Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 2

Intro suggestion
The introduction to the article is way too long. Can I suggest that the detailed sequence of events (supposedly Baker's recounting of them) be moved to a section that labels it appropriately? Fagstein 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

New Section "James Prunier"
Following the above intro suggestion, SparkZilla had reworked it, but I have trouble with his placing of factual information about James Prunier under the heading "Baker's Account". Struggling to find an appropriate section to place it under, I decided to make a new section, entitled "James Prunier" David Lyons 05:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a real need for a separate Prunier section -- it splits the flow of the events outside the courtroom, and places undue focus on Prunier too early on the page. Rather than have two sections, I changed the title of the section to "Events surrounding Baker's arrest" and reworked the two sections into one.Sparkzilla 07:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation/Rejected
Sparkzilla's request for mediation:

"Baker's supporters, particularly David Lyons are attacking the page to either 1) delete or belittle arguments negative to Baker's claims of innocence 2) personalise the case against Mark Devlin, making it appear he is the only critic of the case 3) Belittling the media that criticism of Baker appeared in 4) removing factual data, such as a comparison of the arrest rates in the US and Japan. I believe that the article is reasonable as it stands by my last edit and would like like to request your help in mediating to prevent the page becoming an extension of Baker's support page. Thank you"

is rejected as he/she "Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_1#Nick_Baker_.28disputed_conviction.29

David Lyons 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you are bringing this up now. The RFM was denied in February 2006.Sparkzilla 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Article title
The article title is rather biased. Quite possibly this person is innocent but we don't know that, and many actual criminals claim to be innocent too. Can somebody think of a better title? As it is, we may as well name the article "Nick Baker (innocent man)" because that's the impression being given. How about: (prisoner) or (convict)? --kingboyk 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, in which way is the article title biased? Baker has been convicted and he disputed that conviction. The notable point of this case is that he disputed the conviction. Had he not done so, then it is unlikely that his story would even have appeared on Wikipedia. David Lyons 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would recommend Nick Baker (chef), since the intro claims he is a professional chef. However, other than the intro sentence, there seems to be no other mention of that role. -- Bovineone 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that "disputed conviction" may not be appropriate because there are many people in prison who claim to be innocent. Baker's case is different because he disputes his conviction in Japan. Might I suggest Nick Baker (Prisoner in Japan)? Sparkzilla 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of section regarding Criticism of Baker and the Support group
SparkZilla. Aw, sorry about that. You could have tagged it :-)

As the editor who adds or restores material likely to be challenged, the burden of evidence lies with you to cite reliable and credible third-party sources for every single claim.

We have to be particularly careful where we are dealing with biographies of living people. Especially so, as this is of an extraordinary and potentially libelous nature. Go read WP:BLP

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately" & "Be very firm about high quality references."

It is quite clear that Mr. Devlin and the Baker camp are involved in an ongoing feud. Mr Delvin's personal homepage



"False claims about Mark Devlin by Iris Baker

On Nov 14, 2004, I was the subject of a misguided personal attack by Iris Baker, mother of Nick Baker, a Briton who is currently serving 11 years for smuggling a record quantity of drugs into Japan. Mrs Baker is upset that I exposed how she misled the media and the public in her campaign to free her son and that I alerted other media that she was misleading them.

...SNIP...

Baker's homepage

The majority of the contentious material is drawn from Mr. Devlin's own magazine. Note WP:V

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Note the "well-known professional journalist" bit - Mr Devlin doesn't even describe himself as a journalist!!!

Also note the "may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications". Can you cite other articles in reliable third-party publications by Mr Devlin or the authors of the other articles in Mr. Devlin's magazine?David Lyons 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding WP:BLP. Please see the section on "Using the subject as a source"


 * In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.


 * Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:


 * It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
 * It is relevant to the person's notability;
 * It is not contentious;
 * It is not unduly self-serving;
 * There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.


 * A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.


 * Direct statements by Iris Baker and Mark Devlin are both acceptable as they are authoritiative statments about the dispute by the subjects themselves. In fact, most of the information about the dispute comes from Iris Baker and the Justice for Nick Baker site, surely the most authoritative of all sources on this case. As for third-party sources, the dispute was covered in this article in the Swindon Advertiser.


 * Other supporting documentation comes from the defense documents that were published on the Justice For Nick Baker site. Sparkzilla 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check WP:BLP


 * "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.


 * Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject."


 * Note the "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject." bit. The subject of this article is Nick Baker, not his mother's web-site nor Metropolis magazine. Therefore, I don't know why you are trying to invoke WP:BLP.


 * You are repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. To use the potentially libelous material contained in the two self-published articles you cite, you must prove that Mark Devlin and the other author "Kirsten Holloway" are both well-known professional journalists with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. To date, this you have failed to do. David Lyons 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's go through it paragraph by paragraph to show that the information does not come from Mr Devlin's publications.


 * Criticism of Baker and the Support group
 * In January 2004 the support group released information that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest.


 * Verified on JFNB site.


 * In March 2004 some of Baker's defence documents were released on Baker's support site. The documents indicated that when Baker and Prunier had been travelling in Europe, Prunier introduced two Israelis to Baker and later told him that he owed them "20,000" and was being sent to Japan to collect something for them ("sex pills; clothes or money"). The Israelis provided the case to Prunier. The statements also indicated that the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, showing him three murder-scene photos. Iris Baker denied that Baker was involved with the Israeli Mafia.


 * From defense documents released on JFNB site.


 * Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, a Tokyo-based English language free magazine, and Japan Today, an Internet news portal, initially supported Baker's cause and promoted the case through his publications. After learning that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest he reversed his position and wrote in a September 4, 2004 editorial that Iris Baker and the support group had not been honest in their presentation of facts to the public.


 * THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION IN SWINDON ADVERTISER. Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable.


 * On September 6 2004, Baker's supporters asked his local MP David Drew to make representations upon Baker's behalf. Drew responded that he had made representations "up to and including the Foreign Office" and while he accepted that the Japanese penal system was "brutal", his own "cross-examination" of the UK police did not tally with the comments on the support website and suggested an "international enquiry" was underway. Iris Baker responded by contacting the Foreign Office who were unaware of any representations by Drew to either themselves or the British Embassy. Iris Baker's further enquiries to a Chief Detective Inspector with the Gloustershire police confirmed that there was no local or international enquiry underway as Drew claimed.


 * Verified from JFNB site.


 * In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site. Since Devlin claimed she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited Devlin to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she may proceed with a libel action.


 * This is direct from Iris Baker, on the JFNB site.


 * Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "ludicrous". To date no libel suit has been filed.


 * Direct response from Mr Devlin's personal site.


 * Towards the end of the appeal the British Embassy released information thet the Belgian dupes had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences. Baker's supporters claim that they based their information that the dupes had been set free on two articles in that appeared in The Guardian in July of 2003.


 * Although all available appeal court documents were released on the support web-site, Iris Baker refused to release or translate the district court documents during the appeal. The British Embassy later confirmed that it had translated the original Chiba district court documents into English for a pro-bono UK barrister. A copy was passed to the family sometime after the Chiba trial.


 * All of this was already dealt with in the talk section and mainly comes from JFNB site.


 * So you can see that NOTHING in this section comes from Mr Devlin's publications. Everything is verifiable from the Nick Baker site, an authority on the case, or a third-party source.


 * The page has been reverted. I have also posted the following message onto the BLP Noticeboard, and would advise you that if you want to revert it again that you seek mediation.


 * The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.


 * I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.


 * Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.


 * I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice.

Sparkzilla 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now let's go through it...


 * (Metropolis magazine article #1 = "The Last Word - We the Jury" by Mark Devlin in Metropolis magazine. Issue #545. Sept 3rd 2004.)


 * (Metropolis magazine article #2 = "True Crime" by Kirsten Holloway in Metropolis magazine. Issue #608. November 18th 2005.)


 * "In January 2004 the support group released information that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest."


 * Sparkzilla: "Verified on JFNB site."


 * Really? Where?


 * Claim in Metropolis magazine article #1:


 * "It was then revealed that this wasn't Baker's first trip to Japan. In fact he had visited just two months before his arrest"


 * Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.


 * "In March 2004 some of Baker's defence documents were released on Baker's support site. The documents indicated that when Baker and Prunier had been travelling in Europe, Prunier introduced two Israelis to Baker and later told him that he owed them "20,000" and was being sent to Japan to collect something for them ("sex pills; clothes or money"). The Israelis provided the case to Prunier. The statements also indicated that the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, showing him three murder-scene photos. Iris Baker denied that Baker was involved with the Israeli Mafia."


 * Sparkzilla: "From defense documents released on JFNB site."


 * Really? Where?


 * Claim in Metropolis magazine article #2:


 * "Baker’s defence documents revealed that Baker and Prunier went to Amsterdam and then to Belgium where Prunier was given a suitcase by members of the Israeli mafia. Prunier explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to the mafia and had to bring something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. After checking in the case in Baker’s name, the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point."


 * Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.


 * "Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, a Tokyo-based English language free magazine, and Japan Today, an Internet news portal, initially supported Baker's cause and promoted the case through his publications. After learning that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest he reversed his position and wrote in a September 4, 2004 editorial that Iris Baker and the support group had not been honest in their presentation of facts to the public."


 * Sparkzilla: "THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION IN SWINDON ADVERTISER. Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable."


 * The Swindon Advertiser:


 * "But her visit was rocked when leading publisher Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention.


 * Mr Devlin, who publishes Japan Today magazine, has now withdrawn his support from the campaign.


 * Mr Devlin said: "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son."


 * Angry Mrs Baker said she had never taken any money for herself. She said: "I emphatically defend myself. I believe he is innocent and all I want is a fair trial. I tried to meet Mr Devlin in Tokyo but he refused. ""


 * Verification of what? This merely repeats Devlin's spurious claims.


 * Sparkzilla: "Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable"


 * Notability? Devlin is a publisher, not a journalist. You still haven't cited Devlin's & Holloway's credentials as well-known professional journalists - please do so.


 * "On September 6 2004, Baker's supporters asked his local MP David Drew to make representations upon Baker's behalf. Drew responded that he had made representations "up to and including the Foreign Office" and while he accepted that the Japanese penal system was "brutal", his own "cross-examination" of the UK police did not tally with the comments on the support website and suggested an "international enquiry" was underway. Iris Baker responded by contacting the Foreign Office who were unaware of any representations by Drew to either themselves or the British Embassy. Iris Baker's further enquiries to a Chief Detective Inspector with the Gloustershire police confirmed that there was no local or international enquiry underway as Drew claimed."


