Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4

Needs update
The introduction says she has planned an appeal. Today the first attempt was rejected, and even though she can try again the rejection today indicates it’s unlikely to succeed. So the intro line should either be clarified that it’s been rejected now at this stage or removed, since we don’t now need to say an appeal is some future event. 78.25.220.227 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions remains true, but may not be the optimal wording. The encyclopaedic information here is really that she continues to deny culpability and is fighting the conviction. My wording may also not be optimal ("fighting" could be considered editorialising, although perhaps it is accurate), but a sentence that summarises main text and says something like that would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's strictly correct. She now has 14 days to renew her appeal request so that it can then be heard by 3 judges. The refusal stands unless she renews the request in the timescale - it's not automatic. I'm assuming she would do that but I haven't seen any statement from her legal team confirming that's what they are doing. Maybe i missed it. Absent that, then the reported position is limited to her request to appeal having been denied. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When I said it was true but not optimal, I meant it remains true that she has asked permission to appeal (we might tweak the tense), but it is not optimal because it is time bound reporting and at this point we are in a grey area where we could further report that this has been refused, placing that in a second sentence that may or may not need changing in the next few days. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. My point is that the encyclopaedic information is not really this at all. The encyclopaedic summary is simply that she (actively) maintains her innocence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. The current position is that there is no outstanding request to appeal. That may change but WP:CRYSTAL. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But she still asked permission to appeal. See my comment regarding tweaking the tense. Again, the point is that we should focus on the encyclopaedic content and not a running commentary of events. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is currently no request for appeal. Yes, she "asked" but that request is resolved. She has to ask again if she wants to pursue it - at this point we don't know whether she will or she won't. But saying she requested an appeal without saying what the outcome of the request is when it is known makes no sense and is misleading. The body of the article phrases that way and I'm really quite puzzled with why you have a problem with the lead being similarly phrased. It is entirely encyclopaedic to state what the outcome of an already mentioned appeal request is. If it';s going to be mentioned without the outcome it gives the erroneous impression that it hasn't been decided. DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where the disagreement is here. Having said from the start that this wording is not optimal, I asked for suggestions for a better sentence that captures what is salient here - preferably without becoming outdated in the next day or two. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The body text is fine. For the lead it just needs amendment from "She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions" to "She asked for permission to appeal against her convictions which was refused". If it's subsequently announced that she's applied again then it would be adjusted accordingly. But we don't know that at this point. (Probably it would change to something like "After her initial request for permission to appeal against her convictions was refused she has sought a review of that decision.") DeCausa (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but I don't agree with that change because, taken in isolation, with no knowledge of this case, that sounds like it is all done, whereas in the next day or two it may turn out that it is not. "initially refused" might do. But the point I made is not to uphold the status quo, but to argue that the status quo is wrongheaded. The encyclopaedic summary here, that would not need daily tending, is that she continues to maintain her innocence. It is not really necessary to say, in the summary in the lead, anything about the ins and outs of the appeals process. How about replacing the whole of She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions. A retrial of one count of attempted murder is also planned. with Thus taking all CRYSTAL out of the lead. This also closely mirrors her own words. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any of that. What's the source that she is maintaining her innocence after her appeal request was refused? That's speculative and even if it wasn't i don't think it's appropriate for the lead anyway. The only statements of encyclopaedic value are to do with the appeals process and where she is with it. Having her appeal request turned down is hardly just the "ins and outs". it's pretty fundamental and entirely speculative whether she tries to take it any further. Let's just stick to the hard facts as known. Adding "initially" might work - but what's the trigger for taking it out - wait for 14 days and if nothing is heard take it out? If there's a reference to the appeal then it's refusal must be mentioned. Taking out the appeal request is an option but adding in unnecessary text on her claims is an NPOV issue. By the way, what's the problem with updating in a few days? WP:NOTPAPER. DeCausa (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is it "unnecessary text" to state that she maintains her innocence? How is that POV? Surely a refusal to report, in any way, that she maintains her innocence is the NPOV issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the tone of a miscarriage of justice. All we can say is that she maintained her innocence at trial; submitted appeals paperwork in September claiming innocence; and made a statement in December that she was innocent. But I've just noticed that the lead doesn't actually mention that she pleaded not guilty. How about: "Letby maintained her innocence at her trial and subsequently applied for permission to appeal her conviction. Her application was refused and it is unknown whether she will submit a further application", remembering to remove the last 11 words on 14 February if nothing fuirther is reported! DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * She has been refused permission to appeal and faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. In December 2023 she wrote that she maintains her innocence. NebY (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or rather, She has been refused permission to appeal and faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024. A December 2023 panel hearing was told that she maintains her innocence. NebY (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that too (although my preference is for my own wording above the {ec}!). Sirfurboy might say that there's too much finality in the appeal permission refusal wording. DeCausa (talk)
