Talk:Richard D. Gill

message: Thanks for cleaning up your article, you should get rid of the signature as part of the article. Uncompetence 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I restored and expanded the short section on Lucia de Berk, using the linked article. Could somebody check the two Dutch references, which I couldn't reference today, but cited per AGF. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair. I wasn't aware that Gill's work played such a large role in the trial. It seems a bit undue weight to me, but that is definitely more a fault of the popular media and its application to our policies than your editing. NW (Talk) 04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a statistician, and I was raised by two nurses, my mother and grandmother. I cannot imagine anything more important than freeing a wrongfully convicted nurse, who will spend her life in jail because a non-statistician has forgotten the main ideas of a first course in statistics. Perhaps I am not the best judge of NPOV! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 05:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps you are a better judge of it than I  I think the article is much better today than it was last week. Nice work! NW (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved Gill1109's personal POV on Richard D. Gill's role in the case to my/his user talk page. Richard Gill (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lucia de Berk]] 

message: CWI, formerly MC, is a research institute funded by the Dutch national science research council. Quite a few young people are employed there, doing research towards their PhD. The PhD degrees are granted by universities and CWI is not part of any university or affiliated to any university. People doing PhD research at CWI are typically supervised by senior university researchers with part-time positions or advisorships at CWI. The thesis is then defended at the supervisors' university. Cobus Oosterhoff, my thesis advisor, had an advisorship at MC and a chair at Vrije Universiteit. Richard Gill (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You had at least one other high-powered classmate graduating in 1979, whose name's spelling is beyond me now. I'll clarify the MGP information, per AGF.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, roughly!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I gave a "heads-up" at the COI bulletin board, just declaring today's brief discussion at your user talk page, for transparency.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks that is good. I think I should move the Lucia stuff I wrote to my user page. There is a lot of personal point of view in it! (I don't understand how people can't get emotional about injustice, especially injustice at such a level. I get similarly emotional about injustice towards Mathematical Truth (which consists solely of tautologies). How you use /interpret mathematical truths in the real world is another matter, but heavens above, please let's agree on the tautologies.). I'll link to it from here. (And I really am on the point of taking a real vacation!) Richard Gill (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done it. Richard Gill (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree at Free University; Employer Mathematical Centre 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard D. Gill. 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/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  tag to http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=73585
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, @MeltingDistrict. The Lucy Letby case is not closed. She can, and likely will, appeal. So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. If we were now at the “long after the case is closed” stage, The Telegraph would not have published that article. Richard Gill (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are edit-warring against two other editors and have reverted all our edits. Before we discuss the content of the article you need to stop reverting against consensus. In terms of the content I see no reason why we shouldn't use the wording of the article itself as was done originally. Can you explain the removal of all edits about Benjamin Geen please? MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are the one who should have brought this to this talk page, after your edits were challenged. The principles of WP:NPOV (of which undue weight is an aspect) and of respecting living persons are paramount here. A newspaper article highlighting multiple people's arguments that an appeal may be justified in one recent legal case is not an adequate basis for adding a large subsection to this article, let alone mentioning it in the lead section. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well fair enough that I drastically overstated the info, but the newspaper article wasn't just doing that, it was saying that those who are advocating an appeal appear largely to be from the web sleuth and conspiracy theory online group, and those criticisms I put in were direct quotes. The way you refined it to just be a couple of sentences in the body was fine with me and sensible I thought. MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just it - the article was about a group and their ideas, not singling out Gill's ideas specifically. Also, your two sources on the Ben Geen case didn't even mention Gill.What do you and  think of the section as I just edited it to be? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent changes, as far as I am concerned! By the way, a new application was made this year to the CCRC for Ben Geen, based on new statistical evidence. I think it has a good chance of success, at last. And Ben’s barrister Mark McDonald spoke out for Lucy’s possible innocence when interviewed on TalkTV, to the enormous surprise of the people interviewing him. In England, if you express doubts as to Lucy Letby’s guilt, you are treated as if you are crazy. But things are changing. Some key figures are “coming out” in her favour. This is good, I can now get back to being retired. Richard Gill (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories

message: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Number of concerns on a COI editor. ltbdl (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (September 2023) 

message: I was warned by UK police that I *might* risk arrest. Since the trial is over and I did not influence the jury, I do not risk arrest. The letter from the police is by now all over internet. Whoever wrote about this affair might like to take a look at it, and at my response to the police. https://gill1109.com/2023/09/20/contempt-of-court/ 
By the way, four independent scientists got similar intimidating letters. And all of our offers to help the defence were ignored. In the UK, new scientific evidence may not be introduced after a trial has started.
Richard Gill (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk of arrest 

message: I took an active role when this page about myself was started many long years ago when Wikipedia was a friendly place. It was started by someone else, I didn’t know who they were (still don’t). I did not actively edit it since. I think the notice at the top of the page is misleading. It appears to be part of the recent campaign of vandalism of this page because of my outspoken support of Lucy Letby. An interesting phenomenon. I am not the only victim of the witch-burning hysteria which has gripped the UK though it still gripping the UK Richard Gill (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active role editing this page about myself 

