Talk:Lucia de Berk case/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Uncategorized
Not just the page but also the English language discussion on Lucia de Berk needs to be started. I may well be biased but still I think it is important that this major event in recent Netherlands history and current affairs is documented in the international literature. --Gill110951 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC) My English language site on statistical aspects of case —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gill110951 (talk • contribs). 10 November, 2006.
huh???
Why is there a bunch of translation stuff on this page? Why is there none on Wikipedia:Translation/Lucia de Berk? Somebody please clean this up. --Alynna 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, it appears the page was written by a novice English speaker or was translated from a different language using translation software. Brentt 23:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
October 2007 update
According to Richard Gill's website the Three Wise Men reported in October 2007 and recommended reopening the case. However, I can't seem to find any report in English. Can anyone help?Cutler (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Here it is: http://jokerxl.com/Lucia/Full%20Grimbergen%20Report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gill110951 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
POV tag re-added
I have re-added the POV tag to the article. Please do not remove it until all of the disputed entries have been properly cited/sourced. To clarify, I am not making "complaints" about the article content, I am following Wikipedia policy regarding neutral point of view. --mo talk 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- You make four specific complaints:
- "This is controversial, because for the two murders found proven by the court, many experts still did not exclude a natural cause of death." This can be read in the judge's own summing up where he specifically mentions which experts support the court's conclusion, see also Ton Derksen's book for what the other experts had said. Reference: the verdict (on internet, in Dutch); Derksen's book; English summary of same at http://luciadeb.nl/english/archives/fabricationoffacts.html
- "...which is a strange addition to a life sentence, when the suspect did not plead mental illness as cause of her crimes (she denied committing them), nor did the state criminal psychological observation unit find any evidence of this." This is the explicit reason why the supreme court changed her sentence from life+subsequent detention in psychiatric ward to just life. Reference: verdict of the supreme court (on internet, in Dutch).
- "There is no hard proof against de Berk. She was not caught “red-handed”, and has always denied guilt." She was not caught red-handed and she always denied guilt. The argument of the court is that baby Amber was given poison, and Lucia could have done it, and that she had lied about when she was with the baby. It is now known that baby Amber likely died a natural death and that the timing argument used by the court to connect Lucia was incorrect. A more precise time measurement showed that two doctors were attending the child, at the time when the court had concluded that Lucia did have opportunity to admit the poison. In other words, the proof was indirect (and actually incorrect). It is now known that Lucia's version of the timing was correct, hence she did not lie about this. The arguments for all subsequent murders are weaker still. Reference: the verdict.
- "It seems that the hospital and the prosecution had decided in advance that the deaths had been caused by a nurse; and still insist exclusively on this line of inquiry." This is an explicit complaint of the judicial review committee. Alternative scenarios were never considered by hospital, police, or prosecution (so-called "tunnel-vision"). (Reference: report of CEAS). Gill110951 (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
March 2008 update
Since it is generally understood that Lucia de Berk is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and not a serial killer, I have removed the links to the serial killers pages. Sorry to all those serial killer lovers out there. Actually, she is a victim of a serial miscarriager of justice, the Dutch Public Ministry. Gill110951 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gill110951, we are all entitled to our opinions; however, editors' opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles or the editing of them for that matter. Her convictions have not been overturned, therefore she qualifies as a serial killer until that happens, regardless of whether or not you or others believe she was falsely convicted. I will add the WikiProject Criminal Biography and Serial Killer Task Force banners to this page, as well as the serial killer infobox to the article. --mo talk 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Momoricks: Lucia has been freed, and the case has been reopened. That means that the present legal situation is that she is not a convicted murderer. She is not even under arrest. Gill110951 (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind so much the removal of the serial killer categories, given that the situation is in flux. But would it not be correct to see that she has been convicted, and is temporarily free during the appeal? Not clear what your point is about 'arrest.' Someone who is out of jail can hardly be under arrest. Maybe you can give us the bottom line of the recent Dutch court document. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: This is not an appeal, it is a retrial, since the evidence on which the earlier conviction was based has vanished (according to the supreme court). It is conceivable that the public ministry will withdraw charges and then the retrial will be over in minutes. The bottom line of the conclusion of the supreme court is that because of the recent medical investigation carried out at the request of the advocate general to the supreme court, a new fact ("novum") has come to light, of such signficance that it is unlikely that Lucia would have been convicted of any murders or murder attempts, if the court which originally convicted her had been aware of this fact. This fact refers to the new medical information concerning the key death, for which there is no reason anymore to suppose it was unnatural. Incidentally, the key toxicologist and pathologist at the original trial have publicly agreed with the new conclusions, stating that they had earlier been withheld crucial information. Because the court's argument for Lucia's involement with any other deaths or incidents is so dependent on the proof of this one, the supreme court considers that no murders are proved at all. At the retrial the new court is instructed to start all over again. The supreme court considers that without new evidence, she will be judged innocent. Hence her imprisonment has been terminated also. Gill110951 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then let's work on adding that information, as well as improving the article in general. It is sorely lacking in details about the deaths. mo talk 09:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Momoricks: You can find out about the deaths and other incidents in which Lucia was claimed to have been involved at Website of the supporters of de Berk, English version, "the murders". Of course you might not trust the contents of this webpage, but since the case went into review, no fact there was contradicted or disputed by any of the judicial and medical investigations, right up to the supreme court. Gill110951 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed
In its current version, this article puts too much emphasis on her possible false conviction. There is no biography section and only a small, general paragraph about the murders, yet multiple subsections in the "Doubts" section.
More importantly, it uses weasel words without footnotes for verification, and there are numerous uncited opinions.
