Letby guilty and she has been convicted of the murders. We don't need to say she is a murderer. That may be true. We may think it is very likely that is true, but the existence of a small doubt makes the neutral wording favourable, as nothing is lost by doing so. This is also the wording that is generally followed in reliable secondary sources (see discussion below). and also follows what editors have placed on the page itself when referring to other cases (see discussion below). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A - per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE the main reason this person is notable is for being a serial killer. Reliable sources have described Letby as a "child serial killer."[1][2][3] This isn't in dispute and I'm not sure why this RFC is even necessary. We should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF that is cited in the discussion below, but there's other stuff that supports A as well. I would actually be reword the lead to say Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others while being a nurse between June 2015 and June 2016. This person wasn't notable for being a nurse. She's notable for killing children. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

B - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I do think that identifying her as a neonatal nurse before disclosing she is a serial killer gives weight to the details surrounding the murders. Therefore I do think it's prevalent to address her as a nurse first that was convicted. Leading into her being a "British serial killer" doesn't seem to follow the purest form of natural flow. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A - I agree with Nemov, her notability is derived from her being a serial killer, otherwise there wouldn't even be an article on her. It is a significant viewpoint and should be the lead descriptor in the first sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, do you see a difference between "serial killer" and "convicted of serial murder" in that respect? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Nope. If one is convicted of serial murder, by default, that makes them a serial killer. It's the same with any serial killer, like Jeffrey Dahmer, Edward Edwards (serial killer), William Sapp (serial killer), Edward Walton (serial killer), Martha Wise etc. Just like Lucy Letby, we wouldn't have an article about them either, because their notability stems from them being a serial killer. And Letby meets the generally accepted criminological definition of a serial killer – that is, someone who commits three or more murders on separate occasions which are not for revenge or material gain. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to not describe her that way first and foremost in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway, so as you see no difference, you would presumably accept "convicted of serial murder" in place of "serial killer" as a compromise here to help us reach a consensus? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I prefer serial killer. There is no reason not to describe her that way first and foremost in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

B - I think we need to consider WP:PARTIAL here, particularly this sentence: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Yes, it is an incontrovertible fact she was convicted of a number of murders, but it is also an incontrovertible fact that that doesn't necessarily mean that she had actually murdered anyone and that an appeal is possible. And until we can incontrovertibly say that she had actually murdered those babies, I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer.

So, with respect to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, as she cannot be notable as a serial murderer as we do not know whether she actually is one, we need to fall-back to what we do know, which is that she is notable for having been convicted of serial murder. How some of the news media might choose to spin that is irrelevant as, unlike Wikipedia, even the most reliable news media has no duty to be neutral, and that where we encounter bias in sources we, per WP:YESPOV (under the "Prefer nonjudgmental language" bullet point), which says A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source, need to summarise it in an impartial tone. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Having been convicted of serial murder makes her a serial murderer. We cannot say in wikivoice that someone is a serial murderer unless they have been convicted of serial murder. Reliable sources make it abundantly clear she is notable for being a serial killer, and that is neither spin or irrelevant. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
agree with Isaidbiway. Frankly, this whole discussion is worthless, as we've been through this extensively recently. It might not be sirfurboy's preference, but it's still fine. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

B - largely for stylistic reasons, though I don't wholly disregard the NPOV considerations. I slightly take issue with those who say she is only notable for her multiple murders, actually she is notable for being a natal nurse, who (seemingly) murdered her charges. A massive amount of the coverage is about the apparent contradiction between what she was being paid, and trusted, to do and what she actually has been convicted of doing. Therefore the flow of ideas works better with B IMO. She isn't a murderess who just happened to make a living by nursing. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A - Letby is convicted and multiple reliable sources identify her as a serial killer. There is nothing of substance to the argument that "she's convicted but that doesn't mean she really murdered anyone." By that rationale, we couldn't ever refer to someone as a murderer or killer, because of the potential a court got it wrong. That is not a reasonable standard, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia: we go by what RS say, which is that she is a convicted murderer & serial killer. If a future court overturned her convictions, the article could be reverted, but per WP:CRYSTAL we are not here to speculate on that potentially happening. Identifying her as a serial killer is impartial, as that's what reliable sources have done. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, there is no question that she was 'convicted'. That isn't the problem here though, the problem here is the assumption that that means she is therefore a murderer. That is a leap of faith, and it's that that fails WP:CRYSTAL, if anything does. All we know is the opinion of a jury, nothing more. Any assumptions based on that fail WP:V and WP:NPOV. That the news media jump to that conclusion is not an excuse for Wikipedia too because the press do not know anything more than anyone else does, and are not necessarily looking for truth, they are maximising the legal sensationalism they can get out of the situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Except it's not an "assumption" nor is it CRYSTAL. We have a judgement in court that she is a murderer. That is verifiable via WP:RS. What's crystal is the bullshit "well she might not be, and it might get overturned" speculation. That falls afoul of Wikipedia's entire principles.
The only people "maximising the legal sensationalism" are the ones like you, spreading this terrible argument that we can't call a convicted murderer a murderer, on the speculation that it might not be accurate. You are trying to twist all of Wikipedia's principles into a knot to justify this stance, and it's not going to work. If you're going with the press do not know anything more than anyone else does then you're throwing WP:V out the window and you might as well go write on a blog.
Finally, you're ignoring the instructions at the top of this RFC: Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Any further posts in this section by you will be ignored. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
A - She's a serial killer. We know that she killed these children (because a jury said so after seeing the evidence); and we know how she killed them (with lethal doses of insulin, and by injecting air into their bloodstreams); and we have the highest quality sources saying these things. To deny that she's a serial killer is to deny what the sources say. She's got a Wikipedia article because, and only because, she's Britain's most prolific serial killer of children in modern history. It's important that we keep that information in the lede.
WP:CANVASS disclosure: My attention was attracted to this discussion because an IP editor posted on my talk page about it.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A - For better or worse that is what she is notable for. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A - Agree with the other comments above. She's known for her serial killings, which is why she has an article here in the first place. Some1 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A - Completely agree with S Marshall comments, also stating that someone who has been convicted of multiple murders a serial killer is in no way a NPOV issue. Waiting for the entire legal process to be exhausted in not required, only multiple independent reliable sources and that mark has been easily met. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A - Superficially there's not a vast difference between them. However I dislike B because the way it's phrased might give the impression that the convictions could be unsound. Best to be clear, which A is. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

B - Pared right down, Letby's significance to me – and I dare to think, more generally – is as a nurse who killed her charges, or at least is convicted of that. I therefore prefer B's order. I don't care what her ranking is as to number killed and we'd still have an article on her even if someone else had killed more. Whether we describe her as a murderer (or killer), convicted murderer or convicted of murder is not as significant; each is damning.

