Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Why add the tags?

Most of the information is cited and multiple times. This is a huge news story in the UK. It's not undue. Nor are any of the sources primary. Phil of rel (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The problem with that is that the tag is unresolvable as it stands, since all of the sources in existence are primary news. We tag pages so we can fix problems - but when no secondary sources exist, are we just going to keep it tagged forever? What is gained from tagging it for maintenance to be resolved when it cannot be resolved? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources exist. Documentaries are secondary sources, and a book is coming out in 22 days. And on a BLP there is an excellent question as to whether we should have an encyclopaedic article as extensive as this if there are not secondary sources. It may suggest a synthesis by article writers. We are writing the tertiary source. Is it WP:TOOSOON to do so if no one has yet written the history? An interesting but moot question as we have documentaries and very soon will have published books. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy If we were being consistent policy wise vis a vis primary/secondary/tertiary we would ban writing articles on anything that happened less than 20 years ago. This article shouldn't even exist given that. The documentaries are poor sources for other reasons, and the book does not yet exist for our purposes. It's just stupid tagging something we cannot fix! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We can fix it. It is just that, despite the convention for calling us editors here on Wikipedia, we are loathe to do what is necessary to actually be editors. There are approaching 8,000 words in this article. It is huge, and over detailed. We already have sufficient secondary sources for a tertiary article. The Lucia de Berk article is about 2,000 words (with an advantage of multiple secondary sources). This one is 4 times the length because we have blow by blow newspaper sourced trial reporting and now blow by blow doubts too. We could get rid of all the X questioned Y's evidence and all the Z spoke about being harassed after the trial and so much more. We don't need all this detail, all sourced to newspapers. It can go. Editing in the real world involves lots and lots of cutting, but on Wikipedia if you cut then someone just puts it back. But if we did cut out all the torturous detail, the article would be a readable length, more salient and we could reduce nearly all the primary sources, because we could use existing secondary sources (or secondary information in primary sources, of which we have some) to support an encyclopaedic summary style article of the subject. And then, yes, the tag would be resolved. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The Lucia de Berk case is merely a start class article, and is neither comprehensive nor broad, if anything much worse than this one.

I actually do agree with you on the over detailed bit, but your proposed solution is "we nuke half the article" which I think will never find consensus and I think that's more a symptom than the cause. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s doesn’t seem obvious that the articles used in the doubts section actually are primary. This interpretation seems to depend on whether the event is the trial or the expression of opinion itself. If the trial is the event, the articles clearly fit this definition: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event

But even if they are primary, policy states:

Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense and a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere. And quite explicitly, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources.

And please don’t imply a SYNTH accusation without backing it up:

If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.

Considering just how poorly written the rest of the article is, it’s quite annoying that the doubts section receives all the flak. Realistically I think the reason for this is that many people just unreasonably believe it’s tasteless to acknowledge controversy about such an emotionally charged set of convictions. DominicRA (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The doubts section is over 2200 words in length, and contains 47 in text citations, of which 45 are to newspapers or TV news. Now you can probably make a case that some of the cited information in the newspaper articles is secondary - particularly where there is some analysis concerned - but as a broad rule of thumb, these are reporting news, which is a primary source. I have already mentioned WP:PRIMARYNEWS above. An example:

Letby hadn’t been on shift since the birth of child C when an X-ray of the infant that was heavily discussed by the prosecution was taken. Shortly after the broadcast of a File on 4 programme that discussed this case, Dewi Evans, who served as the prosecution's lead expert witness, said that he no longer agrees with the prosecution’s account of how the infant died, but instead claimed that Letby had killed him via another method.

This is sourced to a BBC news article (first sentence) and a Telegraph article (second). Is this due in an encyclopaedic article? Guilt or innocence is determined by a court of law, not by journalists nor public opinion. It is for the courts to make a determination on the relevance of the changed opinion. But it is, in fact, something that newspapers should be reporting. They are reporting questions, and there is a role for that. I suppose that a secondary source could forensically gather the strands of evidence and analyse the case, but such analysis involves synthesis. This is exactly what someone doing original research should be doing. But not us. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: a tertiary source. We don't do original research. So what we have here is not encyclopaedic. These two sentences, taken together, cast doubt on Evans' testimony, by inviting the reader to recognise that - having had his original theory disproven - he changed his opinion. Does it go beyond the sources? Well no, perhaps not. The Telegraph article, in particular, focuses on Evans' changed opinion, explaining that he changed tack after it became clear Letby was not there. So we are not going beyond the source, but we are using a discursive primary source, and we have a duty to analyse it critically, or else to use the analysis of someone who has analysed it critically. Are they trying to sell a narrative here? Are we? To what extent have we changed the narrative of the primary source, and why?

If we just follow the reporting cycle we end up with a hotchpotch of facts, some for, some against. Which facts are in the public eye are the responsibility of the news editors, and we are just following them and placing everything in our article. We are not shaping the article we want to write - it is reactive to what primary sources are saying. We are not just presenting what is known - we are raising a series of questions as to what is unknown and inviting the reader to fill in the gaps. There are places for this, but those places are not in an encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this due in an encyclopaedic article? Yes. There are widespread doubts about the convictions coming from reputatable sources and the lead prosecution expert disavowing the prosecution's narrative about a charge at the trial is patently relevant, of interest and worthy of inclusion.

Guilt or innocence is determined by a court of law, not by journalists nor public opinion. Guilt or innocence is a matter of fact; legal findings are not synonymous with facts and clearly sometimes differ sharply from them. Anyway, this article makes no claim either way.

a secondary source could forensically gather the strands of evidence and analyse the case ... But not us. This article doesn't analyse. It reports the clearly relevant facts and the views of those with expertise or who have otherwise done investigations in reputable publications.

I am perfectly aware that sources can have their biases. The section includes the plain facts of what happened re Evans' changed view because it is obviously relevant and of interest to the ongoing controversy, not simply because it was reported.