Examples:
- "This is controversial, because for the two murders found proven by the court, many experts still did not exclude a natural cause of death."
- "...which is a strange addition to a life sentence, when the suspect did not plead mental illness as cause of her crimes (she denied committing them), nor did the state criminal psychological observation unit find any evidence of this."
- "There is no hard proof against de Berk. She was not caught “red-handed”, and has always denied guilt."
- "It seems that the hospital and the prosecution had decided in advance that the deaths had been caused by a nurse; and still insist exclusively on this line of inquiry."
--mo talk 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer to your complaints: Your examples have all been documented in Ton Derksen's book on this case, and confirmed by three legal authorities: an independent official review committee of the Public Ministry, the Advocate-General of the Supreme Court who as a consequence of the report of the review committee, investigated the case again in depth, and finally the Supreme Court of the Netherlands itself, which has accepted the case of the Advocate General and concluded that the conviction cannot be upheld. The case has been referred back to a normal court which has the authority to revoke the conviction (the Supreme Court does not have this power). Lucia de Berk was released from prison more than half a year ago.
The advocate-general of the supreme court has had the central medical evidence re-examined by a multidisciplinary team of top-experts who came to the conclusion that there was no proof of a murder. The death could well be natural. The two toxicologists whose evidence was initially a key part of the prosecution case have agreed with this conclusion, pointing out that they were not in possession of highly relevant medical information when they gave evidence to the court. The court's argument for all other murders and attempted murders hinges on the medical proof of murder by Lucia in this one case. It has now been shown that this death could well be natural, and moreover, very importantly, that Lucia did not lie concerning her activities at the time.
Your first, second and third examples are hard facts. [The second was confirmed by the supreme court some years ago who altered her sentence in order to take account of this]. Your fourth example could be thought to be a matter of opinion, but it is the opinion of the independent review board, and their opinion is well documented in their detailed report.
I agree that these facts are not supported on the wikipedia page by citations to published material. It should not be difficult to fix that.
Gill110951 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Gill110951, you seem to know a lot regarding the case and the sources, so it would be greatly appreciated if you could add citations where needed. mo talk 09:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have some specific questions regarding all of this. Has the conviction been overturned? From your wording above, it does not sound as if it has been. What specifically is her status at this time? Is the conviction currently and technically still valid? Is her legal status something akin to being on appeal? Until that is clearly stated in verifiable sources which editors on the English Wikipedia can verify, then the issue remains in the air for this article. Also, are you the Richard Gill, Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Leiden University, whose external link is listed on the main article page? If so, are you actively involved in any capactity with her legal case, whether advocating on her behalf, working with her defense, or working from a position directly involved? If so, there may an issue of conflict of interest and you would need to declare that status according to the COI guidelines and only make recommendations on the talk page regarding the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your questions: yes I am who you guess. As a mathematical statistician I have relevant expertise with respect to an important aspect of the case. Public controversy on it let to my studying it in depth, and to my involvement in the ongoing public debate. I do not have any official connection to the case but I have done my best to support its re-opening, since I became convinced on scientific grounds that the conviction was unsafe: there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt of any murders at all, let alone by whom. That is not just my opinion but now also the consensus opinion in the Netherlands in general, and in the the legal and medical communities in particular. Recall that the court itself only claimed that one murder, by Lucia, had been convincingly proved, on its own merits, and moreover that she had lied concerning the events around that death. It was openly admitted that the subsequent murders were only "proved", "knowing" already that Lucia was a murderer and a liar. The court admitted that without this first step, they would not have found her guilty of any further murders. This is why the judicial review, and the investigations for the supreme court, have focussed on the evidence in this single case. The current legal status is unclear. Is her position akin to that of someone awaiting an appeal, or to that of someone awaiting a first trial? In any case her conviction is no longer valid. It is clear that if the Public Prosecution does not bring any new evidence she will be aquitted. I am aware that I might be considered not neutral. I have mainly contributed to this page by correcting obvious errors and improving English. A Dutch wikipedia page already existed and I helped out setting up the English language page, the translations were made by others. Concerning references: a number of key official documents and announcements have been translated and are available on the English language web pages of http://www.luciadeb.nl , so also non Dutch speakers can form an informed opinion. Probably it is better to leave things as they are till the retrial. Gill110951 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for being forthcoming about this. Part of the confusion is because the court system is apparently somewhat different than it is in the US. If the US Supreme Court were to receive an appeal on a case, it would likely either a) refuse to hear it, effectively supporting the lower court rulings b) rule on some or all procedural points which would clearly either uphold a conviction or overturn it on legal grounds. In any case, the effect of the court's action would be quite clear. A defendant would then either remain in prison as convicted, be released on bail pending a retrial or exculpatory evidence would clear the charges and the defendant freed. In this case, it sounds to me as if the situation is much cloudier than that. I hope you understand that the potential conflict of interest question had to be asked for clarity's sake. It would be greatly appreciated if you could update this page when developments occur with the case. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Dutch supreme court also has the possibility to order a re-trial if new evidence has come to light, of such importance that they consider that the original court would have come to a different conclusion if it had been in the possession of that evidence. That is what has happened now. Lucia is free, the conviction is quashed, she is not on bail. The main task of the new court is to decide what punishment she should have received for having two overdue library books at home and some aspirins from the hospital and having lied about her Canadian high school diploma in order to be allowed to train as a nurse in Holland. Gill110951 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for being forthcoming about this. Part of the confusion is because the court system is apparently somewhat different than it is in the US. If the US Supreme Court were to receive an appeal on a case, it would likely either a) refuse to hear it, effectively supporting the lower court rulings b) rule on some or all procedural points which would clearly either uphold a conviction or overturn it on legal grounds. In any case, the effect of the court's action would be quite clear. A defendant would then either remain in prison as convicted, be released on bail pending a retrial or exculpatory evidence would clear the charges and the defendant freed. In this case, it sounds to me as if the situation is much cloudier than that. I hope you understand that the potential conflict of interest question had to be asked for clarity's sake. It would be greatly appreciated if you could update this page when developments occur with the case. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your questions: yes I am who you guess. As a mathematical statistician I have relevant expertise with respect to an important aspect of the case. Public controversy on it let to my studying it in depth, and to my involvement in the ongoing public debate. I do not have any official connection to the case but I have done my best to support its re-opening, since I became convinced on scientific grounds that the conviction was unsafe: there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt of any murders at all, let alone by whom. That is not just my opinion but now also the consensus opinion in the Netherlands in general, and in the the legal and medical communities in particular. Recall that the court itself only claimed that one murder, by Lucia, had been convincingly proved, on its own merits, and moreover that she had lied concerning the events around that death. It was openly admitted that the subsequent murders were only "proved", "knowing" already that Lucia was a murderer and a liar. The court admitted that without this first step, they would not have found her guilty of any further murders. This is why the judicial review, and the investigations for the supreme court, have focussed on the evidence in this single case. The current legal status is unclear. Is her position akin to that of someone awaiting an appeal, or to that of someone awaiting a first trial? In any case her conviction is no longer valid. It is clear that if the Public Prosecution does not bring any new evidence she will be aquitted. I am aware that I might be considered not neutral. I have mainly contributed to this page by correcting obvious errors and improving English. A Dutch wikipedia page already existed and I helped out setting up the English language page, the translations were made by others. Concerning references: a number of key official documents and announcements have been translated and are available on the English language web pages of http://www.luciadeb.nl , so also non Dutch speakers can form an informed opinion. Probably it is better to leave things as they are till the retrial. Gill110951 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Webmuize requests to make changes
Wiki moderators, please do not interfere today with my attempts to clean up this page. I acknowledge the fact that this is an encyclopedia. All will be well, have faith. Thank you. This message will be removed this week when I am done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuize (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you should re-read what has been discussed above, which mostly have been a consensus not to make major changes to the article until the status of de Berk is more clear, and then update it when facts become known. Since you are new, please let me reiterate. Don't make major changes to this article or remove valid sources until it has been broached on this talk page and concerned editors can review and discuss with you what these changes entail. Otherwise, it will probably be reverted. This is a good faith request to not proceed without discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Webmuize went ahead and made a whole bunch of changes. Since his material includes some BLP problems (unreferenced statement about a fake diploma, for one) I think his change should be reverted to allow it to be discussed in stages. He also made 'de Berk' into 'De Berk' throughout, and I see no basis for that. According to this Dutch report her name is spelled 'de Berk' in Dutch. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, Ed. Apparently, my note either wasn't read or was disregarded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I re-read what was discussed above and made the changes requested. Now you've changed it back to what you had. Luckily I kept a version of the wiki as I improved it. I do think this version is a lot better. There's still some reference links I have to add (such as for the fake diploma if you wish, though this is common knowledge) and some text I have to polish. But I can't work like this when all is undone as usual in the Wiki by stuborn moderators who have a dislike for newbies. Do you still want the better version I made Wildharvie, despite your 'consensus'? I did not remove any sources (yet) and I added some valid references. 'De Berk' and 'Lucia de Berk' is the preferred Dutch (newspaper) spelling of the name, we write a capital letter when the first name is missing. Webmouze is the operator of the Lucia de Berk information center and a cheerful soul. Please try to have some faith in the changes he makes. Good day to you Sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.122.183 (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's good to be cheerful, but we also like articles to follow Wikipedia policy. A better way is to go step by step. Now, please tell us how you know the following information to be true (was it published in a reliable source?):
If you don't have the source, it will have to be omitted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Both parents were problematic drinkers and had occassional fights. De Berk spent her secondary school years in Canada. In her 17th year she became involved in prostitution. Two years later she returned to the Netherlands with her mother. Because she wanted to join nursing, she falsified a Canadian school diploma.
- It's good to be cheerful, but we also like articles to follow Wikipedia policy. A better way is to go step by step. Now, please tell us how you know the following information to be true (was it published in a reliable source?):
Ed, as I said my time is limited, Webmouze can't go through all this with you step by step. I will answer your question above as an example, the particular fragment you mention originates at the two sources I ALREADY gave up in the "Wiki editing reason textfield" when I inserted that fragment. So I consider your question to be retorical and you will probably reject it when I tell you AGAIN where it originates. All this blabla makes me weak in the knees, but here we go, you oh so important moderators of Wiki, these are the sources for my small biography of Lucia de B. which was requested on this Talk page:
1. Partial translation from the Dutch wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_B
Levensloop
De Berk groeide op in Den Haag in een gezin met twee broers en een zus. Het gezin emigreerde als ze twaalf is naar Winnipeg in Canada, in een poging van de ouders om het huwelijk te redden. Volgens de gezinsleden liep dit uit op een ramp. Beide ouders dronken veel en maakten veel ruzie, daarin bracht de emigratie naar Canada geen verandering. Na vier jaar vluchtte de moeder met haar kinderen naar Vancouver. Van de Canadese sociale dienst kregen ze een huis. Ze leefden op voedselbonnen. De Berk werdt beschreven als mooi, ze was een promqueen op de highschool geweest. In de buurt kreeg ze een vriendje, Gary, die zich ontpopte als loverboy en De Berk in de prostitutie dwong. Toen De Berk achttien was, besloot haar moeder terug te keren naar Den Haag. Ze haalde haar dochter persoonlijk bij Gary vandaan.