 * Good point re the lead not having mentioned that she pleaded not guilty. I'm wary of saying that she wrote her statement for the December NMC hearing in December. Perhaps we can adjust your text slightly? "Letby pleaded not guilty at her trial and told a subsequent panel hearing that she is innocent. Her application to appeal her conviction was refused in January 2024 and she faces a retrial on one charge in June 2024." Text could be added if she makes a further application and/or whenever that's considered. NebY (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You wait all day for a sentence and then three come along at once. ;) I'll support this rendering. All three are an improvement. It doesn't resolve the fact it could need updating any day now, but that's okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Couple of tidy ups needed on the reference to the "panel": (1) WP:LEAD - good practice would be to have the statement to the panel hearing also mentioned in the body with the citation there rather than in the lead. I can't instantly spot where it should go in the body - any ideas? (Just on that, I find the huge "Murders" section somewhat unwieldy and difficult to navigate. It would be better to break out Murders, including Motivation; Prosecutions, trials and convictions; and Post-Conviction as sections at the same level rather than all under Murders) (2) the reference is somewhat cryptic: what panel? suggest it's described as as "a Nursing and Midwifery Council disciplinary panel". DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points. There's a brief sentence in the body, indeed the last one of the last section "Other reactions", "Letby was removed from the nursing register on 12 December 2023." A few words of clarification there wouldn't go amiss. I was a bit uncomfortable with bare "panel" but didn't want to be long-winded either; I'd be content with "a Nursing and Midwifery Council disciplinary panel" but as the point for the lead is more that she continued to claim innocence than precisely where the claim was made, would "a disciplinary panel" or "an NMC disciplinary panel" do? NebY (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've updated body and lead with the renewed application to appeal, but removed the body sentence that she'd applied for permission to appeal (sadly, Wikipedia has many such sentences that were once the current status but are no longer). NebY (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done for remembering the update! DeCausa (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Media restrictions?
Parts of this case are affected by some sort of media blackout in the UK. Here's a Tory MP discussing it (and a non RS source) -. I'm not sure if that is discussed in the article; best I can see it's not mentioned anywhere.

If we can find a Reliable Source talking about it, it might be good to add a line somewhere as explanation. Something like In the UK, media organisations are ordinarily prohibited from discussing .... Soni (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As this MSN report explains (I think rather better than David Davis MP) the New Yorker chose to restrict access for some UK readers. I don't think they've announced why, and though the Mirror says it's a matter of an anonymity order, it might instead be related to the coming retrial; at any rate, that's why reporting of the arguments presented to the Appeal Court judges is restricted:
 * Such restriction doesn't need a specific court order; judges might remind reporters that it's sub judice but they probably don't need to. I'm not convinced we should go into it; that the article's not directly available for some, as also why exactly Gill was blocked from Wikipedia, is drifting rather off topic. NebY (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's just one article then I agree. I tried digging for better sources and could not find them, so was not confident if this is a one article restriction from New Yorker or something broader (say the govt restricting a bunch of articles). I think latter would have required at least a one line explanation of relevant context. Soni (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see at the end of the Mirror article A restriction on naming the surviving children would be fairly standard protection of minors in court cases, probably made right at the start, and I remember we've had cases where a deceased child has been called eg "Baby P" until the end. Would the court protect living siblings too? As this CPS guidance mentions, Growing up's hard enough without everyone knowing such things about you, so maybe anonymity is extended sometimes. However, the NY article doesn't seem to have named any children or parents. NebY (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Combining sources
Our paragraphs about Children A and B now fold together different accounts, in particular the case presented by the prosecution as reported then or at the close of the case by multiple sources, and Rachel Aviv's account in the New Yorker. Is there some risk here of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:UNDUE weight? The effect seems to be that the single combined account presents the deaths as understandable without imputing deliberate harm (and thus Letby's guilt), in a way that only one of our sources (Aviv) does. Pinging @Moriwen who's been working on that section, but hoping for other input. NebY (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's tricky. I've been trying to focus on getting a straightforward chronological account, mostly; the article was really wordy with a lot of jumping around in time in a way that made it super hard to follow.