If we just follow the reporting cycle... That's not what the article does. Some of the discussion in the media merits inclusion, some doesn't. The views of some relevant experts are included because we should include non-fringe expert views. Points coming from analyses in journalistic investigations in reputable sources seem to also be worthy of inclusion, particularly when those investigations have had clear impact (i.e. New Yorker piece). And points of fact with blindingly obvious relevance (CPS confirming false data was used at 1st trial, expert witness changing his mind) also deserve inclusion. On the other hand, opinion pieces from non-experts do not. Nor does unfounded speculation (from anyone). Nor do countless facts with less obvious or uncertain relevance. It's just not true that the article is simply reactive.

We are not just presenting what is known - we are raising a series of questions as to what is unknown We are actually just presenting facts. Of course the facts might lead readers to ask questions, but that's the nature of a controversial topic. It makes no sense to exclude some facts just to avoid the audience being left with questions. DominicRA (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Determination of WP:UNDUE should be per RS

I'm a complete outsider to this topic who came to Talk because I was surprised to find a WP:BLP article that unequivocally referred to the subject as a murderer despite extensive news media coverage of doubts about her guilt. What then surprised me more was to find many recent opinions from editors arguing that the Doubts section as a whole consists of WP:FRINGE, despite copious examples provided of WP:RS judging the doubts to be credible.

WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It seems to me that the editors here who are against including the "doubts" section or replacing "murderer" with "convicted of murder" in the lead are not at all deferring to WP:RS.

GeoEvan (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of people think WP:CRIT is policy when it isn't.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Even with the essay itself, it's worth pointing out that it simply argues that integrating criticism throughout the article is "often" the best approach - not always.

PaintTrash (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this case and more of a drive-by comment here as I was curious to see Wikipedia's take on this. I have to say I'm more surprised in the other direction, that we are giving so much coverage to these theories about the unsafeness of the conviction. The "Doubts" section does not appear compliant with WP:UNDUE, because it cites only journalistic sources - no academic, scholarly or other independent expert secondary sourcing is present in that section and there is ample such if one does a search. Per the NPOV policy, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". My sense is that (and again, I'm not claiming to be an expert in this) the overall consensus amongst medical and legal experts is that the conviction is indeed safe, and there isn't really a reasonable significant doubt about the matter... As such, I'd suggest removing the "Doubts" section altogether, as it leaves the reader with a false sense of the RS balance on this. But it appears there's a consensus on this talk page for it to remain, so it's not something I'm about to fight an uphill battle about, I have enough things to worry about already!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My sense is that [...] the overall consensus amongst medical and legal experts is that the conviction is indeed safe — See, that's the issue for me: I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that interview, poll, or survey a non-trivial number of subject-matter experts. Right now, I'm finding it quite hard to tell where general expert opinion lies... I've seen a number of medical and legal experts express concerns regarding evidence introduced during the trial, which would make me question any assumptions about expert consensus. (I'll add the disclaimer that I'm far less familiar with the Letby case than many others here, so I could very well be incorrect in doubting whether such a consensus exists.) GhostOfNoMeme 17:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru even if you don't want to get deep into this, could you point us towards the ample such if one does a search, if only by rerunning your search and posting the link to a page of results? It's an unusual request, I know, but while various newspapers and other media outlets have interviewed and quoted experts in good standing, I find hardly any independent scholarly/expert work published and that is a problem for this article. There is some, such as BMJ articles about the consequences of the convictions for hospital culture, management and governance, which looks to me to be constructive for UK health practices but not so much use for this BLP. Those are based on a straightforward acceptance of the verdicts in the first trial, and until July 2024 that's all we could expect to be published, which is another problem. It was only when Letby's retrial ended in July 2024 that reporting restrictions were lifted; until then it would have been in contempt of court to publish in the UK any critical assessment of the evidence. (Even the three judges hearing Letby's request for permission to appeal didn't allow the details of the request or their own decision on it to be published.) Now that the evidence can be assessed, we're seeing a lot from a wide variety of experts, but so far all I've seen is in journalistic sources such as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, Economist, Times. So if your searches are showing independent expert secondary sourcing that's likewise free of the sub judice restrictions, that would be very welcome. NebY (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: thanks for the message, and perhaps it might turn out that I've overstated the case on that one... the search I ran was at PubMed, [1] and as it turns out eight results came up (I actually thought it was more than that earlier). I don't have access to them myself, so don't really know what they say, but it gave me the notion that there's at least some scholarly information on this out there. So I don't know what the true situation is, and I'm wary of getting drawn too deeply into this debate - the juxtaposition of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV concerns make this a minefield, certainly! So in terms of RS and NPOV, I probably can't offer much more, but I do think we should try to be as exhaustive as we can in choosing sources.

As an aside, and I'm going off-topic here because this is only a theory, it's possible scholars don't feel they have very much to add to the matter, given how thorough the evidence presented at the trials and appeals has been. If we look at the article at [2] (not an uber RS, but it gives a perspective), the author says "those of us who accept the verdicts see little point in challenging claims that have already been rejected by the courts, but perhaps we should". And the court output is very thorough. Obviously this is a primary source, and not admissible in the context of this article, but a read of the court of appeal decision at [3] suggests (to me at least) that the evidence used to convict Letby was very compelling, and that the journalistic articles questioning aspects of it aren't really factoring in the full range of data that was considered by the jury. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Aha, I'd not tried a Pubmed search - thank you. Wikipedia Library's giving me access, except that two BMJ ones were removed for legal reasons in October 2023 (between trials, and one titled Thinking the unthinkable on Lucy Letby); there are short news pieces, longer ones about future hospital practice, and one about better use of statistics in future. That Spiked article is indeed a passionate overview of the evidence but the author as "director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs" is hardly an expert either, and the Telegraph, so often close to the IEA, is quite at odds with him on this. They've published much since the retrial, beginning with a similarly extensive, but deeper, article by its science and crime editors plus two other reporters detailing many concerns, Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice? I only skimmed the court of appeal decision; basically, as a private citizen I can only watch unhappily and as a Wikipedian I don't want to have an opinion myself, except on how we should describe matters. For that, it's become clear enough that strong doubts are being expressed about different aspects by experts in good standing; I don't know what it adds up to in terms of safety of the convictions but it does all add up to an aspect this article can't ignore. Cheers, gloomily. NebY (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Is https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00258024241242549 an example of what you are looking for? Nhart129 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, no. That's the one about better use of statistics in future I mentioned above; it's quite deliberately not about Lucy Letby: "Our purpose here is not to re-examine the trial of Lucy Letby. Nor is it to present any new arguments for that specific case." NebY (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Did you read that article? It is almost entirely about LL. "Our focus here is relatively narrow. The discussion is limited to a specific problem, a problem sharply exemplified by the cases of Sally Clark, Lucia de Berk, and Lucy Letby".