De Berk trouwde jong, het huwelijk duurde twintig jaar en ze kregen een dochter. Voordat ze naar de verpleegkundige-opleiding ging, paste ze veel op kinderen, ook op die van haar zus, met wie de relatie niet goed was. Om naar de opleiding voor verpleegkundigen te kunnen, vervalste ze haar highschooldiploma uit Canada.
http://luciadeb.nl/english/stubborn-myths.html#education
2. Education and work
Lucia spent her secondary school years in Canada. In her 17th year she became involved in prostitution. Two years later she returned to the Netherlands. She wanted to join nursing, and thereby a virtuous profession, but didn't have the right valid diploma, and – of course completely wrongly, but it happened in those days quite often – falsified a Canadian school diploma.
Lucia followed the nursing training course in the Leyenburg Hospital. During this period she was often ill from tb, for which she also had to be treated. After receiving her diploma Lucia worked (as was usual) via an agency in the Red Cross Hospital (RCH) and after that in the Penitentiary Hospital, the PEN, because there simply wasn't a formation place available, not due to problems, as would be suggested later. In the PEN “she fitted in well”. Her husband however advised her to leave there, because he thought her too soft for that world and because her real dream was in pediatric care.
She successfully completed the pediatric supplementary training, “was” according to witnesses “good in the group, showed she was involved, was kind to the children and parents”. “She was always ready to help”, that is later used against her.
The second source is very reliable as it was written by a person close to Lucia de Berk. You have convinced me to insert all my SOURCES as references, Ed et al, now please let me change this page for the better, or else be forever silent, cause I am allergic to moderators. Always the same trouble with you guys, you kill the forums you work on.
Green light please? Webmouze = the operator of the Lucia de Berk information center —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuize (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Break
There are multiple issues with this, besides your stated intention to ignore consensus, which is what governs changes when there is disagreement or problems with articles. First of all, there were no requested changes made, consensus was to put off changes in the article until the situation was better clarified. Secondly, a flat partial translation from the Dutch WP article isn't helpful without sources. I don't honestly know what is required in the way of sourcing on that Wikipedia, but on this one, WP:BLP requires that all questionable, contentious, or controversial material must have reliable sources added at the time of the addition. In regard to the additions you made, many things must have a source and do not and are thus not acceptable at this time. "Common knowledge" isn't an acceptable source.
- Both parents were problematic drinkers and had occassional fights.
- In her 17th year she became involved in prostitution.
- Because she wanted to join nursing, she falsified a Canadian school diploma.
- During this period she was often ill from tb
Beyond that, because this article title uses the form "de Berk", changing the name throughout to "De Berk" isn't appropriate. If you want to make a case for moving the article name, please do so. Beyond that, since you admit you are the operator of the Lucia de Berk website, and you are suggesting your website is more reliable than... anything else"... I would suggest there is an issue with inserting self-published original research and that is even more of a problem. I'm quite sorry your time is limited and you can't be bothered to discuss these issues one by one, but if that is the case, then I'd suggest you wait until a time when you can discuss these BLP violations one by one. Meanwhile, please do not work against consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. To Webmuize: you need to cite references for everything you add to the article. Your own website might not be considered a reliable source, so cite the references from where you originally got the information you post on your website. Its that simple. Biographies can't have unverifiable stuff on them (so even if "everyone knows" a piece of information, please cite a reference so that others can look it up).--Celtus (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really now, Wildhartlivie and Celtus! The biographical material which was added in order to make the page better conform to the guidelines for biographies can be found in Derksen's book, other books, many many newspapers, and some of them are even in the judges' conclusions (100 pages, published on a Dutch government website). They are quoted both by friends and enemies of Lucia de B. They are not disputed by anybody at all. Not even by Lucia de B. and her family. What is the point of freezing the page? No one has added questionable, contentious or controversial material. Common practice on wikipedia is that text and sources are added by many people. Some guy writes some text. Someone else improves the page by adding sources. The page could have another banner pointing out that some statements need to be documented with references, in order to get other wikipedia writers to join in, improving the page. Freezing the page for a year till the legal situation is clarified (which was because of possible conflict of interest), does not help resolve secondary issues which have been raised (concerning references, lack of biographical material, ...). My opinion is that the banner pointing out possible bias could stay there till the final trial when at least there is a definite legal conclusion. In the mean time there should not be a barrier to improving the standards and content of the page. By the way, Dutch language wikipedia of course has just the same rules concerning sourcing etc as the English one. Finally: there is NOT a consensus that the page should be completely frozen for 8 months or more! Gill110951 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Gill110951. The article is *not* protected, and has never been. If you can add well-sourced material, please proceed. The controversy about the 'common knowledge' additions was that he was adding negative statements without an explicit source. That's a bright-line violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and we need to prevent that. (Material like that must be referenced *right away*; there is no option to add the references later). EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree, the article isn't locked, frozen or on hold. However, the issue is with the negative biographical content. If it is all contained in those sources which are available to editors adding the content, then there should certainly be reference citations added. I pointed out the specific problem additions above, which largely comprised the small biographical section added. I suppose the bottom line point is that if de Berk, her friends, family and those familiar with her have said and support, and it is common knowledge there, that her parents were drinkers and fought, she was a prostitute, she falsified a diploma and had TB, then it can be sourced when it is added. Common knowledge in the Netherlands may not be common knowledge elsewhere, and it just has to be referenced at the point of addition. My other concerns were the removal of one reference in those changes and the flat statement that we just needed to trust the editor who didn't have time to discuss changes that were noted to be an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Gill110951. The article is *not* protected, and has never been. If you can add well-sourced material, please proceed. The controversy about the 'common knowledge' additions was that he was adding negative statements without an explicit source. That's a bright-line violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and we need to prevent that. (Material like that must be referenced *right away*; there is no option to add the references later). EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really now, Wildhartlivie and Celtus! The biographical material which was added in order to make the page better conform to the guidelines for biographies can be found in Derksen's book, other books, many many newspapers, and some of them are even in the judges' conclusions (100 pages, published on a Dutch government website). They are quoted both by friends and enemies of Lucia de B. They are not disputed by anybody at all. Not even by Lucia de B. and her family. What is the point of freezing the page? No one has added questionable, contentious or controversial material. Common practice on wikipedia is that text and sources are added by many people. Some guy writes some text. Someone else improves the page by adding sources. The page could have another banner pointing out that some statements need to be documented with references, in order to get other wikipedia writers to join in, improving the page. Freezing the page for a year till the legal situation is clarified (which was because of possible conflict of interest), does not help resolve secondary issues which have been raised (concerning references, lack of biographical material, ...). My opinion is that the banner pointing out possible bias could stay there till the final trial when at least there is a definite legal conclusion. In the mean time there should not be a barrier to improving the standards and content of the page. By the way, Dutch language wikipedia of course has just the same rules concerning sourcing etc as the English one. Finally: there is NOT a consensus that the page should be completely frozen for 8 months or more! Gill110951 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Webmuize is willing to try again
OK, I am willing to try once again this week to update this page and add references right away. Do you want them on the page in the content or only in the "editing reason text box", Wiki moderators? I ask this because many references are the same and this will just look terrible on the page. If Wiki moderators don't answer this question in 2 days, I will opt for the "editing reason text box".