 * I recognize the SYNTH and UNDUE concerns, and I definitely welcome tweaks to those ends (not that anyone needs my permission lol); I'm trying to balance that with WP:CRITICISM concerns about segregating sections by POV. I personally don't think there's undue emphasis on the New Yorker article there -- it's cited only in the first half of one of three paragraphs in the section -- and I've been careful not to remove any of the content imputing Letby's guilt (e.g. the statement from the registrar); but obviously it's a delicate balancing act.— Moriwen (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delicate indeed, and it was hard to follow. I calculate more weight given to Aviv than you do, four out of seven sentences sourced to her, italicised here (hope you're not reading this with an app that hides such formatting):
 * Children A and B were born prematurely at thirty-one weeks gestation to a mother with a rare clotting disorder. On 8 June 2015, doctors twice misplaced Child A's umbilical catheter, resulting in the infant going several hours without receiving fluids. The infant was assigned to Letby when she clocked in for her night shift; the pediatric registrar clocked off half an hour later. A junior doctor placed a longline in Child A, and twenty minutes later, the infant's condition began rapidly deteriorating. Another nurse later reported seeing Letby standing over the incubator, and becoming involved when she realized the infant was not improving. Letby called the doctor, who removed the longline, concerned that he had placed it too close to the infant's heart. Child A died within half an hour.
 * Indeed, looking at it now, it's clear how much it's now making the case that Letby was not to blame. NebY (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, I missed that last sentence in my count. I do think that it's worth considering it in the context of the next two paragraphs of the section:
 * > The twins' parents spent the next day in the nursery with Child B, until they were persuaded to go and rest. After their departure, and 25 minutes after a feeding by Letby, Child B collapsed and had to be resuscitated. Tests later showed she had loops of gas-filled bowel. Attending doctors reported an unusual blue-and-white mottling on the skin of both infants after their collapses. This symptom re-occurred in other infants which were believed to have been intentionally injected with air.
 * > The paediatric registrar later described Child A's death as a "big surprise" and "completely out of the blue and very upsetting. [He] showed no signs of any problems throughout the day. He was handling well. I had no concerns at all for him or his twin sister". The day after Child A's death, Letby searched for his parents on Facebook.
 * Overall, I don't think that this makes the case that Letby was not to blame; it seems like a straightforward account of the facts as we know them, followed by an analysis which mostly points fingers at Letby. I'm not sure how to address this particular concern without just, like, removing cited facts from the article because they might seem too exculpatory, which seems obviously silly. But if you have an idea that would be awesome. — Moriwen (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

False statements in wiki article and I'm being blocked from editing
The first paragraph incorrectly states that she was present "whenever suspicious events took place", but this is incorrect, there were multiple instances where she was not present. I removed the sentence because it was uncited and because it was false, but it got reversed and now I'm locked from editing.

this wiki page is a disaster. I was also blocked from writing that the case is controversial and told I'm a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't make sense. The case is controversial. It's not like I'm saying she's innocent, which would be an opinion, and possibly a conspiracy theory. The case is controversial full stop. 128.237.82.8 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's because you're not citing any sources 86.156.164.152 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no sources for her being present whenever there was a suspicious event, that's literally what I'm saying. If you have an issue with uncited sources why have you not edited that out? 128.237.82.8 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me doing anything, i'm just trying to explain. There are no citations in the beginning section as the rules are you don't need them there 86.156.164.152 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the beginning section is where I said the case was controversial. And what you are saying I needed a citation for. So you are actually telling me that your own reasoning for my sentence being deleted is not true, because sentences in the beginning section don't need citations.