In R-v-Letby-Final-Judgment-20240702.pdf I read "Background. 20. Between June 2015 and June 2016 there was a significant rise in the number of deaths and sudden and serious collapses of babies at the unit at the hospital." That is a statistical statement from the judge and O'Quigley shows it is false, or at least that the numbers are unremarkable, are to be expected in some English hospital with over 50% probability. Nhart129 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is not "almost entirely about Letby"; it moves sharply on from the examples of Clark, de Berk and Letby to consider that first step in an abstract way in its own right, that is to say without specific reference to any particular trial and purely focused on numbers alone. We can't make it into an argument with a judge, per WP:SYNTH. You asked if that article is an example of what I am looking for; I repeat, it is not. NebY (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is still not clear to me whether you understand the article. First you say that it is about better stats for the future, now you say "it moves sharply on". If a mathematician is interested in the status of capitals in a country, and has the examples of Rome in Italy and Paris in France and Madrid in Spain in mind, she will continue and talk about capital X in country Y. That is not a sharp change of subject, but an increase in generality of what is said. In the present case there are first the motivating examples and then the general discussion on how one ought to approach such cases, in particular, how one ought to approach the motivating case, and the numbers are chosen such that they apply directly to the motivating case. You wrote I find hardly any independent scholarly/expert work published but if you want to see medical publications you have to understand medical jargon, and similar for statistics. On the other hand, it is not difficult to find jargon-free discussions by experts, e.g. on X. For example, prof. Carola Garcia de Vinuesa is a highly qualified doctor and scientist with a series of tweets about this case. Nhart129 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Twitter posts would be self published sources and largely primary. We won't go there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Not so quick. Nobody wants to write sth in WP. I am interested in whether the overall consensus amongst medical and legal experts is that the conviction is indeed safe. My impression is the opposite. It is very easy to find experts on the "unsafe" side. I cannot find any on the "safe" side who were not part of the prosecution. Now if I have to convince *you* of that, a number of blog posts or tweets might suffice. Of course one cannot write in WP "most experts ...". Such statements are impossible to prove. Nhart129 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"It is still not clear to me whether you understand the article." I do, and while I regret you want to fight over it, I don't see any point in doing so. My concern is with this Wikipedia article, for which Wikipedia's policy on verifiability applies, and for which we cannot go against WP:SYNTH. You write "Nobody wants to write sth in WP". As WP:NOTFORUM says, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. NebY (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. (You asked sth, I replied "is this paper here useful?", you said "No". OK. Not useful. But you said more: "No, because ..." and I disagreed with the reason given. And the same happened again with more detail. Now you say "I do" and no further reply is needed.)

Regarding the article, it is quite possible to write a paragraph that is verifiable, in the style "In (ref) O'Quigley studies the question how to assign a probability to a cluster of events similar to the cluster of deaths in the LL case." Nhart129 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be information for a page on probability and statistical analysis. This page is an article about Letby and would be built from secondary sources discussing Letby. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Why so dismissive? A good WP article would refer to the current most important expert article on the statistical side of the case. Newspaper sources come with some diluted version, such as (The Guardian, 9 Jul 2024) John O’Quigley, a professor of statistical science at University College London, said: “People get the wrong end of the stick with statistics. In my opinion there was nothing out of the ordinary statistically in the spike in deaths.”. More detail in https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/31/lucy-letby-spike-baby-deaths-explicable/. Nhart129 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As you write it, you seem to be suggesting we talk about the procedure for assigning probability to a cluster of events, a subject that would need us to talk about independent events, confounding variables etc, and is very much an article for a different page. If you mean we should say things like "in August 2025, Pugh, Pugh and Barney McGrew studied the probability question in Letby's case and concluded that ..." then what you have is a primary source, a single study. You see that a lot on Wikipedia and it is wrong on every page you see it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should be written based on secondary sources. Note that this page is not written largely from secondary sources, and has the same issue (although the primary sources are news reports and not published papers). It has things like Dewi Evans has called for an investigation into the possibility of charges of corporate manslaughter in relation to the Letby case. sourced to primary sources all over it. But we should not exacerbate the problem. Find a secondary source that gathers together research and has a synthesis, and we can use that. SYNTH is something we don't do, because this is an encyclopaedia. However, secondary sources do have synthesis, and they are expected to because they are secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru As regards the "thoroughness" of the courts: as far as I am aware, the statistical evidence presented at the initial trial was not prepared or presented by a professional statistician, it was not examined for the defence by a professional statistician, and it was not challenged or subjected to scrutiny at appeal. One can ask why; but even if you don't accept that it is flawed, you can't claim that it was examined "thoroughly". Mhkay (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, which we do not need here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

break

I share the view of some above that the Doubts section has become rather large and seems to go against WP:NPOV. There is a lot of quoting individual opinions of people who weren't at the trial. While we should have a doubts section given the RS interest in the verdicts, it needs to be balanced (so, also cover those defending the verdicts) and it needs to appropriate summarise. Bondegezou (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I made a bunch of edits last night to try and ensure more WP:BALANCE and to try to minimise WP:NOTNEWS concerns. DominicRA has reverted most of them. Can we discuss?

Firstly, I don't think it's the place of this article to include every comment anyone with some supposed expertise makes on the case, as per WP:NOTNEWS. When we discuss the JFK assassination, we don't include every comment anyone has ever made: we summarise key themes and debates. I suggest we focus on issues that have attracted more interest, as per WP:BALANCE. I thus removed a paragraph about criticisms from Peter Elston, a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society (and as I'm also a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, this doesn't particularly impress me!), as this was just based on one Telegraph article, which was half a letter from Elston, which would fail WP:PRIMARY. As far as I can see, Elston's argument has not attracted further coverage. Loading this article with every criticism ever published violates WP:NPOV. Focus on the main issues, drop this, was my thought. DominicRA has restored.

Secondly, we have a lot of coverage of the big Guardian article. The text currently says, "In an article in The Guardian, investigative journalist Felicity Lawrence wrote that she had spoken to experts who expressed doubts about the safety of the convictions, namely "several leading consultant neonatologists, some with current or recent leadership roles, and several senior neonatal nurses. Others are public health professionals, GPs, biochemists, a leading government microbiologist and lawyers."" However, reading that article, the journalist caveats that statement, so, for WP:BALANCE, I added the article's own caveat: "However, she noted that "few of the experts [...] went as far as to say they believed Letby was innocent"." DominicRA has removed.

Thirdly, The New Yorker article discussed how Dewi Evans' expert testimony in an unrelated case had been criticised by the judge, which is used to cast doubt on Evans' testimony in the Letby case. However, that was a separate case. We have to respect WP:BLP as it applies to Evans. We can't make this article a hit piece on Evans, so I deleted text about this. DominicRA has restored it.

Fourthly, the article currently has criticisms from John O’Quigley in two separate places. I deleted one. DominicRA has restored.

You can see more in the edit history! DominicRA argues this section is for *doubts*; it doesn't need to reapeat what's covered extensively in the rest of the article, but we should strive for WP:BALANCE throughout. It's generally considered poor to have a "for" section and an "against" section. We also have a very long doubts section that does not reflect the mainstream RS position, namely that Letby is guilty as per the determinations of 2 juries and the appeals court. We need WP:BALANCE! Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

With regards to O'Quigley and Elston, the purpose is to include statisticians' arguments about the mortality spike itself, which is important in substance and distinct from discussion of the shift chart, which the rest of that section focusses on. The earlier quote from O'Quigley is there because of his comment about the chart. The sentence you'd deleted is substantively different and was about a comparison of data across hospitals. I don't see the problem with having two sentences about two separate criticisms from the same expert. (The overlap is in the first half of the quote from him; if you're really fussed you could trim that bit off.) Elston gets one sentence because he did statistical modelling (not "half a letter") to reflect what many experts are saying about possible innocent explanations for the spike, and it was was published in a RS. It's also not true, as you'd claimed in your edit summary, that it's not based on data. Two sentences to cover expert analysis of the spike is not excessive.

Dewi Evans' credibility as an expert witness is a major part of the doubts about the trial. In that context, the judge's comments (made at the same time as Letby's first trial) about a medical report of his are clearly relevant and have been quoted in multiple sources (not just The New Yorker) and discussed by Letby's lawyers.

Your inclusion of the caveat from Felicity Lawrence is more arguable, but I removed it because the full version of the sentence you'd quoted stresses that the doubts are about the safety of the conviction, which is precisely what the paragraph already says.

As for your claim that the doubts section is long, it takes up (if you include the 'reaction to doubt' section) about a quarter of the article now. A quarter is actually probably less emphasis than is found in RSs published since the lifting of reporting restrictions.

While I understand your point about balance throughout and not having 'for' and 'against' sections, I think the shape of the article actually reflects the nature of the topic: there was a major trial and associated press coverage which focussed heavily on Letby's guilt, then after the end of reporting restrictions this was followed by a lot of coverage of a very different kind. The doubts can't be integrated into the sections about the trials, because they are distinct from the arguments made by the defence. The same mostly applies to the section on the appeal. The experts' concerns have mostly emerged after the events which are covered by ~75% of the article. In summary, 25% to 75% does not seem excessive and there is no easy way to merge those two parts. DominicRA (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The doubts section is currently 28% of the article. That is WP:UNDUE. The vast majority of RS reporting around Lucy Letby was on the trial and her guilt. A much smaller number of publications since should not be given so much coverage.

The trials section satisfies WP:BALANCE by describing both prosecution and defence arguments. I made several edits to bring WP:BALANCE to the Doubts section and you chopped them out. Felicity Lawrence's article certainly isn't balanced, but the current summary of it here is even less balanced than what she wrote!

Elston's argument is that maybe the spike in deaths could be explained by changes in how premature babies admitted to the unit were, but he doesn't have any actual data on how premature babies admitted to the unit were. It's a poor argument that he sent as a letter to the Telegraph (i.e. WP:PRIMARY) and they turned it into a bit of an article. We shouldn't be quoting every expert who says something, as per WP:NOTNEWS. There needs to be some summarising. There needs to be some selection of what is included, based on the amount of RS coverage it has received. Let's follow policy and guidelines! Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The section you regard as not balanced (doubts minus 'reaction to doubt') is actually just 24.5% of the article.

It sounds silly but I think you're basically just missing the fact that a doubts section is about doubts. Just like Lawrence's article was about the doubts. You can't call either unbalanced because all they do is what they say on the tin: report what expert doubters are saying. Neither reject the obvious fact that she's been found guilty at her trials, as you suggested earlier.

By comparing the sheer number of articles you're missing the important points about temporality and legal reporting restrictions. Since the doubts have been legally permitted, every major British publication (not only those cited in the article) has discussed them and they have become the major feature of RS's publications relating to Letby.

Elston didn't use the precise data for the increase in prematurity or decrease in birthweights (because it's not publicly available) but we know from the RCPCH report that such changes did occur at the Countess (and even have some numbers for it), and he did use data from studies on the relationship between prematurity and weight on mortality. You say it came from "a letter" but the article doesn't say that anywhere. It's not for you as an editor to evaluate whether the argument is "poor", or try to diminish it by nonsensically calling it "a bit of an article".

You also say there needs to be summarising, but that's exactly what the section does. The articles about the doubts amount to many many times more words and include more experts than are found in the section.

If you want to see more in the doubts section that supports the safety of the convictions, there's nothing stopping you adding to 'reaction to doubt'. DominicRA (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible to bring more WP:BALANCE to various sections of the article. Wikipedia practice advises this: WP:CSECTION is a commonly cited essay. You can't just keep saying it can't be done. I made several edits that did bring more balance into the Doubts section. I'm not precious about those specific edits. What I suggest is we all work collaboratively on balancing out the content.

You talk about how articles since the trial have often discussed doubts. However, Wikipedia explicitly warns against WP:RECENTISM. Weight should be given to all the reporting, not just this recent round of reports.

Re Elston, my apologies, I retract "letter", but the second half of the article cited is a piece by Elston laying out his theory. That counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. My other concern is that I don't see other RS picking up on Elston's idea. Let's focus on ideas that have been covered by multiple sources.

We have a lot of Wikipedia policy and guidance. We should follow it. That's why I'm trying to cite policy or guidance in every comment I make. 25% or 28% of the article is too much. The Doubts section fails to present appropriate balance, and it spends far too much space quoting and detailing individual commentators, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSUW says, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject. Granted, the views of an expert who was at the trial should, all else equal, weigh more than the views of an expert who wasn’t. But the fact is that among medical and statistical experts who have expressed an opinion, there are far more doubters than those convinced of the safety of the verdicts. Legal experts appear more split. In this context, 25% is just not undue weight.

This is also why WP:RECENTISM doesn’t apply: the post-reporting restrictions articles are not important just because they’re recent but because they are the first to be legally able to discuss the experts’ doubts. Appealing to the absence of doubts in prior articles is problematic because it was literally illegal for those articles to mention them. What’s more, unlike the kinds of controversies WP:RECENTISM would apply to, the doubts go to the very heart of why Letby has a Wikipedia article at all and why anyone has heard of her name.

Perhaps not every quote is necessary, but they are useful to illustrate the kind of concerns being aired by experts. WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply to examples illustrating what the experts have to say.

By the way, I don't know if you saw but I did remove the Elston sentence. It wasn't essential enough to keep in the face of controversy. DominicRA (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

RECENTISM does indeed apply and is indicated whenever we are repeating the reporting of newspapers. The doubts should be covered, but this section has now grown to 2,000 words and more. That is an 8-10 minute read, just on the doubts. Here is a useful writing exercise: what would you say about the doubts if you had just 1,000 words to say it? What about if you had just 500. The article has no word limit, of course, but if you sat down and tried to write the section in that word count, you would, I think, find yourself focussed on what the core issues are. You would be rapidly cutting stuff that we don't need to say in an encyclopaedic article. The same exercise could be tried in the 2,500 word first trial section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean that the policy doesn't apply; I just meant that the claim that the section violates thoses rules isn't valid in this case. DominicRA (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In general I am supportive of Bondegezou's approach. This article was always over detailed and overly reliant on primary sources. It was one-sided in the past for focussing heavily on the trial reporting, but recently has become two sided (I don't say balanced) by detailed reporting of the doubts. We need to be expunging information that is sourced to primary sources. I agree that the criticism of Evans can come out for the reasons given, but note that as the article is not about Evans, some other information we have based on primary sources, showing Evans' opinion on matters would also come out. I removed some of that in the past and was reverted. In any case WP:ONUS applies. Everything that has been challenged by Bondegezou should come out and remain out until there is consensus to include. I am not entirely clear: if I revert all of DominicRA's edits, will I be removing new information that was not challenged? Only the challenged information needs to come out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe DominicRA's edits of 22:35-23:59 on 7 Sep were basically just all reverting my earlier edits and not inserting anything new.

I don't mind my edits being reverted/changed, but I think we do need a much shorter Doubts section that respects WP:BALANCE. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, reverts would remove new information. You also have no basis for reverting anyway. I've replied to Bondegezou with reasons those parts should remain and you haven't even addressed them. I don't know why you're talking instead about primary source when the doubts section uses secondary sources. DominicRA (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Would you be kind enough to undo your reverts in of material Bondegezou has challenged, and then we can look at those and see if there is a consensus for inclusion. Thanks. (Note that self reverts are specifically exempt under the 1RR). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Bondegezou writes There is a lot of quoting individual opinions of people who weren't at the trial. This "not at the trial" is often used as an attempt to disqualify people. In fact much information was not given at all at the trial, and much information was given incorrectly. People who were at the trial are not necessarily in a better information position. Nhart129 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and not how Wikipedia works. My main point is that Wikipedia should be summarising, not quoting lots of individual opinions. Bondegezou (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Every single aspect of this trial is suspect, but different people are expert on different topics and are able to say with authority that claims by the prosecution in their area of expertise are unlikely or incorrect. Such a state of affairs naturally gives many quotes of individual experts. The summary you hope for will be possible a few years from now. Nhart129 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a good summary of the debate around Letby’s convictions: it covers lots of individual issues succinctly and reflecting both sides of debate. That’s what this article should look like, not the current quote-heavy, biased attempt to list everything ever said that might look good for Letby. Bondegezou (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many articles that cover the doubts. Picking one of the few that editorialises in favour of the convictions (and leaves out a lot) and declaring "that's what this article should look like" is just revealing your own bias. DominicRA (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

DominicRA, this point is being made repeatedly. An encyclopaedic article needs to be written in summary style and should not be a blow by blow recounting of primary sources - whether pro or anti the subject. The situation was too far in one direction in the past. It is redressed by paring back to a summary style, and not by taking it just as too far in the other direction. You continue to add more and more. At what point do we say enough is enough and rewrite the whole thing from scratch? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Continue to add more when? Are you confusing me for someone else? Since we last spoke about this I've almost exlcusively been removing stuff, not adding. One addition was actually for a pro-conviction expert opinion. You've read the edit history wrong.

The 'safety' section is a summary. There are many aspects of this case so giving each a short summary inevitably means some length. However, I'll look at ways to more briefly express what's there for some sub-sections.

P.S. re this point is being made repeatedly, just to point out, Bondegezou is the same user who was saying this before. DominicRA (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

almost exlcusively Okay, I see that your deletions have outweighed additions in that time. Taking that at face value: thanks for doing so. I withdraw the claim you have been adding more, but still believe that what we have is too detailed, to reliant on primary sources, and if we had good secondary summaries, that we should be rewriting based on those. Unmasking Lucy Letby: The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse will be released in two days. We can see what that has to say when it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning for avoiding a phrase used by BBC

I just wanted to make a note here to explain why I think a phrase used in a BBC article is inappropriate and should not be repeated in this article. I think this falls under “A secondary source conflicts with a primary source, where there is no way for the former to know better than the latter” from WP:WSAW.

The article says that Letby failed the placement for “lacking empathy with patients and families”, but this is not a good characterisation of what the transcripts from the hearing actually say. The quotes of Lightfoot’s 2011 report do not use the word “empathy”. Lightfoot makes clear that “clinical knowledge” and “how [Letby] communicated” were both reasons for the failure. With regard to the latter, the 2011 report is quoted describing more work needed “observing and picking up on non-verbal signs” from patients.

Empathy can be subdivided into cognitive and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy is about accurately recognising others’ thoughts/feelings, while affective empathy is about having an appropriate emotional response to others’ feelings, once recognised (i.e. caring). Frequently, autistic people are seen as having affective but less than average cognitive empathy, while psychopaths often have the opposite profile. In common parlance, I believe most people usually mean affective empathy when they use the term.

This distinction is important because I think from Lightfoot’s words you could justify the claim that she thought Letby’s cognitive empathy was lacking, but you can’t say the same about affective empathy. Given how people typically use and interpret the word (and the context of Letby's convictions), I thus think the phrase in the BBC article is misleading. It is doubly so for omitting the other reasons Letby failed the placement. DominicRA (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. However, Nicola Lightfoot, made it clear both in her report and testimony that she thought Letby prinarily lacked both cognitive and affective empathy.

“Nicola Lightfoot, the deputy children’s ward manager at the Countess of Chester hospital, said she heard Letby say in an animated way to a colleague immediately after the second death: “You’ll never guess what just happened.”

Lightfoot said: “It was like she was talking about some exciting event she had seen or witnessed on the unit … it wasn’t an appropriate response to the death of a child. I had never – and I have never since – seen a response like that from a nurse involved in a child’s passing.” AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

But we're talking about the placement failure. The quotes you've just provided are from her testimony about an event in June 2016, many years after the placement. And for what it's worth, addressing Letby's removal very shortly after said event, she said "I absolutely would not have thought, knowing [Letby] as I did, that [whatever caused the deaths/collapses] would have been a deliberate act."

I've not seen any quotes from Lightfoot's 2011 report addressing Letby's affective empathy, and nor does she do so in her testimony about the placement. She also ends the report saying that she "strongly feel[s]" Letby could pass the placement if she takes on feedback. I don't think we should mischaracterise either her 2011 report or overall view.

I see you added her quote about Letby being 'cold' to the article. I think this is much more reasonable than the 'lacking empathy' phrase, but still have reservations because it was said 13 years after the event, not in the actual 2011 report, and in isolation doesn't quite reflect Lightfoot's view. Also, if we get into quoting subjective views not contained in reports, how do we select them? Because there are plenty from the Inquiry and elsewhere that express the opposite of that sentiment about Letby. DominicRA (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

At the inquiry Lightfoot was clearly stated part of her reservations with passing Letby were due to her being cold and not having the proper characteristics for a neonatal nurse. Her recalling something years after the fact does not change that those were her thoughts at the time. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That specific recollection gives context to her 2011 report. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not include the quote I sent to you in my original reply, as that was unrelated. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted my edit. Your interpretation of Lightfoot’s report as indicating a lack in cognitive empathy only is a highly subjective one. Another reader could easily interpret her wording to indicate a lack of affective empathy. Further- your generalization of most people’s understanding of the word ‘empathy’ seems to be your personal opinion rather than fact. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eronymous: I see you re-added that quote. The Inquiry's website has uploaded Lightfoot's actual 2011 report explaining in detail her reasons for failing Letby. Without reading it, you can't fairly assess the value of placing that quote (which was said days ago, not in 2011) there. We want to leave an accurate impression; we shouldn't just follow the tabloid-style impulses of journalists looking for clicks. DominicRA (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The very last page is missing, but we have the final paragraph quoted in the hearings as:

"At the moment Lucy is requiring much more support, prompting and supervision than I would expect at this stage to allow her to qualify as a competent practitioner. However, I strongly feel if Lucy continues to take on board feedback and continues to work on her weaker areas and develop her practice accordingly then this is achievable in the future." DominicRA (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going over the quote and the report. This is definitely in more sources than just the BBC, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to include, either.

However, these statement points to empathy being a part of her report, but it's not explicitly stated: "This does need to be more consistent as Lucy can also display limited communication skills when dealing with unexpected situations. She needs more experience at observing at picking up on non-verbal signs of anxiety/distress from parents and recognising when to change her approach." "Lucy did not identify the importance, significance and potential consequence of caring for that child safely and competently without basic understanding of condition, care planning, assessment, delivery and reevaluation of deterioration can not happen."

But, there's a lot in the report that speaks to other issues, like remembering dosing information and side effects, which seem pertinent as well. I think The Independent is a better source than the BBC on this one and Nursing Times, though paywalled, actually quotes the report above. Going to make some changes and re-organize. Say ocean again (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@DominicRA Let me know your thoughts. I'm not entirely sure the 2024 comments belong in this particular section and should instead be part of the inquiry section (if included, at all). Say ocean again (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So broadly I think in the context of an article about someone convicted of child murder, the word empathy is almost certain to be interpreted by readers to mean affective rather than cognitive empathy. I don't think anything Lightfoot said in 2011 or 2024 can be accurately summarised as her saying Letby lacked affective empathy. So I think that word should definitely be avoided here.

The 'cold' bit is different, because it's an actual quote. But given the wider context of it, and the fact that it was said in 2024, I agree that if it's included at all it should be in the Thirlwall section, not the 'early life and education' one. And if we're to include quotes of subjective personal judgments (maybe we just shouldn't), they should broadly reflect what her colleagues have said, not just what's grabbed headlines, which may mean balancing the 'cold' one with some of the positive appraisals from other nursing staff. DominicRA (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are inserting your opinion and presenting it as fact. You may not think what Lightfoot said reflected a lack of affective empathy, but a different reading of the same text could. This is all your subjective opinion.

Further, Lightfoot's "cold" quote was not a random one. She was speaking directly about part of the reason she did not feel comfortable passing Letby as her assessor. It is silly to equate Lightfoot's perceptions, in the role of Letby's assessor, to the random opinions of nursing staff. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I take your point about the quote not being quite the same as opinions from other staff. But that doesn't mean it should be presented as the reason for the failure.

On your first point I would simply say you should actually read the report. It just wouldn't be honest to pretend it refers to affective empathy, let alone to suggest that was the cause of the failure. Things really have to be seen in their context and you can't make a fair judgment here if you've only read an article or two about the testimony and not read the transcripts and report. DominicRA (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Circling back here, Lightfoot did not use the word empathy. Sources have summarized what she did say using that word. To alleviate the contention on whether or not to use that word, we have instead used a reliable source that quotes what Lightfoot wrote in 2011 and her actual words in 2024.