Also most material concerning Lucia de B. has been presented in the book by prof. Ton Derksen, so a reference to literature is always possible. Personally I like online references and then I have to refer to the website that has been set up by the comittee run by members of the family Derksen. There's an overlap between the website and the book, the website presents the material in a concise manner. Webmuize is hired as the webmaster of this website and has easy access to all material at Lucia de Berk in Dutch Some of that material has been translated in English at Lucia de Berk in English
I got the impression that Wiki moderators don't accept any references coming from this website. What is your opinion about this? I have to know before I start referencing. Thank you for a clear answer to this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuize (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy requires that the references be in the article proper, not just in the edit summary. If the material comes from Derksen's book, then you can provide a reference to the book that includes a page number. Use <ref> and </ref> to create footnotes. Ask for assistance if you need any help with formatting the references. If you give a book reference for a claim, then you can also include a URL in the same reference, pointing to the web site. Items found *only* on the web site are probably not acceptable as references for matters of fact, per WP:Reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's clear, thank you Ed Johnston. Now I first will have to order the book. I'll be back later, turning over the pages of Ton Derksen's “Lucia de B. Reconstruction of a miscarriage of justice” :O)
- Why should biographical material be added to this page at all? It was originally set up as an introduction to a historical sequence of court cases in the Netherlands, which have had impact all over the judicial system and in society. Maybe the title should be changed to "The Lucia de Berk case" or something like that. Gill110951 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- This article has been grouped in a category called Category:Start-Class Serial killer-related articles. Even if the charges are not true in de Berk's case, a perusal of that category will show how Wikipedia has treated similar cases in the past. Most of these articles are named after the person and not the crime. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
POV talk removed again
I have cleaned up the article in view of the results of the investigation by the Advocate-General of the Supreme Court, and in view of the legal situation that Lucia is currently free and awaiting a completely new trial. The page had been more or less frozen for a year, but in the meantime many references have been added documenting the statements which might have been thought to be matters of opinion. Nothing has been added to support any different interpretation of the cited facts. Gill110951 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate category?
I just removed Category:Nurses convicted of killing patients. Yes she was convicted, but that conviction has now been overturned, so is the cat still appropriate? – ukexpat (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I restored this category (along with two others related to convictions) as I believe it is appropriate. It is factually accurate that she was convicted of murder; the fact that the conviction was later overturned does not negate that. She is already in Category:Overturned convictions, so I don't think anyone looking at this article would get the wrong idea, but if consensus is against this category I'll remove it. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it again. It is true that for 7 years she was convicted as a serial killer but now she isn't. You could create a new category "falsely convicted as a serial killer". And the "serial killer task force" ought to be interested in such cases too. BTW she's a living person and according to Dutch law she is innocent, I think wikipedia could be taken to court for attaching the label "serial killer" to her. Richard Gill (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Compensation
I added a section on the fact that Lucia has now received a (presumably massive) compensation from the Ministry of Justice. More details and references on my talk page. [1] Richard Gill (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lucia de Berk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004220809/http://www.peterrdevries.nl/tekst/extraboekreconstructie.htm to http://www.peterrdevries.nl/tekst/extraboekreconstructie.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408192403/http://www.cwi.nl/pr/press-releases/2007/pb-petitieGrunwald-011107.html to http://www.cwi.nl/pr/press-releases/2007/pb-petitieGrunwald-011107.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213100702/http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad+verklaart+de+aanvrage+tot+herziening+in+de+zaak+Lucia+de+B+gegrond.htm to http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Hoge+Raad+verklaart+de+aanvrage+tot+herziening+in+de+zaak+Lucia+de+B+gegrond.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lucia de Berk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925144936/http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2398117.ece to http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2398117.ece
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724151645/http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/04/nurse_lucia_de_berk_not_guilty.php to http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/04/nurse_lucia_de_berk_not_guilty.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829084245/http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/mgm003v1 to http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/mgm003v1
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829121254/http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/mgm004v1 to http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/mgm004v1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Unexpected death
The article starts "As a result of an unexpected death of a baby". This is a bit misleading. The death was unexpected by some medical specialists at the hospital but not unexpected by the nursing staff. Later, experts said the surprising thing was not that the baby died but rather, every day, that it was still alive. Richard Gill (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
External links
It seems that the URL www.luciadeb.nl has been taken over by an online casino firm Richard Gill (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Removed material
This section was recently removed. [2] It is indeed unreferenced, but it is also potentially pertinent. Placing the diff here for editor review and consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- And this too is a verty large deletion, of potentially relevant material, some of it sourced. [3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Background