 * Sparkzilla: Verified from JFNB site.


 * Really? Where?


 * Claim in Metropolis magazine article #2:


 * "Even Baker’s own MP, David Drew, would not give his support, citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on [Baker’s] website.”"


 * Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.


 * "Towards the end of the appeal the British Embassy released information thet the Belgian dupes had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences. Baker's supporters claim that they based their information that the dupes had been set free on two articles in that appeared in The Guardian in July of 2003.


 * Although all available appeal court documents were released on the support web-site, Iris Baker refused to release or translate the district court documents during the appeal. The British Embassy later confirmed that it had translated the original Chiba district court documents into English for a pro-bono UK barrister. A copy was passed to the family sometime after the Chiba trial."


 * Sparkzilla: "...mainly comes from JFNB site."


 * Really? Where?


 * Claim Metropolis magazine article #2:


 * "The Embassy even translated the original court documents into English (at no cost to the family). It is now clear that Iris Baker had the translated documents all along, but refused to release them."


 * Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.


 * So, you see that the majority of the material does indeed appear in the two Metropolis self-published articles. It is an outright falsehood to say "that NOTHING in this section comes from Mr Devlin's publications". You must furthermore show Devlin and Holloway's bona-fides as well-known professional journalists published in respected third-party publications to use self published articles - why do you refuse to do so?


 * Please...can you at least show ONE third-party respected publication outside of Devlin's own self-published magazine in support of his claims?


 * It is not for me to seek mediation. In cases of potentially libelous material on BLP's we should err on the side of caution until the material meets Wikipedia verifiability policy.


 * David Lyons 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone posted a question about the reliability of self published sources on the talk:Reliable_sources and I thought I would take a look at this article. I only half assed read the talk section above, but I read the Swindon article and I don't see how the spat between Mrs. Baker and Devlin fits into the article as it is now written. I suggest cleaning up the article and see what you make of it with "regular" sources. The article needs a lot of grunt work before spending time discussing how this other stuff can fit. Is cart before the horse the right analogy? --Gbleem 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The spat fits in because it is about inconsistencies in Baker's story Sparkzilla 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I took this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources:_three_questions. The result was that 1. WP:RS is a guideline (not policy), 2. Denial of self-published sources is not a trump card and that 3. the self-published sources can ALL be used.


 * From the discussion...


 * The three questions again:
 * 1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page?
 * 2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case?
 * 3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes.
 * As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes
 * Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the controversy section with citations/sources, and supporting links. Sparkzilla 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have edited "Criticism of Baker and the Support group" section. Have removed material, including dates and sources, that is not presented in referenced material. "Learned" implies correct info - but no source for that info is presented, so change to "came to believe". Removed broken link . SmithBlue 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edit. The link seems fine to me, can you check again? Sparkzilla 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkzilla: Amazing you had all that info at you fingertips!!!


 * Supporters.
 * Recent editing history of the article shows that only I have removed the contentious material. Please do not assume that because I have asked you to provide reliable sources for negative content in a BLP that I am therefore by necessity a "supporter" or am trying to "suppress" material. I think you are unnecessarily drawing imaginary battle-lines onto a battle-field which doesn't even exist. This is all the more surprising as you wrote yourself at the top of your User Page: "Too many Wikipedians treat each page as a battleground to prove they are right". One of the major tenets of Wikipedia is "assume good faith". I'm sure that we would both like to see a fair and accurate article which keeps within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy.


 * Please. Your posting history is 99% on this article. You have consistently tried to remove any information that is critical of Baker. You (or other supporters) have also removed information on the Justice for Nick Baker site to minimise primary sources for the article (notably that Baker had been to Japan just two months before his arrest). In addition you have stalked me on the Metropolis (Japanese magazine) page, on the Omotesando Hills page. You are now seeking to discredit Metropolis circulation figures as part of your campaign to discredit the magazine.


 * So it's pretty clear you are a Nick Baker supporter, and that you are acting in bad faith. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never made any assumptions about your identity or leanings - please don't make any about mine. As for your claim of "stalking", I don't believe I have ever edited Metropolis, as you claim and a quick look at your user contributions shows you have edited nearly 30 separate articles - I have edited this one and one other. A total a two. Your claims are ridiculous and paranoid. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Devlin as a prominent supporter
We only have your word that Mr. Devlin was a supporter at all - I can find one positive article in his publication (although not written by him). Was he a supporter, and could you tell us what makes him "prominent"?


 * Iris Baker says Mr Devlin was a supporter herself in the "spam" mail.


 * "Devlin approached me in September 2003 claiming he wanted to help. He seemed quite keen to help out with ideas for fundraising and so on. He made banners and pages to the effect that people should rally to 'save an innocent man' and attempted to turn Nick's trial into an OJ Simpson-style guilt-or-innocence internet debate on his website."


 * It's pretty clear from her quote that she she never said this. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So a person who "mades banners and pages" and who published an article positive to Baker's case is not a supporter? How much more sad nonsense will you come up with to try to discredit Devlin? Sparkzilla 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In removing the quote I was trying to save Devlin further embarrassment. Read between the lines - she's ridiculing him. Hardly accolades lauded upon a supporter - let alone a "prominent" one. Ah well, leave it if you must. David Lyons 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, I'm sure Devlin is grateful for your consideration. Iris Baker's tone is negative because she wrote her comment after Devlin exposed her. Nonetheless, it still proves he was a supporter, and a prominent one enough to merit a long rant against him. Sparkzilla 11:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability
If Mr. Devlin was somehow famous, or a well-known commentator on the Japanese criminal justice system, or an acknowledged expert in the field of human rights or penal reform or the like, he could perhaps claim some notability. Being the publisher of a free magazine does not in and of itself suggest notability in this case.


 * Notability arises not just from the size of the magazine, but from the fact that a publisher who had contact with the group realised that they had misinformed him. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No indeed - didn't say it was. Notability arises from being an expert in your field, or an author/journalist published in respected 3rd-party publications. You have been unable to show Devlin and the other author are either. The campaign has many high-profile supporters: A Baroness, 6 MEP'S, 2 British MP's, human rights groups. Devlin was never one of them. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis You yourself have introduced a description of Mr. Devlin's magazine for, as you say, "some perspective". Since it is quite important in this case to establish Metropolis' standing, I'm going to spend a little extra time here:

You state that the publication is "Japan's largest distribution English-language magazine". The Japan Audit Bureau of Circulations (JABC) web-site breaks publications down into quite small sections - and we find Metropolis under "free-papers" in the Kanto region along with 18 other publications. As far as I can see, Metropolis is in fact the ONLY English-language free paper - which would by default also make it the largest.

Metropolis' Wikipedia entry claims a circulation of 30,000 copies per week. Unfortunately, I can't find any supporting figures on the JABC web-site. Can you point me to them? I only ask because it seems that "Tokyo Classified", Mr Devlin's first incarnation, which was later renamed Metropolis, had some most unusual circulation figures:

Within six weeks of starting it was claiming 60,000 copies. This was then quoted as 45,000 copies on the companies own data sheet, this was reduced again on 17th December 1999 in a letter to a disquieted client, by Mr Devlin to under 40,000, and now Metropolis claims 30,000. A most surprising turn of events for a magazine that is supposed to be growing!

I have in front of me, the two issues containing the contentious articles relating the this case. Issue number 545 dated September 3rd 2004, and issue number 608 dated November 15th 2005.


 * Whatever. Metropolis is cerified by Japan's Audit Bureau of circulations for 30,000 copies. It's a plain fact stated in the magazine itself and I'm pretty certain they publish the actual certificate on their site somewhere. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What we find here are two 64-page issues. A quick calculation shows that approximately 30% is advertising, including several glossy adverts for what might euphemistic be described as, "gentleman's entertainment" clubs, and escort services, and bars advertising "wet-t-shirt" competitions. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, and I'm sure strip-joint advertising commands premium advertising revenue, but it's not exactly the Sunday Times Colour Supplement, is it?


 * You are misrepresenting the advertising content of the magazine. Most magazines have 30% advertising (it's how they, y'know, make money). I also have a copy in front of me, and out of over 70 pages, I see only one page of gentlemen's club ads, the remainder being ads for travel services, international property and phone services, bars and restaurants. Check the Village Voice or any other city magazine and you will find many, many more ads for escorts etc. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One might imagine that the feature article (on Baker - the magazine's largest at 3 pages) might be entrusted to a seasoned journalist, unfortunately an empirical google search for "Authors Name" does not show up ANY entries at all outside of the magazine itself (let alone in reliable 3rd-party sources). Neither does Mr Devlin register on the journalistic excellence scale - he doesn't even describe himself as a journalist!

What I am getting at here is the overall quality of Mr Devlin's publication. Does it have editorial control, a history of fact-checking, reliable journalists? Sparkzilla, you have mis-represented this self-published source on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources talk page to receive the answers you got.


 * Hardly. Metropolis has printed hundreds of articles and hundreds of editorials. Baker's supporters were happy to have the magazine support the case initially, but now the magazine is against them they are interested in discrediting it in any way they can. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How ever many times I request it, you still will not, or can not, address the issue and produce one single piece of evidence to show that Mark Devlin or Kirsten Holloway are respected experts in there field or are published in reliable 3rd-party publications to establish their bona-fides and satisfy the requirements of BLP #self. David Lyons 11:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyhows, this case has gone to the mediaton cabel. David Lyons 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: this article needs to abide by WP:BLP
Please take some time to read our policy of biographies of living persons. All material that is deemed by any editor, and that it is not supported by solid sources, can be deleted from the article and the talk page witout restrictions related to WP:3RR. Editors that re-add such material may be blocked for disruption. The only manner in which the disputed material can remain in the article is by carefully sourcing and attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese Justice System and the 99.97% Conviction rate
I think this essay could be it's own article. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

 * I think there is also an issue of undue weight here. Out of the many, many articles on TV, radio, newspapers and news web-sites, and I would point here to the many links on the Baker web-site, we can only find two critical articles - those which appear in Mr. Devlin's magazine. To create and maintain a whole Criticism section (and BTW the largest of the whole article!) based on these two articles alone shows at best a penchant for self-aggrandizement, or at worst, a very heavy undue weight bias. David Lyons 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything, the article gives undue weight to Baker's innocence. The fact that the support group withheld information that points to Baker's guilt is the most serious point of the article (which is why you want it removed so badly). Let me put it another way, the article is about a disputed conviction, therefore information that informs more about the actual circumstances of Baker's arrest is necessary, even if it is negative to Baker. This article is not an extension of Baker's support page. Sparkzilla 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since my attempt at mediation failed, I will repeat here what I posted on the medcab page. One editor has already suggested condensing the criticism section and an admin (Jossi) has  expressed concerns about whether the opinion of the person (in the criticism section) is significant enough to warrant so much space (at the last count word for word the largest section) in the article.


 * I have also alerted the NPOV discussion page so any authoritative editors there may offer guidance.


 * Since it has now been established that the op-ed and feature piece in Metropolis are reliable sources in this case, what we have to do now is access the weight to be given both them and also the spat between Devlin and Iris Baker.


 * It is a difficult task to access the weight that should be given to the "Criticism by Metropolis" section and the Devlin-Baker spat contained therein. Perhaps the most sensible approach would be to look at the op-ed piece and the feature articles separately (as they fall under different criteria as sources) and then deal with the Devlin-Baker spat. If anyone thinks this methodology flawed, please feel free to make alternative suggestions.


 * To access the op-ed piece we should look at the importance of the publisher's opinion and his relevant expertise pertaining to the case. To access the feature article we should look at the magazine's overall standing and also it's relative importance pertaining to the Baker case as a whole.


 * First I shall address the op-ed piece:


 * NPOV policy states, and I have quoted only that which I believe relevant (please feel feel to quote further policy):

"...that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."


 * and:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * In it's strictest interpretation, it could be said that, as the opinion of only one person, Mr Devlin's viewpoint falls into the extremely small minority and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However, considering the questions of significance and prominence, it might be fair to include Mr Devlin's opinion.


 * Sparkzilla suggests that:


 * (paraphrased) the "opinion of the publisher of Japan's largest English-language magazine (with over 600 issues in a 12 year history), and the publisher of Japan's largest English news and current events discussion site...It is fair to assume that the publisher is:


 * 1) "An expert on Japan-related issues."
 * 2) "An expert on the Nick Baker case (Iris Baker confirms that he wrote a 30-page report on the case)."
 * 3) "A reliable source when giving his opinion that a support group that he worked with has misled him."


 * 1. I think there is a illogical leap of faith here. An analogy might be: My job: For example, I service passenger aircraft engines. I have been doing it a long time. I am an expert - does it mean I am also an expert on aero-dynamics? No. People might assume so, but you'd be surprised how very few engineers actually know anything about flying at all. What I am getting at here is that Mr Devlin is undoubtedly an expert on publishing a free-magazine in Japan, but I'd be happier to see some examples of Mr Devlin's work on Japan-related issues, before I can, in all faith, accept this claim.


 * 2. Writing a 30-page report on a topic does not in and of itself makes one an expert on it. Indeed, the only reference we have to this unpublished, non peer-reviewed report is Iris Baker, who said it offered "Devlin's wild theories about Nick's case and support network.". Mr Devlin has not spoken to to Iris Baker, nor the main character, Nick Baker, nor his lawyer, he even turned-down an [| offer from Iris Baker] to meet and try to bridge the issues they were having. My understanding is that Mr Devlin, out of the many court hearings, attended the High-Court verdict and one other hearing (but left after 20 mins). I'm bound to say that I view this claim with skepticism and would characterise the report as OR.


 * 3. Naturally, Mr Devlin is a reliable source for his own opinion! The issue here however is whether the opinion is significant and prominent enough to be included. I believe it is borderline and woould seek the opinion of others.


 * Next, I shall deal with Metropolis' general importance and also it's relative importance pertaining to the Baker case:


 * Metropolis is the largest certified-distribution English language free magazine in Japan with a history going back 12 years and a current circulation of 30,000 copies per week. The magazine comprises four sections: feature articles and interviews relevant to expatriate life in Japan; an extensive Tokyo events guide; bar and restaurant listings; and over 1000 classified ads each week. It features interviews with Japanese and foreign celebrities, and has included interviews with Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, footballer Nakata Hidetoshi and Peruvian ex-President Alberto Fujimori.


 * This Wikipedia article is about Mr Baker's arrest in Japan, his subsequent detention, trials and conviction. Also, his mother's "campaign for justice", human rights, translation/interpretation, the Japanese judicial and penal systems and other "issues" surrounding the case (which could perhaps include the "Criticism by Metropolis magazine" section). Metropolis published 2 features on Baker - one pro and one anti, for want of a better brief description, and one critical op-ed piece. The articles were published in 2004 and 2006 respectively.


 * Baker was arrested in 2002 and the campaign (still ongoing) started in 2003. The case is nearly 5 years old. It attracted considerable exposure in the UK mainstream-media (Baker is British) and exposure in Japan's English-language media (Links are on the main page). The campaign garnered the positive support of The Baroness Sarah Ludford (Member of the European Parliament), 6 Euro MP's, 2 British Members of Parliament, Stephen Jakobi O.B.E., the Registered Charity Fair Trials Abroad, the foreign Prisoner support service, a more than 5000 signature petition, Japanese members of the "Melbourne 5" and Professor Makiko Mizuno, linguists expert at Osaka's Senrikinran University. It also featured in an International Bar Association report on International Bar Association [| report]


 * Excepting the Metropolis article and a description of Mr Devlin's position in the Swindon advertiser, both the UK and Japanese reporting was either neutral or positive to Baker in tone (again see the external links section on the main page). Despite the fact that Metropolis is the only negative article, given the position of the magazine, I believe that it may have some merit and aspects of it can rightly be included in Wikipedia. Anyone want to weed-out the most salient points?


 * Devlin-Baker spat: I concur with Gbleem, this public mud-flinging match has little relevance to the piece and really has no place in an encyclopaedic entry.


 * In conclusion, I propose that although the critical op-ed piece is a reliable source, that it's inclusion in this BLP is borderline. Secondly, that Metropolis feature does seem to have more merit and aspects of it might be included. The Devlin-Baker spat doesn't warrant inclusion at all. David Lyons 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Undue weight: 2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.
 * Viewpoint = Baker is not telling the truth
 * held by = probably the MAJORITY of the public : http://www.japantoday.com/jp/vote/172
 * Prominent Adherent=Devlin


 * Baker-Devlin spat is verifiable with third-party source. It's not unreasonable to follow the story. Publisher accuses mother - mother accuses publisher - publisher defends. I really don't think you will be able to remove it, however I have proposed a shortened version on the article's talk page. Sparkzilla 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Problems with the poll:


 * Non-independently-verifiable
 * Only 750 or so respondents
 * Only 2 question choices
 * Conducted on an anonymous discussion site
 * Demographic - a Japan-related web-site


 * This could not by any means be described as an accurate reflection of "probably the MAJORITY of the public". Who are the prominent adherentS (plural) and who are the significant minority? Also, if you have any compromises can we keep the discussion here please, otherwise it gets difficult to follow. Thanks. David Lyons 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are going to find it very difficult to convince people that a poll on a major Japan news site about a Japan-related issue is not a reasonable indicator of sentiment towards the case. In fact, is the only independent data that exists about public sentiment towards the case. Please remember the poll was taken BEFORE Devlin's editorial, and that, if anything, the results would be even more negative now. It is Baker's supporters who are in the minority.


 * Minor points: most polls are anonymous. Number of question choices is not important.


 * For your information, it only takes a sampling of 400 or so respondents to estimate the sentiment of large populations with low margin of error (plus or minus 5%). Polls at election time are taken from samples of around 1000 people -- for a whole country.


 * Try using the calculators on this page: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm For example, if you asked a sample of 750 people in a city of 250,000 people whether Baker was guilty or innocent and 55.8% said he was guilty, you can be very certain that between 59.3% and 52.3% of all the people in the city think he is guilty (confidence internval of 3.5%).


 * As for the revised text for the "spat" please just answer yes no or try your own version on the talk page, a more appropriate venue than here, There is simply is no need for mediation in this case. Sparkzilla 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything - it is just simply your supposition to assume that I am. A Japan-related issue you say - what about the UK? What about the more than 5,000 people who signed in support of Baker?


 * Demographics again. You talk about a Japan-based issue - well, the majority of Japanese don't go to English-language news sites. As Devlin says in his blog [] referring to Crisscross before it was reverted back to Japan Today "50% of our readership originates from the U.S". Is this really a Japan-based poll? This is not independent data from a reputable statistical resource.


 * Since no poll was taken after Devlin's editorial, it is again simply your supposition to assume that a poll would be more negative now.


 * Regarding the number of questions - of course they are important - no well constructed poll would phrase the complexity of the issue in such simplistic terms - Basically "guilty or innocent". There wasn't even a "don't know" option!


 * Indeed, as you say, most polls are conducted in an anonymous manner - by professional statistical organizations. Whatever Japan Today may be, an expert statistics source it is not.


 * You are furthermore neglecting those who don't have internet connections, as well as those don't speak English in Japan (the MAJORITY). What about those who might be passionate about human rights, et al, but are unaware of Japan today?


 * This was not a poll conducted in a professional statisitcal manner. It is totally unacceptable in my opinion.


 * Finally, don't try to force my hand in a snap decision, insisting I give a yes/no answer to your compromise. As I originally said after giving my original opinion, I will canvas others input on the "spat". David Lyons 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby's case is rather close to Baker's. A poll, conducted by the marketing firm ACNeilsen, factored the following into their poll of 1401 people (of course the questions don't relate exactly to Baker's case, but you get the idea):

A range of questions:

(Trial)
 * Very fair
 * Fair
 * Unfair
 * Very unfair
 * No opinion/neutral

(Innocence/guilt)
 * "Probably" Innocent
 * Probably or definitely guilty
 * No opinion/neutral

(Further classification)
 * Women/Men
 * Young/old
 * Political leaning
 * Likely-hood of future travel to Bali
 * Government assistance

Anyway, I don't feel further discussion of the JT poll is merited.David Lyons 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

criticism section
Can we condense the criticism section? Also, in cases like this the media, supporters and defenders tend to mix the two issues of fair trial and guilt. They really are two separate issues and I think the article would make more sense the all the players were described in their view on these two issues. --Gbleem 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how you would like to condense the section and I will give it a go. I don't quite understand the second part of your comment - could you elaborate? Thanks Sparkzilla 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cite "after learning Baker been to Japan" bit. Changed Swindon bit for what the article actually says. Can't find "Dishonesty" bit in Devlin op-ed piece, so changed to what it actually said - (I'm sure someone can pull out a better piece). All spam mail spat info comes from either Baker's site (partizan), and Devlin's private home page - not acceptable sources for this BLP, so removed. David Lyons 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Re Spam mail: See 3 below.

The three questions again: 1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page? 2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case? 3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes. As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the information again. If you must condense it, I have suggested an edit further down the page. Sparkzilla 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find anything in the Metropolis article about "introducing" mafia to Baker, so changed to what it actually said. David Lyons 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Detention section
Since much of the discussion about Baker's case revolves around his treatment during the 23-day detention I have added a "Detention" section. Please feel free to add properly cited material Sparkzilla 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reactions to trials
It is my intention to move all the comments at the bottom of the page to their respective sections. This will give better flow and will allow each item to be cited properly. Sparkzilla 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External links section
There are many links in the EL section that should be used as sources for material in the article. If these are dups, they should be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename page to Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)
See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Nick_Baker_.28chef.29 Sparkzilla 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Radley College
Not a big deal but it would be better you have a secondary source that shows Prunier went to Radley. Don;t you have a newspaper article or something on J4NB? Sparkzilla 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better to have a secondary source, I agree - but I don't think it's a point of much contention. Remove it if it bothers you. David Lyons 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Baker-Devlin Spat Proposal
Before

In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site.[20] Since she claimed Devlin had said she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited him to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she could proceed with a libel action. Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case".[21] To date no libel suit has been filed.

After?

In November 2004, after Devlin emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to media following the case, Iris Baker accused him of being a spammer and of harvesting emails from the support site. She also indicated her intention to sue him for libel. [20] Devlin said her claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case". [21] Sparkzilla 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you move this over to medcab, where there is a space for compromise suggestions, please? David Lyons 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in mediation. Please respond here. Sparkzilla 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why have you responded several times on the mediation page and also tried to accuse me of bad faith on the NPOV talk page? David Lyons 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of pages from Internet Archive
Before contemplating the removal of sources from the Internet Archive (notably the appeal defence pdf), it should be considered that the only person authorised to remove pages from the Internet archive is the site owner who, according to the whois record, is Iris Baker

Removing the appeal defence pdf pages from J4NB proves that members of the support group are involved in a cover-up. If the same pages are removed from the Internet archive it will provide clear evidence of Iris Baker's involvement. Sparkzilla 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would point out that evidence, if we would stipulate such, is not proof. Furthermore, the issue of what is "clear evidence" is hardly verified. --Malangthon 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request
Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that Medcab requires both parties to agree to mediation. Since Sparkzilla refuses, as far as I am concerned, it is closed. David Lyons 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing. --Ideogram 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about. You want me to post on the talk page where there already is a consensus against the whole Metropolis section? When you yourself even refuse to participate in a mediation about that topic? Heatedissuepuppet 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed user talk page discussion
Removed a CoI discussion originally held on my talk page and wholesale copy & pasted here by Sparkzilla. It gave the impression it was originally discussed here, was out of context and further, contains material not compatible with an article talk page. Removed material. I have added a further explanation to Sparkzilla's talk page. David Lyons 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This information does not belong to you, and you cannot remove it. It is germane to the discussion of your CoI regarding Nick Baker, and to the discussion of Baker in general. Just keep reminding yourself - is this really what I want to be doing with your time? Sparkzilla 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why you want to hide this information so much. You deleted it both from your own talk page, and are trying to delete it here. The truth is that you are down to arguing about ONE sentence in this article, but you simply can't stop fighting because your life is so sad that you can't stop. Sparkzilla 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "...but you simply can't stop fighting because your life is so sad that you can't stop" is an example of what shouldn't appear on this talk page. Originally, at the beginning of this section, few lines above here, I put a link to the material - that doesn't seem like the action of someone trying to hide information. I will add here what I put on Sparkzilla's talk page as further explanation:


 * The assertion "This information does not belong to you, and you cannot remove it." is disingenuous. User Sparkzilla has removed text placed here in WP that was released by copyright holders asserting that the text inclusion here at WP violated copyright laws. The text USER:Sparkzilla removed certainly did not belong to User:Sparkzilla and that user removed it with false--demonstrably false--accusations of copyright violation. User:Sparkzill has a long history of running roughshod over WP guidelines and making false accusations. --Malangthon 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, In future, if you wish to ref whole discussions - link to them, that way it is clear to all where and in which context it was held. For example, in this case the original discussion started under the title "You requested mediation" on my user talk page and ended up as "Conflict of Interest"on Nick Baker's page. Please also bear in mind that material that might appear on a user talk page may contain material incompatible with an article talk page. As a reminder:


 * The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.


 * Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.


 * No personal attacks. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.

Bearing that in mind, please feel free to join in for some constructive discussion. Thank you. Thanks. David Lyons 06:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So here you are arguing about arguing - kind of proves my point don't you think. You obviously have NOTHING better to do in your life than come here and try to get some attention from me. You remind me of that quote by Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. The sad thing is that you still think that somehow there's a way you can win. You can't. You lost a long, long time ago. It's over -- get a life. Sparkzilla 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping copies of this specific user's correspondence, Sparkzilla. He/she/it makes quite a few claims alleging abuse by other users here on WP and obviously is of the opinion that he/it/she is immune to the same rules of civility. The great thing is, eventually this person will lead WP into a libel suit because he/she/it is occasionally accusing others of breaking real laws--made through real treaties by real legislative bodies--that are subject to real penalties. WP has been informed of this recklessness and that records are being kept. And I am making a record of it all. Malangthon 14:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question re notability
I wouldn't go so far as to question the notability of the subject, but the phrase " Baker's story was reported on to some extent by western media, but almost completely ignored by Japanese-language media" does lead one to query this. Also, wouldn't a better title be "Nick Baker (Japanese prisoner)"? -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  11:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should judge the subject of an article's notability by the intro, but by what the rest of the article reports. One of the "notable" facets of this subject is that, although Baker's story has been reported on by several major media outlets in the west, the Japanese press has ignored it. This in and of itself is notable because it begs the question of why this would be so, and if it is part of a larger pattern. Cla68 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I too have a problem with the current title "prisoner in Japan". It is not very future proof, since he is presumably not going to be a prisoner forever. "Japanese prisoner" is equally problematic as it suggests Baker's nationality could be Japanese. How about Nick Baker (convicted in Japan) or, Nick Baker (imprisoned in Japan)? David Lyons 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have tried several revisions of the title in the past and "prisoner in Japan" seems the most simple and basic description that disambiguates this Baker from others and points to his notability. "Japanese prisoner" doesn't work because he's not Japanese.


 * Regarding future-proofness: When he is released he will still be notable as having been a prisoner in Japan, unless he makes some bigger news in some way. Even if Michael Jackson retired, he would still have been known as an entertainer. Even then he would be Michael Jackson (entertainer) compared with Michael Jackson (English actor). See Michael Jackson %28disambiguation%29.


 * "Convicted in Japan" and "imprisoned in Japan" are also problematic for disambiguation. If we write "Nick Baker (imprisoned in Japan) it might lead people to think that it applied to a time when the other Nick Baker was imprisoned Japan. "Prisoner in Japan" relates to Baker himself, not to actions that have been taken against him. It begs the question of who imprisoned him, who convicted him, which could be seen as NPOV. It's better, and probably policy, to use passive voice in titles. Perhaps someone could find the relevant guideline and ask to ask there...Sparkzilla 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Sparkzilla makes sense with his reasoning for the current title. "Nick Baker (convicted drug smuggler)" is probably a little too POV. Cla68 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or just (prisoner)?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Why don't we move the other Nick Baker article to: "Nick Baker (naturalist)" and make this one the straight "Nick Baker" article? Cla68 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of very serious sourcing problems
Cross-posting from the peer review page: Evidence of very serious sourcing problems here, although I assume good faith and sincerely recognize the efforts of the editors involved to create a good article. First, a cited Guardian articles reads, in part, "Mr Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate inter preters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." The current Wikipedia article reads, "Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate interpreters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." It then gives a reference, but does not put the direct quotes in quotation marks, nor is it the correct reference, which is to the article cited ninth, not the article cited eighth. ...The next citation I looked at showed me that the Wikipedia article reads, "the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point." The source article reads "the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, and showed him three murder-scene photos to illustrate their point." Again, this is cited, but not put in quotes; this one is an example of inappropriate paraphrasing. I did not delve further into the sources after finding these problems on my first run-through, but this is enough to tell me that the whole text of the article needs to be checked against its sources for similar problems. Dekimasu よ! 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. One of the reasons I asked for peer review was to get exactly this kind of comment. The main editors of this article have been looking at it for such a long time that items like this can be difficult to see. that said, I don't consider these particluarly serious as they can be fixed easily. Please feel free to make edits where you feel they are necessary and if those edits bring up some other issues then they can be discussed here. Sparkzilla 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Metropolis reporting in the intro
I notice that someone removed the mention of the Metropolis reporting on this subject from the intro. I believe that the Metropolis reporting on the subject is notable enough to be included in the intro. Metropolis is a notable English language publication, enough to have it's own article in Wikipedia, and was the publication that "broke" the story of the significant inconsistencies in Baker's claims of innocence and maltreatment by Japanese authorities. The Metropolis reporting was a significant event in Baker's story and I believe it should, therefore, be mentioned in the intro which is why I put it there. If someone disagrees, please discuss it here. Otherwise, I'll add reference to it again to the intro in short order. Cla68 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability of Metropolis is contested - not only by me but also by other editors, and I'm still waiting for any evidence of its notability. On the other hand, maybe Metropolis' reporting was a significant event in Baker's story, but if so, you must still agree that we need reliable secondary sources supporting any statements suggesting so..! Using only first hand sources from the magazine itself goes completely against the policies outlined in WP:ATT. As you see, my problem isn't really the intro itself, but the actual "Metropolis" passage. Heatedissuepuppet 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This debate will be difficult to resolve for a couple of reasons. It's true that Metropolis is one of the only sources (in English, at least) that has claimed inconsistencies in Baker's story.  No other source that I know of, however, has refuted Metropolis' claims.  So it comes down to whether Metropolis is a reliable source or not.  Since there isn't any evidence from secondary sources that Metropolis isn't a reliable source, I believe in giving that publication the benefit of the doubt.  The findings by Metropolis have been indirectly confirmed by Baker's local MP, David Drew.  Like I said, however, this debate will be difficult to resolve either way. Cla68 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. When it comes to the Metropolis section, it does not boil down to whether Metropolis is a reliable source or not, but even if it did, I can't imagine that the burden of evidence would lie on anybody but those who wish to use that magazine as a source. What you'd need to determine whether Metropolis is reliable or not is a source stating it is reliable - not the opposite. Otherwise, any source yet to be debunked could claim to be a reliable source, and as a matter of fact, this is not the way Wikipedia works.
 * I would say that Metropolis is a "source of questionable reliability" WP:V - I doubt for example that Mark Devlin has ever underwent any journalistic education (he is an entrepreneur, not a journalist), and I do wonder to what extent "a very crappy magazine kept afloat by gaijin bar ads and worth every penny you pay for it, namely nothing" (User:Calton in the Metropolis VfD) follows journalistic principles.
 * Still, the biggest problem with that particular section isn't whether or not Metropolis is a reliable source - the problem is that Metropolis has got its hands in the jam jar, and is actually participating in the controversy, as opposed to only reporting it. As such, any comment the mag makes relating to the situation turns into a primary source, and in my humble opinion, THAT is what it boils down to, that there are no reliable secondary sources to provide a neutral and unbiased description of what happened. Heatedissuepuppet 08:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's the rub. The credibility of that publication appears to rest on what we, "gaijin" living in Japan, believe it to be.  Some of us think it's credible, some of us don't, for various reasons.  I don't think the debate is resolvable.  I think we can agree to disagree, so, I probably won't be removing those tags you've placed in that section of the article because I think that's a fair compromise of the disagreement over whether that section should be there at all. Cla68 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clae68: The credibility has already been tested on the AFD. Metropolis easily passes the criteria of a reliable source according to in to WP:RS. It has 13 year published history; a large circulation; hundreds, if not thousands, of original artciles and commentaries. It has clar editorial oversight. The articles were repbulished in Japan Today, which is the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world. Not only that, but the WP article about Metropolis was nominated for deletion and only the submitter said Delete. Even the editor Calton, the most critical person, considered it to be a weak keep.


 * HIP: Other sources in the section including the Swindon advertiser, Baker's defence docuuments and items from Baker's support site.


 * The final part of your comment was the subject of a RFC here: . The relevant part is...


 * The three questions again:
 * 1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page?
 * 2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case?
 * 3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? :::Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes.


 * As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes
 * Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already been through these issues for over two years and these items have already been addressed. Placing the tags again will be considered disruptive. Sparkzilla 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are bordering on being intellectually dishonest. You know, just as well as I do, that Japan Today is also owned by Mark Devlin, so the fact that Metropolis' articles have been recycled on that site is hardly any measurement of reliability - this you bloody well know. Also, suggesting that Japan Today is the largest news site and discussion board on Japan is, if not a lie, nothing more than a rumour - Alexa rankings are easily inflated and manipulated (I can say this from own experience). Any one quote from a mediation you yourself abandoned after expressing disinterest in it has little bearing (edit: mistakedly assumed the quote was from the mediation, but the fact that you gave up on that is still a good reason to question your motives), and further on, even if they might be included, there is no secondary source proving Metropolis' notability in this matter. This is my main point, and one you so far have avoided replying to.
 * You suggest "it will be considered disruptive" if I put the tags back, and I'm certain that's true, somebody namely YOU will consider it disruptive, but Cla68 agreed with the tags 5 minutes prior to your posting. For what it's worth, I've long considered your Metropolis-related edits disruptive, but I fail to see in what way trumpeting this out will help resolve this matter. Heatedissuepuppet 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, passing a VfD has nothing to do with passing any test for reliability/credibility, as you suggest. Actually, you might as well stop bringing that up because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.Heatedissuepuppet 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again I'd like to remind you of WP:CIV - do not call me or my edits "silly". Heatedissuepuppet 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if you have a problem with the article you take it to deispute resolution. I also suggest that you take a rest from WP for a time as your posts are becoming increasingly, shall I say, heated. Sparkzilla 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you answer my questions instead of attempting to denigrate my person with personal attacks. I am engaging in the first step of dispute resolution: Talking to the other parties involved. It went well with Cla68 - maybe because he doesn't have something personally invested in this article. Please debate honestly instead of trying to find a way out of it all by suggesting my posts are "heated". I have remained civil and I ask you to do the same. Heatedissuepuppet 09:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkzilla - can we keep this civil please? Entitling your edits on this page and Metropolis, denigrating editors contributions as "silly", "pathetic" and "Don't waste your time" is not really becoming of a serious WP editor. Further, especially in the case of a BLP, it is not for Heatedissuepuppet to begin a mediation process, but for the editor wishing to add contentious material. David Lyons 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims
Op-eds are not reliable enough to claim that ""inconsistencies in his (Baker's) story have multiplied...that contradicts his supporters' portrayal of Baker as an innocent abroad". In other words Baker and his supporters lied. I have removed it

The references supplied link to material that includes "Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention" & "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son". - those claims, by any standards are exceptional claims and the adding editor will have to supply multiple reliable sources to back this up - especially for a BLP. The sources put forward so far are "Metropolis - True Crime" and the "Swindon advertiser". Cross-referencing the two, I can not find multiple sources for:

1. "According to the Metropolis article, towards the end of the appeal information became available that the Belgian dupes had not been set free, but had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences." - That Iris Baker and the support group were lying about the situation of the 3 "dupes" arrested with Prunier. Exceptional claim.

2. "The article went on to say that, when questioned about Iris Baker's comments alleging a lack of government support, an official from the British Embassy noted that officials in Tokyo and London had helped the family in the UK and in Japan, worked to improve Baker’s conditions in prison, and arranged a pro-bono lawyer to review the case. The Embassy had translated the original court documents into English (at no cost to the family). Even though Iris Baker had translated court documents all along, she refused to release them to clarify the case." - That Iris Baker and the support group wilfully withheld information. Exceptional claim. 3. "Metropolis stated that Baker’s local MP, David Drew, would not give his support to the campaign, citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on [Baker’s] website”.- That Iris Baker and the support group had lied. Exceptional claim.

According to Wikipedia policy regarding BLP's I have removed this contentious material and it should not be reverted until multiple reliable sources can be cited. David Lyons 13:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further info:


 * The sources cited in the article (including one from an op-ed, another from a personal home-page), include:


 * "I was disturbed to see that so much of this "noise" involved using latent anti-Japanese sentiment to promote its goal." (Metropolis op-ed by Mark Devlin)


 * “Baker’s supporters misrepresented the case to the media and the public to make him appear innocent. In doing so they wasted a lot of people’s hope, time, effort and money,” (Metropolis article)


 * "...Iris Baker and the support group had misled the public by withholding information that pointed to Baker's guilt. I was particularly concerned that as a side effect of her campaign Iris Baker promoted unwarranted anti-Japanese sentiment...By falsely presenting Baker as an innocent dupe Iris Baker and the support group have wasted a lot of hope, time, effort and money and made it more difficult for real cases of injustice to be taken seriously." (Mark Devlin personal home page)


 * "But her visit was rocked when leading publisher Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention."


 * "Mr Devlin said: "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son." (Swindon Advertiser)


 * These are exceptional. As this is a BLP, multiple sources should be provided. Further, the main negative article, appears to be written by a non-notable journalist (Kirsten Holloway). I can find not one single other article written by her...ever. David Lyons 10:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to confuse the issue. We are talking about three specific claims. See below. Sparkzilla 02:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments
'''Please allow non-involved editors to make their comments, unencumbered from involved editors rebuttals and further argumentation. Involved editors should keep their comments in their alloted section.'''

Disputed text
The removed claims are here:. The four items are noted below. The first comes from an ope-ed from the publisher of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), a previous supporter of Baker's, who claimed that Baker's team had been misleading the public.

1. ....and claimed in an editorial in September 2004 that "inconsistencies in his (Baker's) story have multiplied...that contradicts his supporters' portrayal of Baker as an innocent abroad".

The other three come from another Metropolsi article published as a follow-up to the case, after Baker's appeal had failed.

2. "According to the Metropolis article, towards the end of the appeal information became available that the Belgian dupes had not been set free, but had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences."

3. "The article went on to say that, when questioned about Iris Baker's comments alleging a lack of government support, an official from the British Embassy noted that officials in Tokyo and London had helped the family in the UK and in Japan, worked to improve Baker’s conditions in prison, and arranged a pro-bono lawyer to review the case. The Embassy had translated the original court documents into English (at no cost to the family). Even though Iris Baker had translated court documents all along, she refused to release them to clarify the case." 4. "Metropolis stated that Baker’s local MP, David Drew, would not give his support to the campaign, citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on [Baker’s] website”.

User:sparkzilla
is for inclusion and says that: Metropolis broke the story that Baker was lying about the circumstances of his arrest, first in an op-ed, followed with a review of the case that disclosed many unknown facts about the case.


 * Claim 1: Op-eds are allowed to be included in BLPs as long as they do not cite facts. Citing opinions is allowed. The removed op-ed is a written as a claim. It is notable because of the person who made it (a previous supporter, publisher of Japan's largest circulation English magazine), and because it was a major reversal of opinion about the case.


 * Claims 2-4 are not exceptional claims in their own right. They support the major claim that Baker and his team deceived the public. Considering that this is a disputed conviction, and considering that Bajker was found guilty, it is not an exceptional claim to present sources that say that Baker's story is not what it originally appeared.


 * Sparkzila says that supporting claims need not have multiple sources. There are thousands of similar examples in Wikipedia, where a single article has brought to light original material about a topic.

User:David Lyons
is against inclusion and says:


 * These claims are exceptional. Multiple sources for each should be provided especially as this is a BLP.

I withdraw from this hashed RfC. David Lyons 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * David Lyons, please open a CoI as soon as possible. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin himself or a very close associate of his. Anybody taking a closer look at his edits will come to the same conclusion, no matter how much Sparkzilla will complain about these "speculations" that several users, independent of each other, have voiced. This and any other editing conflict Sparkzilla is involved with (bar the Richard Gere "gerbiling" issue) won't be resolved until this basic problem is dealt with. Heatedissuepuppet 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (for the record - this comment was removed by Sparkzilla, see my comments below. While David Lyons has since then removed the original comment I replied to, Sparkzilla had no right to remove this comment, so I'm re-instating it for now)Heatedissuepuppet 09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While the comment made by User:Heatedissuepuppet deleted and replaced (see (09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) above) does speculate about the identity of the user Sparkzilla, it is, in my opinion, germane given that it asserts the author has a vested interest and a possible POV which could be in violation of POV criteria here on WP.
 * As for the single source issue, much of what is produced here seems to have but one source (a spectacular example is the article on the Goth's destruction of the Roman army at Adrianople which, historically has but one source). However, in my opinion, the events related in the Nick Baker article are about persons still living and given that even WP is accountable for veracity, I can not but think that the article must have more than one source. If the single source issue can not be resolved, WP should seriously consider removing the article. --Malangthon 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Heatedissuepuppet
I'm against the inclusion as long as there is no uninvolved, second hand source documenting these events, in accordance with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Any piece of information which CANNOT be confirmed accordingly should be deleted. Heatedissuepuppet 07:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this comment was removed by Sparkzilla after I was indefinately blocked (that block has obviously been lifted since), with some vague reference to Meatpuppet policy ([]), despite the fact that nobody ever suggested I was a meatpuppet, and despite the fact that there is nothing in the meatpuppet policy that allows editors to remove comments others have made from the talk page. Heatedissuepuppet 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
I believe that the reporting done by Metropolis on the matter is credible and should be included in the article. They're not exceptional claims because the journal stakes its credibility on the facts of the story that they're reporting, and the writers of the story are named. As far as I know, no one has rebutted the Metropolis story, not even Baker's supporters themselves. The reporting done by Metropolis is significant to Baker's story, because Baker is a foreigner in Japan and Metropolis is one of the major news sources in English in Japan that reports on stories about foreigners in Japan. If you don't want to give total credence to the Metropolis reporting, all that is necessary to do is state that, "A story in Metropolis claims that Baker's story is inconsistent..." to show that the story is from a single journal. Cla68 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
Editorial by notable voice is accredited appropriately. WP:UNDUE may apply, but I would rather include this information rather than disinclude - it is portrayed as opinion of one man from one journal, not as fact.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
If editors here want to attract other editors to assist them with their content dispute, they should know better than to make a mess of the request. Editors do not have time to sift through all these comments, and an ensuing editwar in this page. Make a short comment stating your position and the nature of the dispute and take a couple of days off to allow other editors to comment. I refuse to comment on this dispute under these circumstances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cleanup. It really helps having a simple request. My view is as follows: As we are discussing a single article, an op-ed, I would argue that unless other secondary sources confirm these claims, using this article to further claims by an involved party would be an infraction on WP:NPOV. It is quite simple, really: if these claims are any notable these would be reported in numerous sources and not just an one op-ed. So, editors would be better advised to look for additional sources for these claims, at which point will be possible to add them to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
I would suggest the editors review this article to see if they consider that it helps verify any of the contested statements. Addhoc 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest changing the 'Criticism by Metropolis magazine' to 'Criticism of the Campaign' and rewriting the section so it doesn't revolve around a single source. Addhoc 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
Without living and breathing this particular topic, my take is something of a mixture of the above. I agree with Cla68, that language identifying this as a single-source item could permit its inclusion, but not as Cla68 specified it (because that version left out the op-ed nature of the piece, and incorrectly labelled it an "article", which implies journalistic integrity and ethics, and research, which are possibly if not outright likely to be absent.) I don't agree with Cla68, and do agree with David Lyons, that the claim is exceptional. But also agree with inclusion-proponent's position that the supporting material is not exceptional; the exceptional part is the core idea that Baker's claims may not be what they seem; any particular source isn't exceptional (though theoretically could be, if the source were "exceptionally" dubious). I see no evidence that Metropolis is itself unreliable; rather, the problem is that editorials and letters-to-the-editor are by their very nature unreliable and sources real-world facts. Proponent, however, makes a good argument that the only fact being sourced by the Metropolis op-ed is that such an op-ed was published, and by whom. The question necessarily then becomes, in my mind, whether the opinion expressed in the op-ed is notable/encyclopedic or just random "noise". Additional sources help establish it as non-noise. Which brings us to undue weight. Despite the above, I tend to agree with Jossi and ZayZayEM that undue weight is at least a question worth raising here, and that (as also expressed by Addhoc) more sources would resolve that question. In the absence of more sources, I lean slightly toward saying that, as long as the "inconsistent story" theory is identified in the prose as to the nature of its sources, it is probably okay to include it; but I remain on the fence about that: I don't personally know enough about the topic of this article to be certain that the weight afforded this theory is due and of genuinely encyclopedic interest. PS: I am not watchlisting this; if further response by me is needed, it will have to be manually requested. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
On the WP:COIN there is a current report raising serious questions about Sparkzilla regarding this and other articles. Suggest this discussion be put on hold pending what happens there. Also, Sparkzilla, the instructions for this RfC are clear, "Involved editors should keep their comments in their alloted section," please respect them. RomaC 05:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Disclosure resulting from the WP:COIN has brought me to think the above sections would have Undue Weight, have left comments in the Comments on the results of this RFC directly below. RomaC 08:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the results of this RFC
Note to Sparkzilla - stop trying to say that this RFC backs up your claims - it does no such thing. There isn't even any clear consensus. David Lyons 10:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary of comments that actually deal with the content of the RFC
 * Cla68 - All Metropolis claims should be included but "Metropolis claims that Baker's story is inconsistent..." should be added to make sure it is known to be a claim
 * ZayZeeEM - Rather include than disinclude. Written as claim is ok. Check for undue weight.
 * Jossi - Add other sources to deal with issues of Undue weight.
 * Addhoc found a new source for one of the claims and suggested a new section title
 * SMcCandlish - In the absence of more sources, I lean slightly toward saying that, as long as the "inconsistent story" theory is identified in the prose as to the nature of its sources, it is probably okay to include it.
 * This is not an adequate summary of my comments; see below. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. See your comments below. Sparkzilla 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also note that in a further discussion here, SMcCandlish also said: "If there is a reliably sourceable question about his trial, it should be in the article. To dwell excessively upon it would be undue weight (PoV-pushing, in other words). Dwelling upon discrediting that question is at least equally a form of PoV-pushing. Just source the facts and let them speak for themselves."


 * and


 * "there isn't anything cognizant at WP:BLP that requires multisourcing for minor details, but rather for potentially controversial claims about a living person."

So the consensus of independent respondents to thei RFC is that the information should be incuded, as long as it is not given undue weight in the article. The aricle has since been rewritten to deal with this issue. As it stands I have not re-included claims 2 and 3. The other claims have multiple sources. Sparkzilla 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative summary of comments deal with the content of the RFC


 * Sparkzilla - Publisher of magazine whose citations he wants to use (COI anyone?) and critic of Baker and support group - for inclusion.


 * David Lyons - against inclusion on grounds of exceptional claim.


 * Heatedissuepuppet - against inclusion as long as no UNINVOLVED, secondhand source. ie) Against inclusion of Metropolis & Japan Today UNSUPPORTED sources.


 * Note: the above three comments are by involved editors. The purpose of an RFC is to find the opinions of non-involved editors. Sparkzilla 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * CLA68 - For inclusion as claims not exceptional.


 * ZayZayEM - only refers to editorial and does not give opinion on exceptional claims in feature article. ie) may include properly attributed material from EDITORIAL ONLY with due care to WP:UNDUE


 * Jossi - only refers to editorial and does not give opinion on exceptional claims in feature article. REQUIRES SECONDARY SOURCES for the op-ed. If claims are notable would be found in numerous sources. Advises search for additional sources.


 * Addhoc - nothing relevent to the RfC at hand.


 * SMcCandlish - only refers to editorial and does not give opinion on exceptional claims in feature article Raises concerns of WP:UNDUE and encyclopedic value. Finishing the sentence which Sparkzilla conveniently cut-off: "I lean slightly toward saying that, as long as the "inconsistent story" theory is identified in the prose as to the nature of its sources, it is probably okay to include it; BUT I REMAIN ON THE FENCE ABOUT THAT" ie) NO OPINION.
 * This comes closer (vs. the first summary) to what I was saying, though missed a few points too; this is the hazard of trying to summarize such things; just let people's comments stand and speak for themselves, eh? Anyway, it is correct that I am neutral, with a "slight" positive "leaning", on the value of the "inconsistent story" theory and that particular source's applicability here.  And yes, I retain WP:UNDUE, WP:ENC, and WP:COI concerns. The gist of my position is probably more about what the ultimate reliable value for the reader is, over what guidelines say (and note I said guidelines, not Policies). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I also think Jossi raises a good point about more sources. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are neutral with a positive leaning for inclusion based on the quality of sources? That seems to agree with what I said above. In any case, the resolution of this issue does not rest with your opinion alone. The other non-involved editors are also for inclusion if there are multiple reliable sources, which there are. The "inconsistent story" is backed up with the defence documents, items from Baker's supoport site. My claims agsinst the group are backed uip by the Swindon advertiser article and Iris Baker's comments on the support site. Sparkzilla 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RomaC - Suggests suspension of this RfC.

Sparkzilla, for someone who has been editing with a now admitted undeclared COI for at least 3 years, your gross deception in removing the last part of SMcCandlish's opinion to make it look supportive to your stance, and twisting of others opinions to appear as if they cover more than just the op-ed is unforgivable, and merely goes to show that you are still, despite the admin warning against you to back off this article, incapable of behaving in a truthful, good faith manner. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your conclusions are rejected. David Lyons 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly the RFC is to collect the comments of uninvolved editors, so you can scratch opinions of the three involved editors. The items currently in the section have secondary sources ars requested (swindon advertiser etc). If you would like to open another RFC, or get an admin's opinion on this feel free. Please also note that in dealing with edits involving my own magazine I have followed COI policy, which is to ask for independent advice via this RFC. Please also note that I am an expert on the Baker case, and my opinion and the subsequent research undertaken by my magazine is both notable and relevant. Sparkzilla 12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not try to put the onus on me to take this to another RfC. That is for you to do. I reject your conclusions and will remove them if you try to place them in the article. Again I remind you of an admin's warning to back off this article. An expert in free glossy magazines you maybe, but an expert on Nick Baker you are not. Remove yourself from editing this article further, or I will take your COI to the Admin's noticeboard. Further do not strike-out my comments. Respond to your removal of SMcCandlish's opinion and twisting of other's input. David Lyons 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not misrepresent the RFC. The whole purpose of an RFC is to gather independent comments so that the dispute between involved editors can be resolved. Restating the original respondents position does not help the process. You are simply misrepresenting the comments to suit your POV. The comments say clearly that items with mutliple sources can stay in. I have already told you that I am going to leave the "reactions to the trials section" as-is. and I am not including certain of the claims above as they dont have multiple sources.


 * Declare your COI. You are an undeclared member of Baker's support group. I am a published critic of the case, which has also been noted by an independent publication (Swindon Advertiser). I am also the only person to have done an analysis of all of Baker's public statements, in a 30-page report that I will shortly place on my personal website. This 30-page document and my opposition to this case was notable enough to be acknowleged by Iris Baker in a lengthy rant on the Justice for Nick Baker site. I have far more qualification to discuss this case than you.


 * Furthermore, the admin says on the COI I have raised against you [ that you are pushing POV. Please note that WP:COI is not a get-out-of-jail-card that allows you to inject your POV edits. This is what [[WP:COI]] says...


 * Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.


 * Experts (or any editor for that matter) are allowed to add information or correct articles where they see bias.


 * Declare your COI as a member of Baker's support group
 * Stop misrepresrenting the results of the RFC
 * Stop trying to invoke COI to push POV
 * Stop pushing the POV that Baker's claims about his arrest are facts. They are not.
 * Sparkzilla 14:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove my comments again. Present your professional bona fides and credentials as an expert in the Nick Baker case. Something along the lines of an academic paper in Japanese criminal law, or a dissertation relating specifically to Baker's case may be acceptable. The publisher of a freebie glossy mag, who fancies himself as a bit of an armchair detective does NOT an expert make. So, enough already with the "expert" bit. This "research" you claim to have done is not only OR but I would further remind you that a personal homepage is not an acceptable source for WP. You are behaving irresponsibly, when I am still trying and work together with you to improve the article for the benefit of wikipedia. My edits are not POV and remain firmly within the sources cited. Again, address why you twisted the RfC respondents comments to fit with your POV? David Lyons 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not presenting my original research here, so there is no need to invoke WP:OR. As the publisher of Metropolis, Japan's largest English magazine (13 year history, thousands of artcles interviews and commentaries about Japan) and Japan Today , the largest news and discusion site about Japan in the world, I think anyone would say that I am an expert on 1. Japan 2. Japanese news 3. Baker's case and 4. support groups that misrepresent themselves to the media. I was an original supporter of Baker's until I found out he had been to Japan two months before his arrest - so much for the trip of a lifetime! My criticism of Baker's support group includes an editorial I wrote about the case , an article about my criticism of the group in the Swindon Advertiser, and published a follow-up article in Metropolis , which revealed even more information that Baker was lying about the circumstances of his arrest. I almost forgot - I also attended several of the appeal trial sessions, including the final verdict. To back up my claims (which were mainly from the defence's own documents) I wrote a 30-page report which I circulated to all media reporting the case. I discussed the case with those media, who were also unsatisfied with the behaviour of the support team. My report was notable enough that Iris Baker wrote a lengthy rant about me on the support group's website, which I responded to here.


 * It's time for you to declare your COI. Sparkzilla 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the author of this so-called 30-page report, no? Is it even published? I can't imagine anything more WP:OR than that! As for your claims of expertise...just stop it right now. Your appeal to what you perceive as popular opinion ("anyone would say") is a logical fallacy, as you well know. You presume to to be an expert on Japan? Good god! You are also an expert on groups misleading the public, eh? You are an expert on publishing a free glossy magazine in the Kanto region. That's it. Again personal home pages (which is exactly what markdevlin.com is) are not acceptable sources for WP. David Lyons 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already told you that I am not using my report on the case as a WP source. I have, however, released it on my site . Frankly, if you hadn't been such a persistent dick in trying to make this WP article part of Baker's campaign, I wouldn't have released it, but there you go. Anyone looking on Google will find it and see how you have continuously misled people about this case. Well done. Update: I added this download page to my site too . Sparkzilla 06:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question on my expertise on this case. The real question is: Who are you? You are a sad little nobody, an anonymous coward with absolutely zero credentials on this case. You don't even have the guts to disclose your COI to stand by your statements. Sparkzilla 03:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Un-disclaimer: I'm not involved in any way with the content or background of this article. I have to mostly go along with David Lyons on this: Sparkzilla, it is virtually always a conflict of interest to push sources and interpretations of sources that come from materials that you publish yourself or which are published by your employer, even if the article is not about you (for example, if I became the editor of Billiards Digest magazine, it would be wrong for me to insist on an edit to the eight-ball Wikipedia article sourced by a piece published in that magazine if others disagreed with its veracity, reliablity or applicability/relevance. Back to this article: If other editors find the source you publish reliable, let them add a reference to it. I strongly suggest standing back from this article entirely and just dropping the matter.  Way, way more than enough has been said by both sides of the debate with regard to reliability and applicability of this source for all other editors involved with the article to collectively come to consensus to include it if they feel that including it is warranted.  I'm not sure if there's anything further I can add here, other than than moderatorially, suggesting that it be removed (at least for now) because it is disputed (i.e., standard Wikipedia practice), that David Lyons also recuse himself, and let everyone else but Sparkzilla and David Lyons decide whether to include it (with a clear eye out for sockpuppetry).  While I have done some informal mediation on WP before (and been involved as a party in mediation as well), I need to get out of this debate, and I imagine others are tired of it by now too. I would strongly suggest if the above idea of mutual backing off is rejected or fails, that this be taken to Mediation Cabal for informal mediation (allow several days for a response from them; they are limited in number and need to resolve an ongoing "case" before they could take this one); if that fails, take it to the more formal Wikipedia Mediation process. If even that fails, go to the Arbitration Committee as a last resort.  But you should wind the feuding down on this page. —  [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:55, 27 May 2007


 * Thank you for your comments. I brought the RFC in the first place so that other editors could decide this issue.


 * Please read WP:COI You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.


 * This is exactly what I have done. Mindful of my COI, I raised an RFC here. The RFC respondents say (and you lean ever-so-slightly to it also) that my op-ed and other claims should be included if they have reliable secondary sources (Swindon Advertiser, Baker's defence douments and more...) I have already said that any claim in Metropolis that only has a single source does not need to be included.


 * To clarify: There are three respndents to the RFC who are for inclusion if the items are properly sourced (cla68, jossi, and ZayZeeEm), one who is neutral bordering on inclusion (SMcCandlish) and one who added a source (Addhoc). There are no editors who say the source should be removed. Sparkzilla 00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was not a clarification. cla68 is the only respondent who gives unqualified support to inclusion of the contentious material. Jossi refers only to the op-ed material, and then he requires secondary sources for it. ZayZayEm refers only to the op-ed, but is concerned about undue and proper attribution. Addhoc gives no opinion at all and SMcCandlish is pretty much "on the fence". David Lyons 02:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I added comments some time ago, checking back with the COI Noticeboard and relevant user pages see that Sparkzilla has admitted he is the involved Devlin fellow, this is COI editing and self-promotion etc. (editors here seem aware of the involved Wiki guidelines, now please respect them). Sparkzilla you really should refrain from editing this article, have seen these situations before they get emotional, even if you strongly believe you are "right" standing down is the best way. Of course, post your input here on the talk page. Now, I think the above sections in question in this RfC, since they were added and advanced chiefly their writer/publisher, who apparently has an axe to grind with the imprisoned Baker fellow and his supporters, are inappropriate for a number of reasons but let's keep it simple -- they do in my opinion assume undue weight, suggest either tracking down the info if it is published elsewhere (secondary sources) or else losing it would be best. Also Sparkzilla suggest you keep your name-calling in check please. RomaC 07:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RomaC. Each item about my magazine's involvement that is currently in the article is backed up by multiple secondary sources. My op-ed is backed up by the Swindon Advertiser article, the claims in the Metropolis article are backed up by the defence's own documents, and Baker's support site, and the claims about the MP have two sources. I am not asking for any other claims to be added at this time. This case was controversial because it was a disputed conviction -- it would be strange if the opinion and supporting facts of people who don't believe Baker's story are not acceptable. In other words, removing this properly sourced material makes the article have a POV that Baker's innocence was not in dispute.


 * Please also note that, given your posting history on articles about people with disputed convictions, I do not consider you to be an independent voice on the policy discussion on this RFC. You should really put your comments in the involved editors section.


 * I am happy to back down from this article permanently if David Lyons (an undeclared member of Baker's support group) and Heatedissuepuppet (the other involved editor) also agree to do the same. Sparkzilla 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sparkzilla you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to judge whether or not my voice is valid, this is a "Request for Comments," and not only for comments that you will agree with. There is undue weight given your personal opinions in this article, let up. I would guess that your persistence comes from a very strong belief that "your side" of the story needs to be told, but that just isn't the way Wikipedia works. RomaC 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am entitled to judge whether you are actually an uninvolved editor talking about policy, or one coming here with a POV agenda. Your history shows the latter.


 * You are completely incorrect about the reasons for my persistence. Please note that apart from my op-ed, which has a reliable secondary source, the other items, such as the disent of Baker's MP, are not about any possible desire of mine to be heard. My persistence stems from wikipedia policy WP:ATT that states clearly that facts and claims that have multiple notable, relevant sources should be included in articles. This is also what the respondents to the RFC agreed in the main. Sparkzilla 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Sparkzilla? Do you treat everyone who disagrees with you this way? I have done many, many edits and mediations on a wide variety of subjects and you are the first person to accuse me of "pushing a POV agenda," specify what you mean with an example or else kindly back off, your aggressive attitude here is not going to earn you support from editors who have come to participate in a RfC. RomaC 08:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You accused me of self-promotion. I corrected you. Your history shows you have been involved in quite a lot of prisoner support articles therefore your opinion on the policy of this RFC should be seen in that light. Anyway, I will not respond to you again here. Sparkzilla 08:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding involved editors standing down from this article

 * I am also happy to stand back from the article. I think the article was fine a few edits ago before David Lyons started adding POV edits about the circumstances of Baker's arrest. They are claims, not facts. I would like to suggest that we go back to that version and that both myself and David Lyons (and his meatpuppet Heatedissuepuppet) no longer edit this article at all. it would save us all a lot of time and energy. Sparkzilla 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If Sparkzilla is in agreement, I am willing to refrain from editing the particulars pertaining to this RfC. I still intend to edit matters relating to this article outside of the scope of this RfC. David Lyons 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should both should step back from it completely. It's a waste of your time and mine, and frankly it wont help Baker any. I suggest that we stay at this edit and that we both stop posting completely. Sparkzilla 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comments
I agree with David Lyons that 1) Involved parties should not make attempts to summarise uninvolved party's commentary. 2) In light of the fact that Sparkzilla has a very strong COI regarding the source for these editorial comments - I am far more in favour of exclusion now.

I agree with Sparkzilla on the below issue reagrding claims by Baker should be marked as such.--ZayZayEM 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits
The "Reactions to the trials" section had unencyclopedic content and was not written in an encyclopedic tone. It also had POV issues. It has been redistributed to other sections, mainly to the support campaign section.

The article is too long and needs more editing to make it concise. If people want to find out more detail, they can check the sources.