I still question including it out of chronological order, as she did not write "cold" in her report. Memories are a constantly evolving phenomenon and hindsight always alters how we feel about the past. Say ocean again (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourced material being removed

In this edit, DominicRA removed material, saying "sentence was making an obvious insinuation, and the implied claim is contested by experts". The sentence is drawn from a reliable source. I don't see any citations saying this number has been contested by experts. I suggest the edit be restored, or someone actually produce some contestation. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have given more detail in the edit summary. The claim is contested by experts here. The sentence also probably violates WP:BLP. DominicRA (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some contestation. There are no BLP issues: this is material presented at a public inquiry and reported by multiple reliable sources. Let's return the material to the article and, if you want, add a citation to that Telegraph piece saying "some experts contested this claim", or you can probably come up with some better wording. (That said, we need to respect WP:BALANCE: lots of reporting of the inquiry; is there just one Telegraph article with this alternate view?) Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit is a BLP violation because it was worded in a way that is presented as a fact not attributed properly to the source. It also was almost word-for-word from the source, which is a WP:COPYVIO. The 40% figure is from her time as a trainee in Liverpool. You are also not contextualizing it within the audit and the inquiry, which makes it appear it is evidence of her guilt, rather than evidence that the hospital should never had placed her to begin with for a number of issues identified in her original assessment by Lightfoot. [4] Say ocean again (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reason for revert

I would like to know why my edits were reverted- especially the ones regarding the abnormally low C-Peptide results which proved (in a court of law) that two babies had been given exogenous insulin. I even added a source to my edit.

This wikipedia page is highly biased and undermines the credibility of wikipedia as a whole. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

From some of the things you've said I'm inferring that you're not familiar with the doubts coming from experts about the convictions. You mentioned Science on Trial but that is one very minor part of the doubts, isn't regarded as expert and makes no appearance anywhere in this article.

That the blood test results prove insulin administration is strongly contested by people with highly relevant expertise. From WP:RSUW: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject and WP:NPOV: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

There are quite a few sources you could go to about the insulin doubts, but I recommend this article. You'll see that both the C-peptide being unusually low and the prosecution's inference about insulin administration are contested.

Regarding allegations that Letby falsified medical records, this is a simple matter of fact. Correct me if you know otherwise, but I think the allegations came from the lawyers, not witnesses. Therefore they do not consistute evidence. What does constitute evidence is the medical records which contained some inconsistencies. That's why I changed that. DominicRA (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

AthenaEditsWiki and DominicRA, you have both exceeded the one revert rule on this page today. Please note carefully the warnings that are displayed when you edit this page. I'm not going to raise this at the edit warring noticeboard as I am sure it is inadvertent. I would suggest self reverting but as you have reverted each other, I can't see that will work, so suggest you both just take a break from the page for 24 hours. Talk page discussion should still be fine.

On the matter of this section: I did not revert the C-peptide text but I did revert the addition of a source to the lead. My edsum explained. Per WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD we have a clean lead that summarises sourced text in the main section. If information is not in the main, do not add it to the lead. Make sure the lead is written in summary style. Because the information in the main will be sourced, you don't need to repeat the citation in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that people are reverting edits based on their opinions rather than facts. Also, there seems to be a lack of respect for the verdicts rendered by our courts of law and the experts who testified under oath in said courts. Those expert DID prove the test results showed insulin poisoning and the determination of our courts are fact until proven otherwise (in court). AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The falsification of medical records came from witnesses as well as lawyers. They are a fact. For example, in one case of murder by air embolus, Letby wrote in a medical note “peripheral access lose” when describing the resuscitation. Dr. Brearey had to amend this to specify that peripheral access was NOT lost. The significant is that is peripheral venous access had truly been lost, air embolism would be ruled out as a cause of death. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, her own testimony was ample evidence that she had indeed falsified medical records. You seem to be unaware, but testimony under oath during a trial IS evidence in of itself. She was forced to admit on the stand that medical notes had been changed, and that it was her handwriting. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Admitting that notes were changed is not admitting that notes were falsified. It doesn't matter if you're personally persuaded that she falsified records; it's a contested claim so we don't state it as a fact. A jury verdict does not render every claim made by the prosecution automatically true. DominicRA (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Contested by whom please? Your definition of what is a contested claim seems to be your own personal opinion. By your definition, the evidence against any convicted criminal who denies their crimes could be labelled as 'contested'. That is now how it works. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Your definition of what is a contested claim seems to be your own personal opinion Where I've used the term elsewhere it's been because the claim is directly contested by non-fringe experts. It's true that I don't know if experts have explicitly disputed the record falsification claims. But here I'd advise you to read the summary of the RfC at the top of this page. Part of its determination involved establishing consensus that Letby's actual guilt is contested, and so shouldn't be stated as a fact. It wouldn't make sense to apply that standard to her guilt and then to just accept specific other claims made by the prosecution. If her guilt is contested, so should the record falsification be.

I expect that you'll probably be unhappy with the outcome of the RfC, but I'm afraid it can't be overruled or ignored by just an unhappy editor's disagreement (I've been there too). DominicRA (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Objective evidence of record falsification can exist independently from a consensus about her guilt. The experts you have defined, in your personal opinion, as non-fringe, have not contested that records were falsified and even if they were to do so, record falsification is not their realm of expertise so their opinion on such a matter would hold little weight. 2600:1700:840:8FC0:2DBE:5473:FE17:D52E (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The consensus from the RfC classes them as non-fringe, not just me. If the safety of the convictions is not agreed upon, we obviously can't use the convictions themselves to assert particular prosecution claims as fact. Some claims are facts, because no one argues with them (e.g. that she inappropriately removed records from the hospital), but falsification doesn't fall into that category.