I didn't follow the case closely but I'm aware that it was extraordinarily long and in the absence of "smoking guns", demanded a lot of work from the prosecution and the jury. The jury will have been instructed to convict only on the basis of the evidence presented and only if they found it beyond reasonable doubt that she murdered or attempted murder as charged (they mostly did). WP:RSs usually treat convictions as determing the facts of the case, the UK's libel courts treat the fact of a conviction as completely adequate justification for calling someone a murderer, and we usually treat such reporting as definitive even though we know and document that convictions are sometimes overturned (although we may sometimes accept the consensus of historians that there was a miscarriage of justice even if no appeal was successful). Thus while "convicted of murder" clearly satisfies WP:V, "convicted murderer" and "murderer" also satisfy WP:V as it is normally applied. I wish there had been an option C on the lines of

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. NebY (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Leaning A. There is not much in it. The two sentences are pretty much equivalent.
A. B flows slightly better but, after reading some of the comments here, I have to lean towards A because some people see B as allowing room for doubt in her guilt. Personally I do not read it that way but the mere fact that anybody sees ambiguity in B, and advocates for it on that basis, makes me feel that it might be necessary to stick with A, even if it is very slightly clunky. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

After reading the subsequent comments, I'm firming this up to more definite support for A. B is clearly more ambiguous than I initially thought and hence is likely to confuse, mislead or under-inform at least some proportion of our readers. The more direct language of A is clearly necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

B - not because of any doubt of the convictions but because A is redundant. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

B She has been convicted, which is factual whether or not she truly committed the murders we cannot be 100% certain. Lightoil (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A – She fits the definition of serial killer, and this should come first. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

B Serial killer is using strong language and falls under WP:PUFF In a Wikipedia article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name. Dobblesteintalk 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Serial killer is neither a criticism or praise. It's a non-contentious definition for someone who commits several murders. "Serial killer" is in no way, shape, or form WP:PUFF. Nemov (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A with a note that this entire thing was pointless, as we've dealt with it recently already. Collosal waste of time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Point of order: It was not dealt with. There was a 2-2 split and my suggestion for an RfC was encouraged by the editor who supported your view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

A - per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE the only reason this person is notable is for being a serial killer. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

A per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. She has been convicted of numerous murders and she wouldn't be considered notable enough for an article otherwise. Arguments that I've seen above which seem to argue that option B should be used in case she didn't actually murder them or in case she's proven innocent later fall squarely into WP:CRYSTAL. If at a later date that happens then the language can be changed to reflect that but the phrasing of option A can be supported with reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. This entire discussion centres on whether the verdict might be wrong, which, unless it turns out to be, is clearly WP:CRYSTAL, which is exactly where we got to prior to this pointless RfC. NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Suonii180, @NEDOCHAN, as I wrote above, there is no question that she was 'convicted'. That isn't the problem here though, the problem here is the assumption that that means she is therefore a murderer. That is a leap of faith, and it is that that fails [[[WP:CRYSTAL]], if anything does. All we know is the opinion of a jury, nothing more. Any assumptions based on that fail WP:V and [[WP:NPOV]. Sure, the news media jump to that conclusion, but that isn't because the press know anything more than anyone else, or are looking for the truth, it is that they are maximising the legal sensationalism they can get out of the situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Only guilty man in Shawshank. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@DeFacto: It's not an assumption to call someone who has been legally convicted of murder a murderer. Dismissing legal proceedings and not basing her description on sources is what would make the article not neutral. That's the whole point of WP:NPOV. Suonii180 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Suonii180, not at all. NPOV says Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. That she was convicted is not contested, but whether that conviction means that she is incontrovertibly a murderer is very seriously contested. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources "seriously contesting" that's she's a serial murderer? If there are not then your argument is baffling. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Rather than replying in the survey, could this be taken to the discussion below please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A Unequivocally, she has been convicted. Any differentiation between her legal conviction and the correctness of her legal verdict is based in commentary on jury trials as a whole, and therefore outside the scope of this article, violating NPOV and stepping into WP:CRYSTAL. She is notable for her murders & attacks; that they happened in her workplace is secondary to that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) 4 January 15:05 (UTC)— HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

B, and not because of NPOV or anything, but because A is just bad writing. Lucy Letby is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse leaves the constituents disconnected, and opens the possibility that she randomly killed people on the street or at night; oh, and by the way, she was a nurse. On the other hand, Lucy Letby is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants is crystal-clear that the murders were made in the course of her work (and no, I don't agree that they happened in her workplace is secondary to that information -- on the contrary, it provides the whole context). It does not stress that she is notable because of nursing – at least not for readers with reading skills above the third-grader. No such user (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as that best reflects why she is known, as others have said. But also, B is a WP:NPOV failure, specifically WP:DUE. It doesn't give due prominence to the way which the RS overwhelmingly describe her. There's an element of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RGW to it. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment/discussion of sources - Talk page history demonstrates the term "convicted of" was accepted but an editor has objected that Letby is known, first and foremost, as a serial killer. Thus this should come first and foremost in the lead. As well as creating the neutrality issue, I don't think Letby is known first and foremost as a serial killer. Looking at sources (and this page needs to move beyond sensationalist newspaper primary sources) I searched Google scholar for WP:RS secondary sources. These are the wordings used by the first four hits on Lucy Letby and are indicative of the larger set:

  1. The dreadful reality of the Lucy Letby case is still sinking in. That a neonatal nurse was murdering babies under her care and attempting to harm more is hard to comprehend.[4]
  2. the case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering...[5]
  3. Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of seven babies[6]
  4. The case of Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse who has just been given a full life sentence for the murder of seven babies[7]

These are all from the BMJ, an impeccable source. In every case they start off with her being a neonatal nurse. Letby is known for being a nurse convicted of murdering babies in her care. The first has "was murdering", but the others are all more carefully worded. Convicted of or sentenced for the murders (and no mention of serial murder, although clearly multiple murders do meet the definition). So the treatment in reliable sources does strongly favour both a neutral wording (e.g. "convicted of") and for beginning with "neonatal nurse". I anticipate an objection that the BMJ may be predisposed to stressing the medical setting, but googling "who is Lucy Letby" shows news sources also nearly all begin with her being a nurse. E.g. first three hits:

  1. Nurse Lucy Letby has been convicted...[8]
  2. Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering babies...[9]
  3. The neonatal nurse...[10] - Second paragraph. This one is weak evidence though. The headline begins "serial killer" and the headline appears meant to be read with the text, and is not just an article hook. You could argue this one is "serial killer" first. Even so, the fact she was a nurse is clearly highly pertinent and mentioned up front.

So there is no reason not to say "neonatal nurse" up front, just as there is no reason not to say convicted of - (the latter point having now been accepted). Indeed we strongly prefer occupation first neutral wording on the page itself in the see also section (where the whole reason for selection is that these are comparable cases - implicitly demonstrating that the fact she was a nurse was a key factor here):

  • Beverley Allitt – British nurse convicted of murdering, attempting to murder and causing grievous bodily harm of infants and children in 1993
  • Benjamin Geen – British nurse convicted in 2006 of murdering two patients
  • Genene Jones – American nurse responsible for the deaths of up to 60 infants and children in her care during the 1970s and 1980s
  • Colin Norris – British nurse convicted of murdering four patients with insulin in 2008
  • Harold Shipman – British general practitioner convicted in 2000 of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 250

Genene Jones is listed as "convicted" of one count in her article, as that is all she was convicted of. The "up to 60" is speculative. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word "convicted" in crime articles, nor of occupation first, when the occupation is clearly key to the story interest. It is good summary information. They all specify nurse/GP up front, before the word "convicted". So tl;dr: Option B is the most neutral and most representative wording found in reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment - Serial Killer - Isaidnoway and Nemov, I should have pointed out that in option B, "serial murder" is wikilinked to Serial killer. There is no attempt to remove that point from the lead sentence, despite not being found in the secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    Just a handful of community consensus perennial sources reporting on the significant viewpoint that Lucy Letby is Britain's most prolific serial child killer of modern times.
    @Isaidnoway, do you think that all means that it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer, and that there is no possibility at all that her convictions could ever be overturned on appeal? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    @DeFacto It means that tons of sources call this person a serial killer and that's beyond any reasonable dispute. Nemov (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Nemov, Wikipedia fully accepts that even the most reliable sources can/will be biased - WP:BIASEDSOURCES says: ... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
    I agree that many sources are saying she is a serial killer, but they do not substantiate it other than by saying she was convicted by the court. But general knowledge tells us that courts often get it wrong, and that it might transpire that she is innocent. So we are not in a position where we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a killer - WP:WIKIVOICE says, amongst other things: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. The most we can say is that she has been convicted of these murders, but not imply that Wiki agrees with the media interpretations that she is therefore a killer, or even a murderer.
    WP:PARTIAL is relevant too, it says: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. And WP:YESPOV says: A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
    All this implies that our summary in the lead needs to use an impartial tone, and not just mimic the bias applied by the news media. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    That is an absurd argument. If you're going to say that all the media is biased, we've just thrown WP:RS out the window. Your argument does not make a lick of sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer, because she has been convicted, and reliable sources describe her that way. I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to predict the future, so my opinion on her appeal is not relevant. We leave that to subject matter experts, and I haven't seen any expert opinions claiming she has a snowball chance in hell of overturning her conviction, have you? Isaidnoway (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Isaidnoway, using that logic then, was it also incontrovertible that Barry George was a murderer? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    Apples and oranges 🍎 🍊 - Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Or Lucia de Berk? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Isaidnoway, he, as Letby, was convicted of murder in a court in England - a valid comparison therefore - so the question still stands.
    According to the OED, "Incontrovertible" means That cannot be controverted; incontestable, indisputable, indubitable. So using that definition, do you still think "it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    @DeFacto it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, for the second time, it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer. It is reliably sourced and verified with high-quality sources. In fact, it is incontrovertible that she is Britain's most prolific serial child killer of modern times. My !vote and argument for option A is based on policies and guidelines. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Please see WP:BADGER. And btw, it is also incontrovertible that whatever the outcome of this RfC is, it is absolutely, without a doubt, perfectly fine with me per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not ask me this question again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Convictions are not inherently incontrovertible. NebY (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    if the verdict is overturned, this point is relevant. If it isn't, it isn't. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for these. I will number them 1-17 per the order you list them.
    1. Yes, this is a secondary source making a case that she meets the definition of a serial killer. It is not how it introduces her though: In seeking to understand the crimes of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse who murdered seven babies in her care. The fact it has to make the case that she meets the definition of serial killer actually is against the view that she is known first for that. Rather, she is known for being the neonatal nurse who murdered babies.
    2-15. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. These are primary sources. Note that I said it was in secondary sources (the ones discussed above) that Letby is not called a serial killer. Secondary sources are also what the article should be built around (currently it is not)
    16. The Lancet is a good source, and secondary. It does call her a serial killer in the article, but again, note how it begins: Lucy Letby will spend life in prison for murdering seven infants and attempting to kill at least six others during her time as a nurse. The reason this case had public attention was that it was about a nurse killing babies.
    17. This document number returns an error for me, but as it is to the Sydney Morning Herald, it is almost certainly primary too.
    So no, secondary sources do not call her a serial killer up front. But again, there is no intention to hide that information. Option B has it wikilinked. The question is about neutrality, not about removing that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    They all have community consensus for being reliable sources, and WP:NPOV says we represent the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Letby being described as a serial killer in reliable sources, as pointed out above, is a significant viewpoint. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    So again, nothing in option B fails to represent such a view, but being reliable sources is not the same thing as being secondary sources. Primary sources can be very useful, but articles are built around secondary sources. See, for instance, WP:SECONDARY which includes:

    Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    We cannot ignore the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer, and even go as far to describe her as one of Britain's most prolific serial killers. That is notable, anyway you look at it, and to ignore that significant viewpoint means we are basically saying fuck you reliable sources, we don't care what you are reporting on this topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    How? Nothing in option B fails to represent such a view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    My !vote and argument is for option A.✦•┈๑⋅⋯𝓜𝒆𝗿𝗿𝛄 𝓒𝒉𝗿𝖏𝙨𝙩𝒎𝝰𝙨⋯⋅๑┈•✦ Isaidnoway (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    One last point. an overwhelming majority of primary sources don't call her a serial killer either. A lot do. Google "lucy letby" "serial killer" gives 117,000 hits. But "lucy letby" -"serial killer" gives 1,130,000. An order of magnitude more.
    Further comparison: "lucy letby" "nurse": 457,000 (4 times as many). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    WP:GOOGLEHITS is a terrible argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed, and this comparison is not only particularly poorly constructed (treats all hits as equal, includes hits dated before her conviction, neglects synonyms and paraphrases), it's irrelevant. Both options A and B use the term "serial". NebY (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    The Google hits are not meant as an argument for either version, especially as neither version removes mention of being a serial killer. The google analysis was particularly meant to be in response to We cannot ignore the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. The point being that there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of sources (even including primary sources) describe her thus. The majority of reliable sources do not describe her thus (but Neby's point is correct - if this analysis were to be useful it needs a lot more work). The question, though, is how the secondary sources describe her, and how an encyclopaedia with a commitment to neutrality should describe her. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Ahem. Reliable sources. This is why GOOGLEHITS is terrible, because you're also getting blogs & random other posts mixed in, so counting numbers is completely irrelevant. Analyze the sources used in the article & suggest more reliable sources if you think there's a disparity, don't just throw numbers on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, and again, my point was simply to say we have no evidence to support the statement that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. And again, and despite what ban evading user and sockpuppet User:MeltingDistrict has been placing on multiple Canvassed user's talk pages, there is no suggestion here of removing that she was a serial killer from the lead. It is right there, wikilinked from serial murder. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Sirfurboy The horse is dead please step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    my point was simply to say we have no evidence to support the statement
    Then you're not listening, because we have plenty.
    Nemov is right, this is pointless. You've made up your mind regardless, so we're not going to get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    I didn't see this digression as being about option A or B. Rather it is about the statement that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. You say Then you're not listening, because we have plenty. but that appears to be answering something else. There are, as we all agree, plenty of primary sources and certainly some secondary sources that call her a serial killer. What we have no evidence for is the quantified claim: the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. How have we ascertained and quantified this majority? How many sources do and how many don't describe her thus?
    That said, it is, as I say, a digression. I would not oppose hatting everything from (and including) my comment "one last point", where I inadvertently steered the conversation down a blind alley. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Clicking through these examples, I find many headlines and articles that lead with Letby being a nurse and continue by describing her as either convicted of killing/murder or as a killer/murderer; I hadn't tried to reach a balanced opinion on this RFC but the examples above make me lean towards B: begin with her being a nurse. NebY (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    @NebY I found 3 recent articles in my comment that just called her a serial killer. Nemov (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    Ah, there are two differences between A and B; whether to begin with nurse or with killer/murderer, and whether to describe her as convicted of murder or merely as a killer. I was considering the first difference, looking at how Isaidnoway's quotations contrasted with their sources. NebY (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment why is there a comma after "neonatal nurse" in B but not in A? It seems that the relative clause starting with "convicted of" is restricting the noun phrase "neonatal nurse", so no comma is needed. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'll edit it out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - third option NebY You say: I wish there had been an option C on the lines of
    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.     The RfC is new and has weeks to run. I would be happy for you to paste in your option C and to see if that changes any of the existing !votes, or gains a better consensus. Personally I would prefer "convicted of murdering" over "murdered" for reasons I have stated above, but that is up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    I fear it would get messy if people started adding options. An RFC can develop into successfully workshopping opening text but that's unusual and conditions may not be right here. NebY (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    @NebY After this RFC of I'd like to discuss a version of the alternative I've presented. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    If you wish. I'll park my response until then. NebY (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Crystal and the issue - In the survey a comment refers to WP:CRYSTAL and a reply there agrees (a reminder - please put replies in the discussion, not the survey). This may be the nub of disagreement here. A sockpuppet has been heavily canvassing people to this RfC (e.g., [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), claiming that option B is trying to assert that Letby is not a serial killer and that this is an attempt to expunge that from the article. Neither sentence removes mention of serial killing, but the point of sentence B is that it seeks to eliminate any need to predict the future, whereas sentence A, to my mind, either predicts that ongoing appeals will fail, or simply seeks to know something for a fact that cannot be established as absolute fact. WP:CRYSTAL states Wikipedia does not predict the future. The facts on the ground right now are that a court of law and a jury have found Letby guilty of serial murders. The appeals process is not over, but on pure numbers, anyone betting on Letby being shown to have not comitted the murders would need excellent odds to offset the likelihood they will lose all their money. But we know that in a very similar case to this, a nurse, Lucia de Berk, was shown to be innocent years after her conviction, and that the statistical evidence presented at trial was flawed, and that she had no opportunity to carry out the murders (which, in any case, were not murders). De Berk was never a murderer. It is not correct that she was a murderer until she was proven not to be. It simply was never true. She was, however, convicted of murder. It was many years before she was shown to be innicent. Sally Clark would be another famous case were statistical evidence was flawed and someone spent years in prison for a murder that never happened. Will that happen in Letby's case? Probably not. Such cases are rare. But they are possible. It would certainly be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that we should treat Letby as innocent or report the article in that manner. But it is also predicting the future to write the article in such a way that we assume she is a murderer, when she has not confessed, where there is not unidisputed evidence that murders even took place, and where the appeal on these matters remains pending. That is, option A is the option that violates WP:CRYSTAL.