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday I pared back some of the recently inserted background section. I thought about this overnight and today have removed it all. See [4] for diff. If we have a background section in a BLP, telling us about the page subject, it should be suitably balanced and it should be based on secondary sources. This is neither. Like much of the material, the sourcing is to newspaper reports by court reporters, and these are primary sources. This background material is heavily based on the portrait that the prosecution painted of the defendent, the page subject, in court. It was circumstantial evidence, and was considered as part of the trial, but what it never purported to be was a neutrally presented background of the subject and so is wholly unsuited to the background character sketch in this article. It would be better to have nothing than to have something that only focuses on negative aspects of the person. I don't oppose a background section should better sources for one exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have reverted re-assertion of the background information. Please discuss it in talk. Per WP:ONUS you should not be restoring challenged content to a BLP without a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy, I did not just re-assert it, I added academic, secondary sources to help remedy the concerns you raised. Please explain why this does not satisfy you. MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not why I challenged it. You added a caricature of the subject painted by the prosecution at her original trial and thus reported in the trial reporting. It was not background of De Berk, it was a character assassination. Neither was it background to the case. Please review WP:NPOV because that paragraph was very far from neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- So, if you're challenging it because it was what it was originally written like, how can you delete the updated version I did with new, secondary and academic sources added and claim that it's okay because you challenged it originally? Please explain why you don't approve of the new updated version with academic sources. I was going to add more but you stopped that possibility by edit warring MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because the text is still a character assassination, not a background. Please have a careful read of WP:BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- But you see the thing is that I think it is non-neutral to only cherry-pick 'good' things about de Berk for her background. This is a BLP and we have to be careful, but saying someone used to be a prostitute is not even a bad thing. That's your interpretation. Who says that being a former sex worker is a bad thing? I certainly didn't. MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- But we don't say any good things about her. Your background summary was entirely a character assassination taken from a 2003 article, a primary source reporting the prosecution's characterisation of her. You just can't do that with a BLP. This is an actual living person. Moreover some of your facts were downright wrong and thus libellous. Your use of the source material has been sloppy and you give every impression in your edits that you think she was actually guilty. BLPs are difficult articles to work with and competence is required. We can't grab stuff from a bunch of old primary sources and throw that together as though that is a neutral background of her life. And placing just some of it back AGAIN is not on. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- But you are mistaken, Sirfurboy. When yesterday you deleted [5] the background section again, it was not just sourced to a 2003 primary source article. I'd gone and added a secondary, academic journal source to satisfy some of your original concerns about the section only being sourced to primary sources (not that I agree that the New York Times was a 'primary source' anyway, considering it reported on aspects of her life that weren't even mentioned at trial, so how can it just be based on the 'prosecution's characterisation of her'?). When I supposedly placed "just some of it back AGAIN', I infact replaced it all with two new sentences only referenced to the academic, secondary source, further trying to address your concerns around the so-called 'primary source'. You speak like as if it was an edit-war reversion, when it was an attempt to heed your talk page suggestion and change the content. Furthermore, I need to remind you to assume good faith. As you said, we both know that I made a poor judgement in posting this to Richard Gill's page: [6]. But, I was sanctioned for it and the mistake I made as a fresh editor is now in the past. You have chosen to continue letting that stop you from treating me as an equal editor. The sooner you treat me as such, the likelihood of us coming to amiable talk page agreements will drastically increase. Isn't that what you want? MeltingDistrict (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
not that I agree that the New York Times was a 'primary source' anyway
. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS as well as the linked policy. You need to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.- As for your supposed academic source, let's look at that. It is here: [7] and the text you used it to support says
andLucia de Berk was said to have lived a "troubled life". She grew up in a dysfunctional family, with her alcoholic parents moving to Canada. She dropped out of school when young and then turned to prostitution,
In the years before and during the incidents and leading up to her trial, de Berk attempted suicide seven times.
- So first thing to note is it does not verify all of those statements. There is nothing about her parents and it merely says she attempted suicide, not the number of attempts - a number that seems to be hearsay. There is nothing about moving to Canada nor dropping out of school. Did you even read the source before trying to use its credentials to support this text?
- But, what it does say is this:
A point it makes more fully elsewhere. What that source is actually saying is that the information that the prosecution introduced about her background helped sway the court to its erroneous judgement, despite the fact it was actually irrelevant to the facts of the case. It was a poisoning of the well. And here is why I am actually really quite angry about your continued attempts to use this background to start the article, as if these are the only pertinent background about the subject: you are doing the exact same thing again. You are trying to portray an innocent person as guilty. and we just can't do that in a BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)But it may be that this report, and the facts that Lucia had attempted to commit suicide in the past, had used drugs, was a bisexual and had been a prostitute, also contributed to the Court’s conviction that she must have been guilty of committing the crimes she was accused of.