 * Also, I didn't delete that sentence about her shift simply because it's uncited. I also did that because it's not true. Do you see the issue here? There's some fishy going on with this page. 128.237.82.8 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a reliable source for 'her being present whenever there was a suspicious event". Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/lucy-letby-dozens-more-babies-police-believe-chester-liverpool
 * This article states that 30 babies had suspicious events but were not part of the criminal case at all. The opinions of the police are that she also killed them. Whether or not that's true, there are, according to the police, more suspicious events not coinciding with her shift than suspicious events coinciding with her shift. 128.237.82.8 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and that would be your original research. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, the article protection means that a Wikipedia account is now needed to edit this article, and it has to be one that has existed a while and already done a number of edits (so creating one today wouldn't allow someone to start editing this article at once). It's not just you.
 * Second, Wikipedia wants sources - verifiability is key - and those sources have to be reliable. As WP:V puts it, In this case, that means that a claim that the case is controversial needs a reliable source and to be WP:DUE too, even if to you it's a known fact, and any statement about why it's controversial also has to be based on a reliable source; it can't simply be your explanation.
 * Third, per MOS:LEAD, in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Anything it's summarising should first be in the body of the article, and it should be supported by a source, normally an inline citation, there. As long as the lead follows that rule, the sources don't need to be repeated there and often aren't. NebY (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least it should be stated in the first paragraph that this case is controversial and some of the brief reasons why. That shouldn't require sources. If you actually look at the top of this talk page, there is a giant warning that says The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute.
 * As for the suspiciousness of events and her shift, it's difficult to argue with that because suspicious is not well-defined. I actually shared the wrong article for my source, the police there claimed that she was on shift then, so for all we know they define as suspicious because of her shift. I am not arguing about this issue at this point. If the deaths were defined as suspicious in the case, then that would be a reason to leave it. 128.2.212.145 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You say "That shouldn't require sources" absolutely EVERYTHING here requires a source! Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The citations 12, 153, and 155 all support that the case is controversial and why. I'm saying no sources needed IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. WHERE I ORIGINALLY HAD THE EDIT 128.237.82.8 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any mention of controversy in ref 12 or 155? I can't read ref 153. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not seeing controversy in the articles titled "Did she do it?" And "How internet sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent"? And in 155 they quote from statistician dr. Gill who was involved in overturning the Lucia de berk case in the Netherlands, describing how the statistics used were flawed. In all three articles there is further description of *why* there is controversy, including the lack of conclusive descriptions of how any of the babies died.
 * I'm providing sources showing there's plenty of controversy. Are there any sources to the effect that the case is not controversial? 128.237.82.8 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works, if none of the sources actually say that the case is "controversial" it is just synthesis/original research to say so. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Statistician Richard Gill, 72, is one of those backing a controversial claim that there are holes in Letby’s case and it should be retried. He doesn’t profess to know for certain that she is innocent, but argues there are issues with the way evidence was presented to the court."
 * From 153, already cited
 * Time for you to add it to the first paragraph I guess. I'm sure you will! 128.237.82.8 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Richard D. Gill is certainly controversial and I will not be adding that for you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * could also write that there questions raised on if "British authorities may have ignored evidence in a rush to convict a neonatal nurse of killing seven babies".