And sources matter too, but there is a source discussion above. For the most part, secondary sources are more careful in their wording. Wikipedia is an encycloaedia, not a news service. It is a tertiary source, not a primary source. We should not be reporting in the same way as a news report or television documentary (and this is a problem throughout the page and not just in that sentence). I would particularly ask those who were brought here by messages on their talk pages by a sockpuppet to consider whether the misrepresentation of the issue by the sockpuppet may have swayed your view, and thus to reconsider in the light of what I say here. If not, well we can disagree, and that is fine. But please bear in mind that my intention in bringing this matter to RFC is to make the article more neutral, not less, and to avoid predicting the future, without any loss of meaning. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
A doesn't predict the future. She's a convicted serial killer. Those are facts. She is notable for being a serial killer. Your examples of convictions being overturned are just more irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF. If this conviction is overturned then the article will be changed. I wasn't brought here by any sockpuppet. It was the RFC notice. Frankly I believe this RFC should be closed or withdrawn because consensus for B isn't happening. Nemov (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe that the text of either option intrinsically violates WP:CRYSTAL but that some of the arguments being made by a few of the supporters of option B seem to be advocating for B on the basis that they think that it does, and that they wish to introduce ambiguity into the article in order to leave the door open for idle speculations of the spherical kind. That is not appropriate and speaks against option B, even if that was not the original intention of option B. Turning to specific arguments above, I don't think that confession makes any difference either way. Innocent people have frequently confessed to crimes (commonly but not always in coercive situations) and the guilty very often fail to acknowledge their guilt. As for the sockpuppetry/canvassing, is there any reason to believe that they have successfully influenced !voting here? Over on the ANI thread there was a comment that this "would benefit from uninvolved eyes on it" and that is what brought me here. I suspect that this had more effect in bringing people here than the hamfisted attempts at canvassing. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. On the ANI thread, the summary given by another editor matched the summary placed on that user's talk page by the sockpuppet, but not the summary of the argument here. Inasmuch as that summary placed on the ANI thread was therefore influenced by the sockpuppet, there is an argument that it was the sockpuppet's argument, amplified by the reputation of the one who repeated it, that influenced those who came here from the ANI thread. On the other hand, experienced editors may well have come to a determination despite the machinations of the sockpuppet, so I am certainly not suggesting you were influenced by that. If you saw the source analysis above and simply came to a different view, then that is exactly what an RfC discussion is for. As to what some people want to do with options A or B, I take your point about B, but you might want to consider that the sockpuppet's stated purpose in pushing A is also about making something more out of it than any good faith editor is intending.[17]
To Nemov: OTHERSTUFF is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (don't delete my article, we have other stuff like it). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Please review WP:OTHERCONTENT which is mentioned. Nemov (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Which says The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page which is not the point of mentioning De Berk and Clark. The point is not the content of the pages, but the fact that we know that criminal cases built on statistical arguments have led to miscarriages of justice. A fact recognised by the Royal Statistical Society, who published a report, Healthcare serial killer or coincidence? Statistical issues in investigation of medical misconduct [18]. Also pertinent is that one of that report's authors as well as a KC have questioned the use of statistical evidence in this case, claiming the report's recommendations were not followed. Although this is the wrong place to rehearse the arguments concerned, and certainly the wrong place to express any advocacy, it is nevertheless the case that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, should carefully and neutrally report facts and avoid interpretations. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Either way, your point is irrelevant to this article. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
"The appeals process is not over, but on pure numbers, anyone betting on Letby being shown to have not comitted the murders would need excellent odds to offset the likelihood they will lose all their money. But we know that in a very similar case to this..."
But you give yourself away here, you want the language to reflect a possible future outcome rather than the current reality. The appeals process is not over, in fact there is no indication that it will ever actually begin. The current legal state defines her as a serial killer, and that is what makes her notable. In any case, Lucia de Berk is not referred to as a former nurse, but as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. These individuals are notable for the outcomes of their trials HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations for making it to this discussion on your very first edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome, though it feels rather close to an ad hominem in violation of WP:BITE, since you haven't addressed the content of my comment. And while I have much to learn about Wikipedia, I do have a thorough knowledge of this topic, so what better way to begin helping on this platform when I find an active conversation I can contribute value to?
WP:CRYSTAL says that future events should be included only if the event is notable *and almost certain to take place.* We have no indication that Letby's application to appeal will be granted which is far from the standard required.
Your argument here "But it is also predicting the future to write the article in such a way that we assume she is a murderer, when she has not confessed, where there is not unidisputed evidence that murders even took place, and where the appeal on these matters remains pending. That is, option A is the option that violates" does go into WP:CRYSTAL territoy by opining, without supporting, that there are expected events almost certain to take place. She has applied for permission to appeal, that appeal on the odds is likely to be denied (refer here to Ben Geen's multiple rejected applications to appeal, including three directly to the CCRC) and so treating her appeal as pending an overall change in her verdicts is beyond premature. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial killer vs. murderer