- Excuse me? I am not at all "trying to portray an innocent person as guilty", you have just decided that yourself. You need to be commenting on the content, not the contributor, and so I invite you to redact your assumptive personal attack above. I am in fact trying to redress the balance on articles written by a now indef blocked COI editor, which is perfectly reasonable. In terms of it "not verifying all of those statements" - it helps corroborate them. The point is that the first source says that she was a prostitute, the academic, secondary source corroborates this. If you wanted to just trim the other things you don't think can be corroborated by the academic source, then go ahead and do so, you don't need to just select the nuclear option and destroy it all (like you've accused me of doing for your hours-long slavings). And your point seems to be that we can't talk at all about any things you think are negative (I never said being a prostitute was a bad thing)? Even in BLPs, you must understand that we must give both sides of the story. Sure, we can include some things you think are good like she loved flowers and once gave money to a passing drunk. But we can't just have a background section ONLY portraying her in what you perceive to be a positive way, even on a BLP. MeltingDistrict (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- But you are mistaken, Sirfurboy. When yesterday you deleted [5] the background section again, it was not just sourced to a 2003 primary source article. I'd gone and added a secondary, academic journal source to satisfy some of your original concerns about the section only being sourced to primary sources (not that I agree that the New York Times was a 'primary source' anyway, considering it reported on aspects of her life that weren't even mentioned at trial, so how can it just be based on the 'prosecution's characterisation of her'?). When I supposedly placed "just some of it back AGAIN', I infact replaced it all with two new sentences only referenced to the academic, secondary source, further trying to address your concerns around the so-called 'primary source'. You speak like as if it was an edit-war reversion, when it was an attempt to heed your talk page suggestion and change the content. Furthermore, I need to remind you to assume good faith. As you said, we both know that I made a poor judgement in posting this to Richard Gill's page: [6]. But, I was sanctioned for it and the mistake I made as a fresh editor is now in the past. You have chosen to continue letting that stop you from treating me as an equal editor. The sooner you treat me as such, the likelihood of us coming to amiable talk page agreements will drastically increase. Isn't that what you want? MeltingDistrict (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- But we don't say any good things about her. Your background summary was entirely a character assassination taken from a 2003 article, a primary source reporting the prosecution's characterisation of her. You just can't do that with a BLP. This is an actual living person. Moreover some of your facts were downright wrong and thus libellous. Your use of the source material has been sloppy and you give every impression in your edits that you think she was actually guilty. BLPs are difficult articles to work with and competence is required. We can't grab stuff from a bunch of old primary sources and throw that together as though that is a neutral background of her life. And placing just some of it back AGAIN is not on. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- But you see the thing is that I think it is non-neutral to only cherry-pick 'good' things about de Berk for her background. This is a BLP and we have to be careful, but saying someone used to be a prostitute is not even a bad thing. That's your interpretation. Who says that being a former sex worker is a bad thing? I certainly didn't. MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because the text is still a character assassination, not a background. Please have a careful read of WP:BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- So, if you're challenging it because it was what it was originally written like, how can you delete the updated version I did with new, secondary and academic sources added and claim that it's okay because you challenged it originally? Please explain why you don't approve of the new updated version with academic sources. I was going to add more but you stopped that possibility by edit warring MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Which is not why I challenged it. You added a caricature of the subject painted by the prosecution at her original trial and thus reported in the trial reporting. It was not background of De Berk, it was a character assassination. Neither was it background to the case. Please review WP:NPOV because that paragraph was very far from neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sirfurboy, I did not just re-assert it, I added academic, secondary sources to help remedy the concerns you raised. Please explain why this does not satisfy you. MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Tendentious edits?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a sequence of edits today, an editor restored the background discussed above without consensus and another edit. On reminding them of ONUS on their talk page they immediately removed several hours of my work from last week in two edits: [8] and [9] with edsum various neutrality problems, per ONUS please take your opinions on whether this should be included to talk to try and get a consensus
. This rather vague summary was not followed up with any talk page discussion and might appear to be tendentious - summarily reverting 4 hours of reading and editing over 2 days to make a WP:POINT about ONUS. So here is a talk section. What exactly is wrong with any of that material, which is all correctly sourced, primarily to the rather full discussion of this case in:
- Schneps, Leila; Colmez, Coralie (2013). Math on trial: how numbers get used and abused in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465032921.
Which source has also been carelessly deleted from the page. That is an independent reliable source, a summary in an edited published book, a secondary source rather than the newspapers being relied upon elsewhere. The information was all from that book. I am not convinced that the editor has read that work, because their edits have been so utterly at odds with the description in that book and (Meester & Slooten, 2021) that it looks like they haven't yet noticed that she was found not guilty because there were no murders, and she couldn't have committed them if there were. Not my view. That is what the sources and the courts say. It is even what the prosecution said when they formally requested a not guilty verdict be returned. I will now place a neutrality banner on the page until this is resolved. My recommendation would be to revert to this edit [10] before the page was damaged by the latest barrage of edits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- How about the fact that you removed 'several hours' of my work, also saying that the ONUS was on me to seek a consensus - I feel the same as you vice-versa, Sirfurboy. You appear to not think my inclusions were neutral, but I feel similarly about your inclusions. You reinstated content that was worded just as it was when COI editors had written it, with the same brash tone. For example: "Without the initial misinterpretation of the autopsy blood digoxin levels, there would not have been any consideration of digoxin poisoning, and no criminal investigation would have occurred". That is speculation and hypothetical. This line doesn't even clarify that this is their conclusions, just makes it sound like a hypothetical prediction is pure facts. It is my right as an editor to question and challenge content and ask that you seek a consensus for it's inclusion. MeltingDistrict (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, for editors reviewing this, the information removed in the two edits that look tendentious contain all the information that exonerated De Berk. The evidence that the digoxin found was natural and not at a suspicious level, the evidence that the baby was only disconnected from its monitor during the doctor's examination, giving her no opportunity to administer the drug, the statistical evidence that showed there were not an unusual number of deaths, and the evidence that she was not even present at some of the times she was accused of being there. Also removed was the unusual and flawed "chain link proof". It was all sourced, as I say, to a secondary published source, (Schneps & Colmez, 2013). This was all summarily removed, and in its place we had character assassination reinserted up front. This is why I believe a revert to this point: [11] is required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you two need to knock it off a bit. You clearly have completely divergent views on this matter, and the 'truth' probably lies somewhere in the middle. But I would say, User:Sirfurboy, that your request for help on a fairly unrelated page which you been editing on [12] comes off as WP:CANVASSING, which I note was what Richard Gill was blocked for in the first place and should perhaps act as a warning to not get involved in such. Per WP:CANVASSING:
It could be argued that you preceding your request for other editors to come here with "For the uninitiated, De Berk was a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence that was clearly refuted, and she was exonerated" is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion. Likewise, User:MeltingDistrict, I hope that you are conducting your edits and contributions without undue influence of your personal feelings. Snugglewasp (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate".