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nurse-baby-murders-new-yorker_n_6643d589e4b0f22a60f371e6 128.237.82.8 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Overly represented sources
I notice that some sources are cited way more than the others. Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)

While there's no specific problem with overciting one RS, we should try and find alternate sources that support the same text. If we cannot find them, it'd be a good indicator that the info is overly detailed or we're relying too much on few sources. This either adds different sources to the article, or cleans up the most overly in depth bits. Soni (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lucia de Berk
Should Lucia de Berk be added to the See Also section? The cases seem strikingly similar. Their occupation, the controversial use of statistical evidence in the trial, the context of their diary entries. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:5C92:1AA5:C62D:5C92 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ It wasn't there because it used to be referred to and linked in the body of the article. I've now added it to the See Also section; it can of course be removed if we mention and link it again in the text. NebY (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting the children segments
Reading through this article, it seems that the segments discussing the cases of each individual child are basically just transcribing the prosecution's arguments - not the worst thing, but if you want to write it that way you should probably add the defense's rebuttal as well. Of course that makes for a pretty bad flow for that segment overall. IMO these segments should be completely nuked and rewritten. I would do it, but I am 95% sure it would spark an edit war as a fair amount of active editors would simply interpret that as "oh you're just biased in her favor". Any consensus on rewriting them? Jspace727 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree they need rewriting, especially since a lot of the content occurs twice (once in the timeline, once in the trial section). A lot of the phrasing is also just kind of awkward right now. I've been hesitant for similar reasons but would absolutely support a major rewrite.— Moriwen (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. Are we maybe diving too deep? Is the only way to write with WP:NPOV, neither emphasising awfulness or highlighting alternative narratives, to include so much meticulous detail of each death? NebY (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're individually definitely written from a "look how evil that woman is she's 100% guilty" point of view which is probably something we don't want on this page especially given the concerns raised and the fact that there are still legal aspects related to the ongoing that have the potential to over turn the case. Granted they are originally sourced from the prosecution, so of course they are written that way. The larger issue is they describe medical cases yet are hideously light or in a lot of cases just flat out wrong on the medical parts. Some objectivity and context on the described afflictions are really badly needed. A bigger issue is most likely the fact that the prosecution's argument tracing Letby to the deaths is structured in a way to leave out anything in the cases that doesn't support their arguments, meaning it might be pretty hard to find an objective and entire accounting of each child's case.Jspace727 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the UK has blocked articles that presented information that would suggest doubt, so there is an inherent bias in what is even readily available to cite.
 * The New Yorker article is a recent example. A major publication by a reputable investigative journalist and people in the UK aren't even allowed to read it. 128.237.82.8 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it felt close to being essentially primary sources, even though technically we are quoting secondary sources which all but state the same thing the primary source's (prosecution) argument. The entire segments is filled with this POV, including things like "She did X, then looked up the children on phone". It's implying a correlation there, and I'm not convinced that's a reasonable correlation, forget the main one.
 * I would personally nuke the entire Timeline section, and let someone start from scratch if they want to write a summarised NPOV way of it. Worst case we have no timeline section, and the article is still better off. It's too overly detailed as well Soni (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Moriwen @NebY Would you be okay with that? I'd like to establish some quick consensus before we remove chunks, just in case. Soni (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good by me.— Moriwen (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ...and I'd personally suggest getting big chunks of the "2023 trial" section as well, which imo has the same issues.— Moriwen (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the trial section needs to basically take a hard pass or three where we split it into sections (Probably as simple as "Every day of trial in a new heading") and then strip most of the overly detailed stuff from the trial. It'll take slightly more work than just removing an entire section at once though. Soni (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that all sounds right to me. Enormous appreciation for you tackling this head-on.— Moriwen (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am, yes. I just tried skipping that section while skimming the article; it's still rather large and indigestible, but we lose a big NPOV problem and don't lose anything essential to a BLP. On size, BTW, Prosezize is reporting 8619 words of text, which is uncomfortably large per WP:SIZERULE's rule-of-thumb, all for a subject who's notable for one thing only. NebY (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. Anyone who wants to re-add info from the timeline can use the diff. Now for the less easy bit, doing the same for the trial. Soni (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; even the TOC looks better. "Every day of trial in a new heading" might break down fast though, given it ran from 10 October 2022 to 21 August 2023. NebY (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am starting to think it might be good to split that section by trial (general details about trial) - evidence (main timeline, much trimmed) - evidence inside house (and diary/notes, but much much more summarised) - defence arguments.
 * I'm doing small passes, removing one line or two at a time which feel the least relevant. Mostly I think a good rule of thumb would be "anything we can source only from 'Timeline of X' style articles, we should remove". There should be more news articles that summarise the chunk of this timeline and still give us the details on all the murders; whereas things like "She checked them on facebook the next day" and "She posted on social media about returning. The next day baby died" seems uniquely overly detailed in a way only a timeline news article would have. Soni (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done a few more passes to get the least relevant/most detailed bits cut. It'd be nice if other editors also watchlisting the page could comment, so we can discuss if any bits/which bits need to be re-added (ideally with different sources).
 * Anything supported only by the 4 sources I mentioned in below section, I'm making stronger cuts towards. For example, a claim like As well as in the two cases in which insulin poisoning had been proved, evidence provided by medical experts indicated that all the babies had been harmed intentionally. should have much stronger sources than it does right now Soni (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are marvelous. Enormous respect for your work here.— Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this! I don't dare take a proper look now – can't risk the time it might demand, alas – but maybe tomorrow. NebY (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024
With the publishing of the (now multiple) news sources calling into question the circumstantial evidence and statistical fallacies inherent to the Letby case, I'm concerned that the wikipedia article is not adequately updated to reflect these changes. There are numerous edits that I have seen that make reference to her crimes as if they were factually committed by her. I believe a line regarding the potential wrongful conviction she may well be facing should be added to the introductory body of the article, instead of buried so far down, because it is absolutely a contentious issue, particularly now that parliamentary members have been asking why it is Geoblocked in the UK. Eastcheep (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Per discussion above, the article is undergoing a major rewrite and WP:WEIGHTs given to viewpoints may change drastically. It's best to wait for the body to be finished before changing the lead. Liu1126 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker Article
Not sure where it would fit but I feel like the New Yorker Article should be included somewhere on this page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6C93:9AB4:A12:1523 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done before you posted. NebY (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The article is currently unavailable. Has it been taken down? Archived here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not available in the United Kingdom because of Letby's pending appeal/retrial; it's available in other countries. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An article casting doubt on her guilt is considered to potentially prejudice the appeal in her favour, but a year of media coverage painting her as - in the words of one reporter - "the face of evil" (not to mention this Wikipedia page reporting her guilt as fact) is presumably not considered to potentially prejudice it against her? That's... fascinating. 86.162.184.224 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She has been found guilt, that’s the fact of the matter. The retrial next month is for a single charge for which the original jury were hung. She was found guilty on the other charges. There’s a concurrent appeal which if successful would mean all charges are retried. Unlike the U.S. system, British justice doesn’t permit the public discussion of proceeding until they’re confirmed—its to protect the interested of all involved, including the charged. SteadyJames (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We currently have "Aviv also questioned the testimony of Dewi Evans ..." which may give the impression that this is new evidence. During Letby's trial, the jury was told that Evans' report in another case had been described as worthless etc, as described by Aviv, and her defence lawyer sought to have Evans' evidence struck out. This was reported by the Independent in August 2023: "Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge" (and possibly elsewhere). Should we first mention all this in our account of the trial and then in describing the New Yorker article say that Aviv also remarked on it, rather than presenting it only in our account of the New Yorker article as if it's the fruit of new investigation? NebY (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with this—if the suspicious about Evans predate the New Yorker article that substantially, I think it's worth referring to them earlier. Nonetheless, I'd argue that we should keep Aviv's commentary about Evans (specifically the quote about him providing the medical basis for the prosecution) as that's a distinct 'fruit of the poison tree' allegation. Fiendpie (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Heavily biased editors with agenda roving article edits
An improvement to the first paragraph (made by another verified user, not me) was reverted by user cwmxii, and their explanation was the following:

This is giving unnecessary ground to the conspiracy theorists and truthers who've infested this article in the last few days, sorry.

This is an incredibly inappropriate explanation for a Wikipedia edit. This user did not dispute the reliability of the edit, the cited material, the prior explanation for the edit, or the importance of the edit. Their only explanation is that it "gives ground" to people that the user has baselessly deemed conspiracy theorists.

This is not the first time this has occurred. As a result, the opening section of the article is inaccurate. It is written as if there is no controversy whatsoever about the case which is not true, it inaccurately summarizes the facts about the shift schedule, and there is emotional writing rather than facts based writing. For example, the user deleted the phrase "who was convicted of murdering" and changed it to "who murdered" because it did not fit with their sensibilities, even though the prior version was factual, did not question the verdict, and actually was more informative (she was convicted by a jury for multiple murders, which is more specific than the more vague phrase "who murdered").

I understand this case has strong emotions for british and involves the highly sensitive subject of a serial killer of small children. However, the newer edits do not argue for conspiracy theories. Instead, they provide factual info from reliable investigative reporting that adds additional factual context to a case that has lots of interest from the public. The reason that the page has recent traffic is because of a major article from the USA written by a serious investigate journalist who interviewed experts and cited the direct evidence and transcripts from the case. And none of the edits made any conspiracy claims. In fact, I don't think some editors here know what a conspiracy is, a concept that doesn't really apply here. 74.111.100.35 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I was not happy with that edit summary either. However, the lead sentence was intensively discussed in an RFC and settled. (RFCs are one of Wikipedia's formal processes for establishing community consensus, and their outcomes remain in effect indefinitely.) That discussion's now in our talk page archive at Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3. NebY (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ok that's fair and an actual reason for the reversal. I'm sure there will be more edits like this though 74.111.100.35 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad that helped, and yes indeed, along with reinsertions of "serial killer" too - and then there's the retrial in July. NebY (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in June (as of last month, anyway). NebY (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the retrial only for a single, un resolved charge? She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty, although I believe there is an appeal pending. SteadyJames (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty - that is, charitably, tautologous. In law she is guilty because the law has found her guilty. However, on the greater question, she is, as a matter of fact, either guilty or not, and she was guilty or not before she was found guilty and will remain guilty or not regardless of the outcome of various appeals. Speculation on that point is not the role of an encylopaedic article. Careful use of language is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not speculation—with this logic she might only ever be considered “accused” even when found guilty. Assuming a miscarriage of justice before the review or retrial process is complete is to question the sanctity of the English legal system—which is definitely outside the capabilities and role of an encyclopaedia article. Just report the facts. Letby remains guilty, she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer. By all means, mention the details of the single charge on which she will be retried and why the retrial is happening. The article should even mention that there is a review process in place regarding other aspects of the original trial, but at this point what else is proven? SteadyJames (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just report the facts. Yes. The verifiable ones. Letby remains guilty No, this is loose language. Sally Clark was never guilty. She did not remain guilty until her conviction was quashed. Your following clauses are better: she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer. Which is a verifiable fact. We report that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re splitting hairs. She’s a convicted murderer, in short a murderer. She was found guilty and that judgement stands until it is overturned. Stick to what we know not what we might speculate on. SteadyJames (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Stick to what we know is exactly my point. But your language is tighter in that last comment, so we can leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See Lucy Letby. NebY (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (That was my edit, so asking:) What is the process for reopening the RFC? Much of the recent reporting since January has brought new interest to the case and new, very credible questions about the strength of the evidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist or truther and I don't have a personal opinion on whether or not this woman committed these crimes! But I find it hard to accept that we are okay with the lead stating "her being on duty whenever suspicious incidents took place." -- this is just factually untrue and depends on an entirely subjective and biased definition of "suspicious," as investigated at length in the New Yorker article. One man decided what qualified as "suspicious" here and is unable to provide a concrete explanation. This feels very low quality for Wikipedia (not to mention for a criminal trial, but that's another matter!). Sneakers2929 (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather than reopening the RfC, you just need to start a new one. However the question being asked is best workshopped a little. An RfC question must be neutrally phrased, and one option should be retaining the current text, but note that, while an option might add "convicted" (a word I always felt was better), others might reopen the question of the addition of "serial killer" in the first words, before even mentioning she was a nurse. There is no saying where a new consensus will fall, nor will a new RfC really resolve the matter. We would, however, need to be on the look out for the canvassing that affected the last RfC. I doubt that sock puppet has gone away.Personally, however, I would support the editors currently taking a deep dive into the article itself, and leave the lead alone until they are done. This article has been a monster that I have long intended to work on, but previous discussions on small changes became a massive time sink, and the larger, and IMHO more valuable work was ignored. I am very grateful to Soni and others who are taking a deeper look and cutting out swathes of weakly sourced and primary sourced guff. The article has long had NOTNEWS issues, that are finally being addressed (no thanks to me!). Let's see how that looks when done and only then have another ding-dong over the first sentence! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, but I would also like to start a new RFC if it's not immediately getting shut down. Ledes are the "most representative" summary of the overall article and most likely, the only parts of the article a large majority of editors will read.