Thanks BilledMammal for closing the discussion. There was some talk of rewording the lead sentence after this RFC was closed. I do have one suggestion if there's consensus to do so and that's to replace 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. with Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others while working as neonatal nurse between June 2015 and June 2016. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe her as a serial killer so that should be mentioned in the lead. Her being a nurse is secondary. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this should be OK to just implement. My only comment is that the dates might be better moved to the middle i.e. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016 while working as neonatal nurse. Either way, I don't think this is a significant enough change that it would require another RfC. Maybe just give whichever version you prefer a go and see if anybody objects? DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The issue with your proposed wording (Option D) is it runs against some of the arguments presented against A; it de-emphasis, although to a lesser degree, the relationship between her role as a nurse and the murders she committed, and it re-introduces the redundancy that some editors were concerned about.
That, combined with the lack of consensus to explicitly include "serial killer" I find it is less supported than Option C, though I don't see it as clearly against the RfC consensus; I suggest that editors discuss it informally here, and if there is clear agreement that D is more suitable than C then switch to it; otherwise, remain with C. If you're not certain whether there is clear agreement, please ping me again and I'll be happy to assess in the context of the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Although some people stated in the RfC that "reliable sources overwhelmingly describe her as a serial killer," I do not see that in the source analysis which showed that secondary sources very often did not call her a serial killer, and assertions that the sources overwhelmingly described her this way were not evidenced. So no, let's stick with C. Thanks to BilledMammal for your work in closing this RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to religitate the RFC, but reliable sources most definitely describe her[19] as[20] a[21] serial killer[22]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
That is uncontroversial. What was not evidenced was "overwhelmingly". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I think any google search reveals she is habitually referred to as a serial killer in the RS. Here's searches for "Lucy Letby" on the BBC and Guardian websites.[23][24]. I've only spotted one article where she isn't described as a serial killer. But I agree it's a shame this wasn't gone into more detail in the RfC. I think not naming her in the opening as a serial killer when the RS do so overwhelmingly is, in my view, a significant NPOV problem. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
My first comment, at the start of the discussion, looked at that. Secondary sources do not overwhelmingly refer to her as a serial killer, and looking how she is described in all sources shows her called a serial killer often, but also child killer, baby killer/murderer, convicted of murdering/killing etc., and the one description that really is overwhelming used is "nurse/former nurse". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"Nurse/former nurse" is a red herring in the sense that the issue is how to capture her criminality which is why she has notoriety. I don't understand your point about your first comment in the discussion. I don't see where that is addressed. RS not describing her as a serial killer is a rarity. I gave the searches of the BBC and Guardian websites as an example. It's not that they have used the term "serial killer" that is significant. It's that every time they run an article about her to date (unaffected by appeals etc) as a matter of course that's what they call her. To my mind (others may differ), those two sources are gold standard UK RS and notably non-sensationalist. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The question was how to open the article. The article has thousands of words capturing her criminality, but on the question of whether she is notable for being a serial killer or whether she is notable a a nurse who killed babies, that is a greyer issue. Newspaper accounts are primary sources. In my comment of 11:12 22 December I looked at what secondary sources were saying, and how they introduced the subject. I also took a look at how primary sources introduced the subject, which, of course, is not the same as saying it has "serial killer" somewhere in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. This is how the last 6 articles (since September) published by the BBC on Lucy Letby are introduced:
The other RS I have looked at take a similar approach. As matter of course, RS predominantly introduce her as a serial killer when writing about her. It's a serious WP:NPOV failure for us not to reflect that. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We should be following secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen that you claim that BMJ and the Lancet are the secondary sources that we should restrict ourselves to. I think that's very dubious. On the specific question of whether Letby should be described as a "serial killer" I don't see that they are any less primary than news reporting. Additionally, when the BBC or the Guardian are reporting on subsequent events in the case it's equally questionable whether they remain primary in relation to the "serial killer" descriptor. Ultimately, it's a highly novel and impracticable position in WP to say that high quality news coverage such as the BBC or the Guardian should not be reflected in articles covering recent events. The question. of secondary v primary is only going to truly arise when genuine academic articles discussing the criminology or psychology of what Letby has done are eventually published. we're nowhere near that. The BBC and the Guardian et al is what we should be following in the meantime. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy and @DeCausa this is getting a bit off topic and isn't central to the discussion about phrasing moving forward. Sirfurboy, many of the arguments your making here weren't supported in the close so it's best to quit beating the dead horse. Nemov (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a curious comment. The inclusion or not of "serial killer" is what you appear to be discussing with another editor below. The RfC closed with the omission of serial killer. that's what I've been discussing with Sirfurboy. If anything, it would be me that WP:DROPTHESTICK could be directed at. DeCausa (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I should have been clearer, it's the who "secondary sources" argument which you countered very well. Nemov (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Except I did not say we should restrict ourselves only to the BMJ. I said that we should be following what secondary sources say because this article should be encyclopaedic in tone and not read like a newspaper report. So yes, I agree that a problem we have is that we have few secondary sources to work with, but that does not alter the fact that we should be following secondary and not primary sources. Articles analysing the Letby case within a debate over NHS blame culture are secondary with respect to the Letby case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal My only comment here is that the status quo version was "serial killer" and the two options in the RFC were "serial killer" and "serial murderer." There certainly was no consensus here to remove "serial" from the lead. Had that been an option would have strongly opposed since that's how she's described over and over in reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I voted A but am happy with C. The "serial" word is not a big issue for me, when the text makes that perfectly clear (i.e. seven infants). Nigej (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the decision smacks of a Supervote to me. "Option C" was never actually an option proposed, it was I wish there had been an option C on the lines of.

That said, I'm not willing to challenge the close. I just think it was a bad idea for the closer to unilaterally decide on a compromise that wasn't actually part of the RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I agree with this, especially since in the discussion when option C was first proposed, it was implicitly agreed by participants that the discussion had advanced far enough that new options would only confuse. This influenced my response to the survey as considering that option to be not worth mentioning. It's like we agreed to the rules of engagement but now find that they didn't apply.
I feel like this ruling gives some ground to what appears to be a fairly concerted effort to amplify, beyond its actual real-world proportion, the scope and legitimacy of doubt in a trial verdict that crosses the line into WP:RGW. I hope that future news about her allows us to revisit it, even if now is not the time. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I presented the C text to make my reasoning clear; I did not "propose" it and it was my explicit choice not to add it as a formal Option C. I did not draft it out of any desire to amplify whatever doubt there may be about that verdict. I have no interest in that doubt, remain sceptical that it is widely shared (despite Gill's claims) and find myself quite affronted at any intimation that I was participating in any concerted effort to cast or amplify such doubt. NebY (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I did not intend to implicate you, as author of the statement, in the larger effort I am perceiving. I am sorry I did not make that clear. I agree with your skepticism that doubt on the verdicts is widely shared. My opinion is that the article as a whole gives far too much deference to Gill's opinion as it is, given his efforts at CANVASSING and clear lack of NPOV in public statements made on his own blog and social media accounts, and that selecting the statement you authored has the unfortunate consequence of moving the needle further away from NPOV. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not blaming you at all, NebY. You did nothing wrong here, and went out of your way to make it clear the RfC was too far along for a new option. Which is why I was surprised the closer did it anyway. Not your fault. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good close by BilledMammal. It correctly weights the most persuasive policy-based arguments on both sides and reaches a reasonable compromise wording. I didn't comment in the RFC but I support Option C. I don't believe there is any policy that mandates a particular choice between "serial killer", "serial murderer", "killed", or "convicted of killing". The decision therefore comes down to editorial choice about how to write the most effective opening sentence. The redundancy of serial killer... convicted of the murder is avoidable, whereas former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants encapsulates the relationship between her occupation and the murders in a clear and succinct way. That connection is the essence of what makes her notable and is consistent with how the majority of sources introduce Letby. If we're going to wordsmith any further, I would not be opposed working in "under her care" at some point in the sentence, probably after "murdered seven infants", just to make it 100% clear. I don't agree that the outcome concedes ground to those that would like to place more weight on the possibility of a wrongful conviction. As noted in the closing statement, there isn't an issue, NPOV or otherwise, in calling her a "serial killer" or otherwise stating in wikivoice that she has murdered many people. Jfire (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So something like Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former nurse who murdered seven infants while under her care between June 2015 and June 2016. I removed the attempted murders since the crimes are explained in further detail later in the article. Nemov (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
My preference would be Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former nurse who murdered seven infants under her care between June 2015 and June 2016. The differences from your formulation are a) omit "serial killer" as redundant and per the RFC result, and b) omit "while", which would lead to a nonsensical parse as ((Letby murdered seven infants) (while under her care)), whereas the intended parse is (Letby murdered (seven infants under her care)). I am fine with moving attempted murders out of the opening sentence. Jfire (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
To avoid redundancy it could be worded Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former nurse and serial killer of seven infants under her care between June 2015 and June 2016.. Nemov (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I hesitate to continue this thread, because I think we're at risk of re-litigating the RFC, which was closed with what can be viewed as a compromise: omitting "serial killer" but also omitting "convicted of" – instead stating directly that Letby... murdered. (Note that both the A and B options included "convicted of", while all option C-derived wordings omit it.) That said, I think that adding the conjunction "and" weakens the connection between Letby's occupation and the murders, which I maintain is more essential to her notability than her status as a serial murderer, and that "serial" is still redundant, because it is implied by murdered seven infants... between June 2015 and June 2016 that the murders were serial. Jfire (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be 100% opposed to using the phrase "serial killer" even when I have addressed your concerns about redundancy. I disagree with your argument about notability as the New York Times, The Guardian, and BBC and many other sources refer to her as a serial killer first. We have NPOV issue if "serial killer" is omitted. This isn't a challenge to the close since there is no consensus to remove it from the lead. Nemov (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for not making this clear: I'm definitely not opposed to using "serial killer" (or some other variant with the word "serial") elsewhere in the lead. I'm just trying to wordsmith the absolute best possible opening sentence, and support what I perceived as an attempt by the RFC's closer to finesse an acceptable consensus. Jfire (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more... would something like this be acceptable? Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants under her care and attempted the murder of six others, making her one of the most prolific serial killers of children in modern British history. Jfire (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'll back off for now since I've said quite enough. I'm flexible on the wording after Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer... for the reasons I've already mentioned. Leading with "nurse" makes it seem (to me at least) that she's more notable for being a nurse. Nemov (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jfire Your version is an improvement over the option endorsed by the closer. I think we can move forward with that and close this for good. Thanks Nemov (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
No, that text does not have consensus. NebY (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Great, so please give us your objection since I was the only one who objected. Nemov (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
A discussion between two editors cannot overturn the close of an RFC., one of Wikipedia's key processes for determining consensus. NebY (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question and this editor's suggestion doesn't overturn the close they endorsed BTW. Nemov (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
My objection is that such a discussion cannot overturn the close of an RFC, one of Wikipedia's key processes for determining consensus. Whether a suggestion comes from someone who endorsed the close is irrelevant. NebY (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Before I ping the closer, how does this overturn the close as outlined by their comments above? Nemov (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal wrote, after closing, "if there is clear agreement that D is more suitable than C then switch to it; otherwise, remain with C." Not only does this small discussion not come anywhere close to demonstrating clear agreement among the participants in the RFC, it's not a discussion of D. NebY (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for replying so you've offered no specific objection other than you object. Got it. Nemov (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a very disingenuous reading. NebY's objection is sound, the RfC was closed as C and that's what we should be implementing, not something wholly new. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This isn't "wholly new" and is a clarification of the lead. As you mentioned there never was a discussion for C and it changes one part of the lead significantly. The closer has stated serial killer can be added back and we're discussing how to do it. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The closer shouldn't be making those calls, especially when they skipped the RfC options to decide on a third choice. But I'm tired of banging my head against this wall, so I'm unwatching the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It would be a waste of time - mine, yours and anyone else's - to offer any other objection at this point. This is fundamental. NebY (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe there's confusion here, I wasn't endorsing using Jfire's in the article without further discussion. I was going to present it below in a new section for comment. Nemov (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you're not proposing to use that text without further discussion. Are you going to open a new RFC? NebY (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think that's necessary. I'll present below and ping those who discussed here. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean that you will ping all those who participated in the RFC to participate in a continued discussion of it and will then ask BilledMammal to close that continued discussion? NebY (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm good either way. if there's not a clear consensus we should be able to decide that, but whatever you want is fine with me. Nemov (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
"We" do not get to overturn the close of the RFC. NebY (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If you're not certain whether there is clear agreement, please ping me again. I think that's clear enough. Ping him if you disagree there's clear agreement. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
preposterous closure that settles on an option that was never on the table. Utterly farcical and needs admin attention.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 4