- I think you two need to knock it off a bit. You clearly have completely divergent views on this matter, and the 'truth' probably lies somewhere in the middle. But I would say, User:Sirfurboy, that your request for help on a fairly unrelated page which you been editing on [12] comes off as WP:CANVASSING, which I note was what Richard Gill was blocked for in the first place and should perhaps act as a warning to not get involved in such. Per WP:CANVASSING:
- To be clear, for editors reviewing this, the information removed in the two edits that look tendentious contain all the information that exonerated De Berk. The evidence that the digoxin found was natural and not at a suspicious level, the evidence that the baby was only disconnected from its monitor during the doctor's examination, giving her no opportunity to administer the drug, the statistical evidence that showed there were not an unusual number of deaths, and the evidence that she was not even present at some of the times she was accused of being there. Also removed was the unusual and flawed "chain link proof". It was all sourced, as I say, to a secondary published source, (Schneps & Colmez, 2013). This was all summarily removed, and in its place we had character assassination reinserted up front. This is why I believe a revert to this point: [11] is required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Article title/scope
I was looking at the text MeltingDistrict had added (now removed) about de Berk's early life. Clearly the motivation for adding it was problematic. However, if one were writing a bio of a person, rather than an article about the case, that information would be relevant. On the other hand, I agree it sat inappropriately in an article about an exonerated person. This makes me think that actually the scope of this article is the Lucia de Berk case - which in reality is what the article currently covers. And rightly so, as I think WP:BLP1E applies - de Berk is only known for the miscarriage of justice. I think it's different for notorious convicted murderers where the individual (and their life) becomes generally infamous. I think it makes sense to move the article name. Thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would be content with such a move in line with other articles about specific cases. On the inclusion of material from that deleted background, I would not oppose a paragraph in the article that, as in the paper discussed above (Philipse, 2015), that describes how the prosecution used such circumstantial evidence to sway the decision. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Such a move makes sense to me. So long as this article tries to be a biography of someone notable only for being the victim of a miscarriage of justice, there will be a danger of other editors breaching WP:AVOIDVICTIM:
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
(My emphasis, and my apologies for not coming here while such breaches of WP policy were being inserted and discussed.) Changing the article title to make the case more clearly the article's subject reduces that risk, while suitably opening the door for the inclusion of material (assuming it's of encyclopedic value and reliably sourced) on the coverage of the case and any impact it's had on - for example - investigatory and prosecutorial practices, jurisprudence, or media reporting of cases. NebY (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)- Thanks. Not that we need follow it but I see the wp.nl article is called Zaak-Lucia de Berk which I believe translates as Lucia de Berk case. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks both. NebY, I wish I'd had WP:AVOIDVICTIM to hand - I'll bear it in mind should this kind of thing arise again. Lucia de Berk case is indeed the translation of the Dutch title, and also in line with Kevin Sweeney case - another Richard Gill creation that also needs some work. So, we have a rough consensus. We could try a bold page move or else start a RM. I don't mind either way. I am happy to start the RM if that is helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me rather uncontroversial (admittedly always a risky thing to say on WP...). Perhaps leave this open for a day or two and, if no other opinions, move then? If there are alternative opinions, open an RM.DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've moved the page. Happy for anyone to revert in which case it can go to RM. DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me rather uncontroversial (admittedly always a risky thing to say on WP...). Perhaps leave this open for a day or two and, if no other opinions, move then? If there are alternative opinions, open an RM.DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks both. NebY, I wish I'd had WP:AVOIDVICTIM to hand - I'll bear it in mind should this kind of thing arise again. Lucia de Berk case is indeed the translation of the Dutch title, and also in line with Kevin Sweeney case - another Richard Gill creation that also needs some work. So, we have a rough consensus. We could try a bold page move or else start a RM. I don't mind either way. I am happy to start the RM if that is helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not that we need follow it but I see the wp.nl article is called Zaak-Lucia de Berk which I believe translates as Lucia de Berk case. DeCausa (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Additional Reference
This reference is mentioned on Dutch Wikipedia by Petrusgr[13]. It contains a good summary of the case and may be useful here somewhere.
- Gill, Richard D.; Groeneboom, Piet; de Jong, Peter (2 October 2018). "Elementary Statistics on Trial (the case of Lucia de Berk)" (PDF). CHANCE. 31 (4): 9–15. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1009.0802. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
Statistics table
I've removed the statistics table. The purpose it serves it not necessarily clear, and neither is the point is makes, which does not appear to be explained. Is it trying to say that in hospitals sometimes incidents happen and sometimes certain nurses are there? It may be readded if there's a consensus on justification, but at the moment it just seems like a random insertion of unexplained raw data. 82.18.162.80 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)