 * For me, I completely disagree with how much POV the current lede is pushing. I did not touch it much myself because I didn't want to mess with established consensus. But frankly the state of the entire article was much less "Neutral Wikipedia article about X" and more "True crime documentary with a story to tell" (Still is, but lesser). And I really hate that on a well-visited article, especially a BLP. So I'd like to re-establish that NPOV and "Wikipedia fairness" here, which changing the lede is part and parcel of. Soni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of sorting out the body of the article first and then summarising it, but inconsistently I've still tried trimming the contested second half of the first paragraph; it was getting into detail which I think we can grapple with later rather than burdening the reader with it at once - or giving ourselves another editing problem when there's more to do. NebY (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding a little to what Sirfurboy says: our sources at present largely accept the outcome of the trail. Aviv's article is an exception, but blogs etc don't qualify as reliable sources, so how much other "recent reporting since January" is there that would be appropriate per WP:DUE? I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial.
 * As to what next, the retrial on one count begins in July June . I could be wrong, but I think most reporting restrictions will fall away when that's complete, as it'll no longer be sub judice (the privacy restriction might still remain). The restrictions on reporting the arguments for allowing an appeal will probably end, and it may be that the Appeal Court judges are waiting until the end of that trial to release their decision on whether to allow an appeal to proceed. All in all, we may then have a lot more reliable sources that we can use and that affect what's WP:DUE. NebY (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial. To me, this question is inconsequential. Our article at the time could have been biased regardless of reliable sources existing on both sides. Alternately, Aviv's report brings those arguments from primary source (a defence who has to help their client) vs secondary (a reporter). That itself could be enough for us to consider adding more of those concerns here.
 * Ultimately though, I think it does not matter much. For me, the rule of thumb I'm aiming for is "summarise all RS fairly, do not give too much weightage to any". I don't care if our sources largely accept the outcome, as much as if they specifically accept "Lucy injected insulin and this was an insulin murder" (and a dozen other similar claims). Where there is reasonable doubt from RS, we should mention it on a case-by-case basis. Soni (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, this question is inconsequential is the correct response. :) That was me veering into WP:NOTFORUM. NebY (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit - One charge dropped
I think the article should probably mention that originally 8 charges were brought to trial, but one was dropped because the prosecution could offer no evidence. A good source here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-61759823#:~:text=Nick%20Johnson%2C%20QC%2C%20said%20the,neonatal%20unit%20at%20the%20hospital.

Apologies if this is already in the article, but it probably should go in that first paragraph in the section '2023 Trial' as it explains the discrepancy between the number of murder charges in the first paragraphs and the number of counts to which she pled not guilty in the second. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:9C2F:756E:70EC:DCE7 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Appeal rejected and no others allowed
Can someone update the page please 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:69DD:A23A:7F39:A0B9 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
Senior Investigating Officer Paul Hughes later said: "the initial focus was around the hypotheses of what could have occurred: so generic hypotheses of 'it could be natural-occurring deaths', 'it could be natural-occurring collapses', 'it could be an organic reason', 'it could be a virus', and then one of the hypotheses was that, obviously, it could be inflicted harm." -> this sentence has no reliable source to back it up, so it needs to be deleted. I checked the source and did not find it in the source. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:AD59:A396:7B54:FD9E (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just also checked and I am in agreement with you. I've removed this line. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What did you check? I found it at about 4:32 in the video in the cited source. So I have restored it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, my mistake. I hadn't realised there was a video within the article and that's what it referred to. I thought it was the Sky report itself. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary Sources template
I know the primary sources template was added a long while ago, and refreshed earlier this month. When can that template be removed? I'm trying to figure out which are the worst sources we should be looking to replace.

At Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4 I had linked four sources I found were cited more than I preferred - Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)

Are there any other sources that need to be removed? Soni (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It does not look like anyone else has opinions on it. I have removed the primary sources template. I do not think that template applies, though I still would like to cut down on overuse of sources Soni (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed this, but I will put the template back now. Sorry. The article has been written based off newspaper accounts of the trial, and goes into way too much detail from this primary sourced material. Some of it is based off a documentary, which is secondary but has some other issues (e.g. the interviews of doctors etc. are primary and not independent), but we are still lacking a proper authoritative secondary account of this case. This article is currently trying to *be* the secondary source, which is unencyclopaedic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of those concerns, though I'd have placed a different template instead of primary sources. Makes sense to me, let me see what we can do about this. Soni (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)