By the way, if this is AthenaEditsWiki, you should log in to post. DominicRA (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also you seem to misunderstand the significance of the low C-peptide AS IT WAS USED IN THIS TRIAL. The experts you reference have issue with the lab test reliability if it ‘exists in a vacuum’ so to speak. But the reality is that the abnormal lab test only had significance BECAUSE those two babies also had signs of hypoglycemia. This is an overlooked point by many but an absolutely critical one. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@AthenaEditsWiki: presence cotside shortly before/after many of the deaths The lead section is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body of the article. Beyond her general presence, the article doesn't talk about her precise location in the room around the times of death. Your phrase is also quite vague.

test results indicating insulin poisoning, evidence suggesting air embolism Both of these claims are contested by a number of non-fringe experts. Per policy, this means we don't state them as facts. The wording you had removed is neutral and accurate.

removal of 257 nursing handover sheets This one matters less, but as only 21 of those 257 actually related to infants mentioned in the trial (and presumably even fewer relate to the convictions), listing the number 257 in the lead like this seems to mislead. DominicRA (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Stating the number 257 is neutral. Misleading would be noting “only 21 those 257 pertained ti babies in the case,” OR “contained within those 257 sheets was information on 16 of the 17 babies in the indictment”. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Both of the latter phrases are true, but would both be leading, rather than misleading, used.

stating 257 handover sheets were taken is simply a fact. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of those sheets played an insignificant role in the evidence, because they were totally unrelated to the charges or convictions. As such, listing that number in the lead section is misleading. All I'm suggesting is leaving out the number, not saying anything more. DominicRA (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Stating the number 257 is fact because she did indeed take 257 handover sheets home. It doesn’t matter if many didnt relate to babies in the indictment- it is the behavior of taking copious amounts of confidential patient information home, and not destroying it, which is significant. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a very pertinent part of the evidence and omitting it would be what is misleading. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A reader uninformed about the case is likely to assume the sheets related to the infants in the trial. As such, your wording is likely to give the impression that all 257 did. The words wouldn't be outright wrong, but would still be misleading. DominicRA (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This cannot be ommited as the behavior of taking copious amounts of confidential information home was part of the prosecution’s case. It is as simple as that. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Leaving the number out is even more misleading as an uninformed reader might think it was just a “few” and have an “anybody could do accidentally do that” thought process. In reality, even the most unorganized nurse wouldn’t take 257 handover sheets at home unless it was intentional. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In reality, even the most unorganized nurse wouldn’t take 257 handover sheets at home unless it was intentional.

Cite a reliable source for this claim that is about Letby and her case. Otherwise this is WP:OR. Say ocean again (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the number 257 is important to the prosecution’s case and part of their evidence. Ommitting the number trivializes their evidence. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Who thinks it is important? Cite sources. We're not discussing Letby, we're discussing what reliable sources say about Letby. Say ocean again (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That she took 257 handover sheets home is a fact and part of the prosecution's evidence. It is as simple as that. Any attempt to remove this is incorrect. If you can show that it is not a fact in the prosecution's evidence, then do so, otherwise it should stand. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone only moderately familiar with this whole thing---more about the stats than the trial---I think I would have been misled by an unqualified "257 sheets taken". That sort of sounds like she removed 257 pertinent records to hide her guilt, or something; adding something to the effect that not all of them had anything to do with the neonatal cases seems like reasonable context, to me.

06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Himaldrmann (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I see yoy edited it to say “skin discoloration interpreted as air embolism”. This is a false statement.

It was a constellation of features which made the doctors suspect air embolism of which the unusual rash was just one data point. I am a former physician and understood the medical evidence well. How you wrote this section trivializes the actual evidence and creates an impression that there was none. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write the section, or that phrase. I also know that the skin discolouration wasn't the only evidence used. I'm happy for the wording to be adjusted to something more accurate, but not for it to be replaced by an assertion of one of the prosecution's contested claims, or by an overly detailed explanation that doesn't belong in the lead. DominicRA (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes I think we both might be able to agree on. I do think the 257 needs to be added back in for the sake of facts and neutrality. It was part of the prosecution’s evidence. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding back in edits that have been removed is considered a reversion, even if you do not use the "undo" functionality. You need to come to a consensus on the talk page before making the same changes again. This information, properly contextualized so it is not misleading, may be appropriate for the body. It is too much detail for the lead. Say ocean again (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be re-written altogether but I have to wait 24 hours to do so. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop focusing on the lead. For example, you say there is other evidence for the air embolism. You can edit that section and add sources to back it up. The lead needs to reflect the body, so if something is missing in the lead, it's either undue for the lead or it's not in the body. You can't just add things to the lead that are not in the body. Say ocean again (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the prosecution’s claims are only being contested in the court of public opinion. We, as a civilized society, need to have more reverence courts and the judgements they, and the jury, render. The verdict of the jury who gave 9 months of their lives hearing the evidence in this case is clear. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Some of this I'm ok with. I propose "abnormal blood test results said by the prosecution's medical experts to be due to insulin poisoning" for the first bit. We want to be brief and the parentheses and "who testified at trial" are unnecessary.

But "Letby's falsification" is a contested claim; even the juries' verdicts don't mean they accepted it. The evidence was the inconsistencies in the records. (Though I'm not sure this is in the body of the article yet) DominicRA (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with "abnormal blood test results said by the prosecution's medical experts to be due to insulin poisoning".

The phrase “inconsistencies in the records” does not accurately describe what took place not what was proven at trial. I say ‘proven’ at trial because even Letby herself was forced to concede that she literally altered some of the medical notes AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant to say ‘NOR what was proven at trial’ AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also if you would like to be technical, “inconsistencies in the medical notes” implies that one medical note does not match the other. In this case, Letby conceded in her own testimony that she altered some medical notes by erasing something or changing a time. It was not necessary a note that didn’t match another note. Also, in another case, she wrote an event occurred which did not actually happen- to which a doctor had to write a note pointing out that Letby’s note was false. This is also not a case of one note not matching another so much as one note correcting an incorrect note. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about the "257 handover sheets" thing---unqualified with context, that does seem misleading, to me; I've looked at stuff about the statistical arguments a lot, but hadn't heard anything about handover sheets (AFAICR), and when I read "257" here I interpreted it to mean "257 handover sheets that pertained to the neonatal cases in question"---but I think you're correct here: the note alterations you mention seem more serious than "inconsistencies" implies. Saying "inconsistencies" alone makes it seem as if they could be minor, unintentional errors.

06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Himaldrmann (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)