message: I said in my 2021 talk at the Dept of Statistics of the University of Chicago, a scientific lecture to an academic audience of legal scholars, statisticians, and forensic scientists, "I suspect she was innocent, but I don't know of course". My opinion on the case (as an academic and a scientist) changes from time to time as I get more information about it and talk to other scientists, academics, and investigative reporters about it. My present opinion is that the case deserves fresh academic and scientific study. I am not campaigning for the case to be reopened, and have never done so. I don't think this passage belongs in a section on my work as a scientific advocate for reopening cetain closed cases. I am fully aware that new academic study of the case probably won't happen till after Allitt is dead and buried, given that this is a taboo topic in the UK (but not in the rest of the world).  I also made comments about the impossibility in the UK to speak up about convictions like this. Thanks for putting these links into the article, by the way. Richard Gill (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bev Allitt 

message: Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html
The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic). Richard Gill (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucy Letby 

message: Lucia was in jail for 9 years: three years of pre trial detention and six years as a convicted serial killer nurse. I would say that she was incarcerated for nine years. Shut up in a prison as a *suspected* baby killer is also incarceration, in my humble opinion. Richard Gill (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclined to agree, but the two cited sources both say six years into the life sentence (2004-2010). Do you have a source that says 9 years, and explains the pre-trial detention? We can't say 9 years based on those sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was arrested in December 2001. She wrote an autobiography. A film was made of it. You can find the dates in her book. She was convicted by a lower court in 2003. She appealed (and the prosecution appealed too) and was convicted again by a higher court in 2004, for a longer list of murders and attacks. An application was made to the Supreme Court concerning a piece of evidence, namely a report which had been forgotten about at the Netherlands Forensic Institute. The Supreme Court, in 2005, confirmed the life sentence but removed the ‘indefinite detention in psychiatric hospital after completion of the sentence’ because there was nothing to treat her for. So she was in prison from the end of 2001. You can find the date of the arrest on Dutch Wikipedia.  https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaak-Lucia_de_Berk Richard Gill (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucia de Berk 

message: Due largely to WP:CANVASSING behaviour after his previous final warning,  (the subject of this article) has been infinitely blocked: User talk:Gill110951#Indefinite block. I therefore ask editors to be extremely cautious not only of Mr Gill's comments above, but also of any new editors who may come here to edit as a proxy on Mr Gill's behalf. Structuralists (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gill110951 has been indefinitely blocked 

message: This source is used for some of his biographical information.  However the tilde in the URL is used in Unix systems to indicate a user namespace within the filesystem. That appears to be something Gill wrote and hosted himself. Now we might expect Gill to be a good judge of his own biography, but I think we should improve that source to something that has had editorial oversight. I'll mark the occasions it is used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sirfurboy, I cannot see any problem with the use of that source. Indeed the Wikipedia verifiability policy, at WP:ABOUTSELF, explicitly condones the use of such self-published sources for the purposes it has been used for in this article. This acceptance is reinforced by the biographies of living persons policy at WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for that. I'll remove the tags. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Source Needed 

message: Sirfurboy removed the line about Gill just being blocked on Wikipedia - saying 'Wikipedia doesn't talk about Wikipedians' and "neither is this notable or due". Firstly, Gill HIMSELF has been talking about his block: , . Since when do the rules say we can use Gill's own blog as a source to mention what he thinks about the Letby case, but can't use it to say he acknowledges being blocked? Secondly, it is notable to him clearly as he is brining it to the attention of his followers, and this is a biography of him. Sirfurboy you seem to just be removing this as it is negative of him? MeltingDistrict (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean to direct this at my editing? In which case this is the wrong forum. Or do you wish to assert that the fact that the subject has been editing Wikipedia and then blocked is notable for a mention in a BLP article? in which case I suggest you take a good read of WP:BLP and then go and find some reliable independent secondary sources that are speaking about this. Without that it is neither notable nor due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On what verifiability grounds is it justifiable to use Gill's blogs to cite his opinions about the Letby case, but not to cite his reaction to being blocked? MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @MeltingDistrict, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source, so cannot be used to support anything about a third-party in a Wikipedia article. All WP:BLP content needs to strictly comply with the appropriate Wiki policies, particularly verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I have not added anything about the Letby case, and would not have sourced anything to a blog, but the question I have raised is whether this is WP:DUE. So on the advocacy of Lucy Letby, we ask whether what we say . Note, then, that reliable sources (not blogs or social media postings) are required to establish the due weight. There are such sources in the article, suggesting that the advocacy there may have due weight (and I take no position on whether that is correct). If that is established, then we have the warning every time we edit this page:  So the subject's blog is a suitable source, the only self published information we can include, although it is very important to remember that it is WP:PRIMARY. Being a primary source, it does not, itself, establish notability for including the information in the article. Very few articles include the subject's wikipedia activities, and these only when reliable secondary sources have already discussed the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia block 

message: Should the following sourced sentence be excluded from the article? 
 Structuralists (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance