| Revision as of 10:12, 11 July 2024 editSirfurboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,553 edits →The 'Doubts about the conviction' section is highly biased: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 11 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| {{Annual readership}} | {{Annual readership}} | ||
| {{Archives|banner=yes}} | {{Archives|banner=yes}} | ||
| == 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 ] I had linked four sources I found were cited more than I preferred - (31 citations), (15), (12), (9) | |||
| Are there any other sources that need to be removed? ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Lucy Letby|answered=yes}} | |||
| 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. ] (]) 03:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have just also checked and I am in agreement with you. I've removed this line. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]). 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. ] (]) 08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024 == | ||
Revision as of 21:27, 11 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucy Letby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Lucy Letby at the Reference desk. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | A news item involving Lucy Letby was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: |  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." to "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016. 2603:6010:CF01:DD1:BCDB:FF02:134C:47D2 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Surely this requirement is quite backwards in this situation? There are reliable sources referenced in the responses section which make a good case questioning the validity of the verdict. As well, other sources state that many still believe in her innocence and the possibility of a miscarriage.
- The fact there's credible sources dounting her guilt means that "murdered seven infants" is the statement actively making a claim, while "was convicted of murdering seven infants" is a neutral statement. The latter doesn't even read as doubting the conviction, just not taking it as absolute certainty that she did it. 2A0A:EF40:45A:5401:6421:5F92:445B:BDAB (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There was a request for comment on the lead sentence five months ago that settled on the current wording. Please see the link below, thank you.
- JAYFAX (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the May 20, 2024 issue of the New Yorker Magazine, there is an article by Rachel Aviv, called "Conviction, Did a neonatal nurse really kill seven newborns?". The article suggests that the allegations against and trial and conviction of Lucy Letby, the accused, may be faulty and based on data from which erroneous conclusions were made. My suggestion is rather than starting the bio with the characterization "murderer of seven infants" it be changed to a more ambiguous description such as "neonatal nurse accused and convicted by UK Court". Perhaps include some of the points made in the New Yorker article to leave for consideration, the possibility of other possible causes (the hospital was understaffed and mismanaged, currently they are experiencing a jump in complications in women in the post-natal unit) and also, the seeming bias toward conviction of some of the witnesses and police agency. Thank you, Karen Blume 71.212.172.63 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Guardian - 9 July
I don't have time at the moment to write or edit anything, but this is in the Guardian today . A quick reading of it didn't show me anything we have not seen before, but it may support some information that we formerly chose not to include as it was not published in a reliable source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The 'Doubts about the conviction' section is highly biased
There's a fair bit in there about conspiracy theorists and amateur investigators, but apart from mentioning Gill and MacKenzie, there's nothing on the wealth of other people with relevant expertise who have weighed in on the case.
Two stories in leading broadsheets from both sides of the political spectrum came out this week. They quote consultant neonatologists, legal professionals, statisticians, forensic scientists, and various other highly qualified individuals. These are paid lip service in the third paragraph, but the sole quote is given to a columnist from Spiked magazine.
2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:213B:61A5:EDC4:518C (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. When I noted the Guardian article above, I meant I had no time to read it carefully and create new prose on our page, not that I had no time to mention it exists. The spiked magazine quote is odd too. We should not be just reporting opinions of columnists. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- ETA: I am concurring with the argument here, not necessarily the section title. "Highly biased" is a subjective assessment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- B-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Mid-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Cheshire articles
- Mid-importance Cheshire articles
- B-Class Hospital articles
- Mid-importance Hospital articles
- WikiProject Hospitals articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report