After the discussion above here's option 4 for the lead presented by Jfire. - Thanks Nemov (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants under her care and attempted the murder of six others, making her one of the most prolific serial killers of children in modern British history.

@Sirfurboy, MaximusEditor, No such user, Isaidnoway, ActivelyDisinterested, Some1, Emir of Wikipedia, S Marshall, HandThatFeeds, Pincrete, DeCausa, No such user, HouseplantHobbyist, Suonii180, Theroadislong, NEDOCHAN, Dobblestein, Lightoil, Buidhe, DanielRigal, NebY, and Nigej: This is a courtesy ping for those who participated in the RFC. Please review the above close and following discussion about Option 4. Comment below:

Support

  • This is a clearler lead than the two that were discussed and the third that was endorsed by the closer. I believe serial killer should receive more weight, but I understand that her being a nurse is a key detail in the killings. This version satisfies the context and the reliably sourced coverage of the person. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as author of this variant. Compared to the formulation that was selected by the closer of the RFC, this formulation omits the timespan of the murders (for brevity -- it can be elaborated further on in the lead and is not essential for the opening sentence), and adds an additional clause. Regarding the added clause, I believe editors in the RFC, particularly Isaidnoway, made a strong case that the significant number of reliable sources referring to the prolificacy of the killings makes that an important aspect of Letby's notability. The opening of the sentence encapsulates the relationship between her occupation and the murders in a clear and succinct way, following the RFC consensus, which concluded that it was important to make clear that in her role as a neonatal nurse she committed serial murder. I think an opening sentence that incorporates both these aspects of Letby's notability is best, and that this sentence construction in particular improves on prior proposals in a way that is consistent with the consensus from the RFC as closed by BilledMammal. Jfire (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Given the comments below including by the drafter of this text, it may be superfluous to argue here too and I may even be wrong to perpetuate a discussion that could otherwise rest, but I wouldn't like to leave the impression it can proceed nem con. So,

  • Oppose for several reasons. It's redundant; we've already made it clear that as a neonatal nurse she murdered seven infants under her care and attempted the murder of six others; we don't need to immediately make "clear that in her role as a neonatal nurse she committed serial murder". We go into her ranking as a serial killer in the third paragraph of the lead; the entire lead of a Wikipedia article stands as a summary of the body of the article, it doesn't begin with a summary of the summary or seek to establish notability in the first sentence. Per WP:LEAD, "In Wikipedia, the lead section ... is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph; news sources may help their listeners or readers remember who they're talking about with an opening "Serial killer Lucy Letby" but that is not our role, task or situation. (Nor are we here to tell our readers how to feel or to satisfy ourselves that we've performed a moral duty by repeatedly castigating, despite the canvassing on- and off-Wikipedia by someone who launched the most venomous attack I have ever seen on this site.[25]) The disputes above as to usage in WP:RS news sources are also beside the point in that we write Wikipedia in our own words; to give a banal example which nevertheless generated even more heat than we've seen here, we don't give footballers' heights in metric or imperial according to our choice of source, and we don't follow the phrasing of news reports either. NebY (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Procedural close. I think this will need a new RfC or at least better workshopping. I have my own issues with option C that removes the words "convicted of". If we are to relitigate this again so soon, there are more options, or perhaps there is a better single option that would gain a broad consensus. I would suggest reading the views of editors expressed in the RfC carefully and consider what text would be most likely to find a consensus. Or, we could just leave it a month or two and then come back and talk about it again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You would need a complete overturn of the close to add "convicted of" as the closer stated There were some dissenting arguments; editors who argued that A was a violation of NPOV because she may be innocent. However, this position received little support from !voters, and is unsupported by policy. So a new RFC on those grounds so soon after the close is dead on arrival. Nemov (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not seeking to overturn the RfC. Neither do I think the lead should be frozen forever by an RfC outcome. But I do think that it is premature to simply start voting on a new formulation. Note that "convicted of" was in both A and B. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the argument that we should let the matter sit for a while, letting the wording from the RFC closure stand for now. Happy to accept a consensus to that effect. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review for RFC at Talk:Lucy Letby which I hope may result in uninvolved guidance on how we may best proceed. NebY (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@NebY I asked you several times above for specific feedback on the wording, which you never gave, then you created a pointless AN... You could have saved a lot of time just saying you opposed the wording. Nemov (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

HMP Bronzefield near Ashford, Surrey. Lucy letby new prison 2A00:23C6:806:4901:DC9C:E81:9A0D:FF2B (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you point me to the source for that, and then I can get that updated. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sentence needs rewording

In the introduction paragraphs it says “Letby pleaded not guilty at her trial and told a subsequent Nursing and Midwifery Councildisciplinary panel that she is innocent. An application to appeal her conviction was refused in January 2024 and she faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. ”. This needs to be reworded as it gives the impression that the retrial is related to her claims of innocence, as if she has won the right to a new trial for a previous conviction on appeal, when in actual fact it is a retrial on an additional charge that hadn’t been agreed on before by a jury. It needs clarifying that it is a retrial that may lead to a further conviction on top of the others, not a retrial to tell if her existing convictions really are sound. 78.25.220.227 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

possibly - I'll tweak to clarify. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Change currently imprinted at HMP low Newton to HMP BRONZEFIELD 2A02:C7E:311E:5400:3009:D811:C467:2378 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NebY (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 Done reliable source found[26], infobox edited with "as of January 2024". NebY (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Letby/Archive_3&oldid=1224028623"