Items with old unsourced tags have been deleted. However, many unsourced items remain, particularly in the support campaign section. Policy actually says that unsourced items on a BLP should be removed immediately and only reinserted when properly sourced. Please add appropriate sources or the items will be deleted after two weeks. Sparkzilla 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that the two week period will run out on May 31. Please add your sources before then or all currently fact-tagged edits will be deleted. Sparkzilla 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are still some fact-tagged items. Please try to source them today. -- Sparkzilla talk! 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Items were removed. Please feel free to add again if properly sourced. -- Sparkzilla talk! 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Baker's claims before arrest
Please reword this to show that the events described are Baker's claims, not facts.

Claims by Baker...


 * Baker (claimed that he) and Prunier travelled to Europe to buy up clothes to resell at flea markets in the countryside,
 * (Baker claimed that) Prunier then suggested they leave before the June start, and at least tour Japan a bit, to take in some of the sites and buy World Cup souvenirs.
 * Baker, who (claims to have been) been drinking steadily throughout the flight, says (claimed that) Prunier and he were split-up at immigration and when he arrived at the baggage carousel, Prunier was already there holding his own suitcase.
 * (claiming to be) Tired from the long flight and (claiming to have) no reason to mistrust his companion with whom he shared a passion for football, Baker followed this suggestion and lined up in front of the customs gate.
 * "barely-comprehending officials" is a Baker claim also

Sparkzilla 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Sparky. Before you go running off to an admin shouting foul! Why don't you engage in dialog here first? I'm happy to note and act on your input, and wouldn't it be better if we worked together to create a better article for the benefit of the project? You say "...Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events." I believe I've attributed quotations correctly. I shall check the sources again, and see if they can't be improved upon. Thank you for your input. David Lyons 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Sparkzilla. Back again. I have examined the sources again and I would respond as follows:


 * The article actually says "According to court documents and Baker himself, blah, blah, blah...", so I think you are right and some qualification should be added and perhaps it should be reworded, but not as you suggest. I have edited to begin the paragraph(s) which covers most of your suggestions with "According to court documents and Baker, blah, blah, blah..." as putting "claim this/claim that" every other sentence is a nonsense.


 * (claiming to be) Tired from the long flight and (claiming to have) no reason to mistrust his companion with whom he shared a passion for football, Baker followed this suggestion and lined up in front of the customs gate.


 * No, the source quoted doesn't attribute this to Baker or court documents, etc, and states it as fact, so I shall leave it as is.


 * "barely-comprehending officials"


 * Again the source quoted doesn't attribute this to Baker, however the content is a rather journalistic style, so I have changed the wording to a more encyclopedic tone. I trust this meets with your approval. David Lyons 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements pushing Baker's version of events as facts should be restated as claims, irrespective of the source. Both the claim regarding the officials' level of English and that Baker was tired after the flight come from Baker himself (who else?). Also, better wording would be "According to court documents, Baker claimed..."


 * Well, we don't know who made the comment regarding the level of the custom officer's English ability - perhaps the officer said it himself, perhaps it was noted when Baker was detained that he looked "tired". It is supposition to assume that these were Baker claims, without clear evidence to the contrary. I also note that your recent edits pushing Metropolis magazine article's point of view (not the op-ed), you didn't state these as "claims" David Lyons 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Every news article on the case makes it clear that Baker's account of events is what he claims, not a fact. Writing it as "Court documents say..." is misleading. Which court documents do you refer to? those of the defence or the procecution? The Metropolis claims clearly say "the defence" so we know their origin. Please restate these as properly-cited claims. Sparkzilla 03:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Metropolis article cited, it only says "According to court documents and Baker himself". Perhaps you could point me to where it specifically says "the defence" (referring to the court docs) and I will be happy to include it. David Lyons 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article has a direct link to the defence documents (which have since been removed from J4NB site). See the section "A later article in Metropolis described documents released by the defense[22]". I suggest to make it clear which side the court documetns are from or restate the items as Baker's claims -- it is clearly pushing POV. Sparkzilla 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to fix the sources, they are broken. Sparkzilla 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, but I can't figure out what is wrong but it looks now like someone kindly came along to fix them. David Lyons 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are working together fairly well on this article. Please keep up the good work, it's really coming along. Cla68 04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

=regarding heatedissuepuppet's May 30 edit=

"re: Please provide a RS stating why Devlin (not Metropolis, Devlin) first supporting then withdrawing his support is so absolutely relevant to this article?"

It is not. But Devlin (Sparkzilla is Devlin as conformed on his user page) continues to edit the article even though he's been asked to stop due his COI. See also Omotesando Hills, a multi-million dollar building opens and the reaction of an architecture critic or an urban planner or mass media are not cited in the article created by Sparkzilla, but the personal opinion of Mark Devlin is featured front and center. Wikipedia is not a blog, but some self-absorbed people treat that way. 208.57.63.67 03:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice, my Omotesando Hills op-ed has been removed already. Also note that Metropolis was the only magazine to interview the developer about the building. See the RFC discussion above for a discussion of sources on Nick Baker. Editors are allowed to cite their own sources if they are notable and relevant and have reliable secondary sources (Swindon Advertiser etc). -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't notice Japan is a Japanese place. Your English-language magazine has a free circulation of maybe 30,000. The Yomiuri Shimbun has a paid circulation of over 14,000,000. Now, 14,000,000 > 30,000, it is almost 500 times greater. If you can't read Japanese that's your problem but in any case would you pleeeeease stop promoting your free magazine all over Wikipedia as if it were an important or even credible news source about Japan, I mean aren't you even slightly aware how ridiculously myopic and self-important you are coming off?? 208.57.63.67 08:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Baker's case was the subject of a single report in the Japanese media -- it was reported in-depth in English-language media in Japan (The Japan Times, theforeignerjapan.com, JapanInc, Metropolis) and in passing in some UK newspapers. As the leading English magazine in Japan, Metropolis's reporting is both notable and relevant. If I really wanted to promote my magazine I would be able to add hundreds of sources to many, many topics that Metropolis has reported on. Anyway, given your extensive posting history, I won't waste my time discussing this further with you here. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "On May 10, 2003, almost a month before Baker's verdict was scheduled, this letter and the growing concerns surrounding the trial were reported in detail in Japan's largest newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun. More stories in the international press and the ongoing efforts by Iris Baker helped attract the attention of Fair Trials Abroad, an NGO standing up for fair judicial process around the world." Metropolis/Japan Today - "Nick Baker fights 14-year sentence for smuggling drugs" 202.213.156.206 13:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments
Hello all,

I have been following this discussion and dispute with some interest and as a total blank slate, for I had never heard of this chap before. I have a couple of thoughts, and I may even put them into action soon when I have a minute!!


 * I don't think this article is of neutral point of view. When I read it, knowing nothing about the case, I was totally convinced of his innocence until I hit the caveats at the end.  The guy was convicted, but it is not at all clear why, given the way the text is arranged. The article needs to be reworked so that the reader gets to make up his or her mind as they are going along, with all the information (favouring guilt or innocence) worked into the text. For example, I suggest the information about his prior trips to Japan be worked in earlier in the telling of the tale. So could the information about Prunier and his Belgian activities.
 * I gather from the above that there has been dispute about the Mark Devlin comments and the sourcing/relevance of these. If it helps I have found another source via a Factiva newspaper archive search. I will put the relevant quote in here, but can send the full article to anybody who sends me an email via my userpage. Quote from "Iris sees her son in Japan prison", 18 September 2004, The Citizen (a UK local paper from Glos. which would meet Reliable Sources criteria): "But the trip was marred by an attack on Iris and her supporters by the editor of an English language magazine in Japan. Mark Devlin, the publisher of the Metropolis, initially backed the Justice for Nick Baker campaign. But in a comment piece entitled "We the Jury", which followed an internet poll in which several readers thought Baker was knowingly involved in drugs smuggling, he claimed supporters of the 33-year-old Stroud man had "kept the public in the dark" over some aspects of the case. "We should also be wary of relatives and support groups who promote an agenda by manipulating our willingness to believe that Japanese systems and institutions are inherently unfair," he wrote. One aspect of the case to which Mr Devlin took issue was the fact that Baker had visited Japan two months before his arrest. Supporters of the jailed man say this was a birthday trip for a member of Baker's football club which was cut short by illness. Iris, who was unavailable for comment this week, has posted a message on the Justice for Nick Baker website saying that everyone had a right to an opinion over her son's guilt or innocence." I have been able to retrieve other newspaper accounts of Nick Baker and his various trials which are not available on the web directly, but would likely be helpful in appropriately sourcing this article. --Slp1 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As there have been numerous requests for sources (for items both positive and negative to Baker), I think your additions would be most useful to the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I subscribed to Factiva myself and found three sources that mention my editorial (I have extracted the relevant text here).


 * 1. Swindon Advertiser -- Prisoner's mother is accused by publisher, 393 words, 30 September 2004


 * But her visit was rocked when leading publisher Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention. Mr Devlin, who publishes Japan Today magazine, has now withdrawn his support from the campaign. Mr Devlin said: "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son." Angry Mrs Baker said she had never taken any money for herself. She said: "I emphatically defend myself. I believe he is innocent and all I want is a fair trial. I tried to meet Mr Devlin in Tokyo but he refused."


 * 2. The Citizen -- Iris sees her son in Japan prison, 557 words, 18 September 2004


 * But the trip was marred by an attack on Iris and her supporters by the editor of an English language magazine in Japan. Mark Devlin, the publisher of the Metropolis, initially backed the Justice for Nick Baker campaign.


 * But in a comment piece entitled "We the Jury", which followed an internet poll in which several readers thought Baker was knowingly involved in drugs smuggling, he claimed supporters of the 33-year-old Stroud man had "kept the public in the dark" over some aspects of the case. "We should also be wary of relatives and support groups who promote an agenda by manipulating our willingness to believe that Japanese systems and institutions are inherently unfair," he wrote.


 * One aspect of the case to which Mr Devlin took issue was the fact that Baker had visited Japan two months before his arrest. Supporters of the jailed man say this was a birthday trip for a member of Baker's football club which was cut short by illness. Iris, who was unavailable for comment this week, has posted a message on the Justice for Nick Baker website saying that everyone had a right to an opinion over her son's guilt or innocence. "I am fighting for a fair trial for my son," she wrote.


 * 3. Gloucestershire Echo - Iris visits jailed son in Japan, 236 words, 22 September 2004


 * The trip was marred by an attack on Mrs Baker and her supporters by the editor of an English magazine in Japan. Mark Devlin, publisher of the Metropolis, wrote in a comment piece that supporters of the 33-year-old, who ran a sandwich shop in Cirencester, had "kept the public in the dark" over some aspects of the case. Baker has always protested his innocence, claiming he was duped into carrying the case.


 * These third-party sources should be more than sufficient to counter any claims of undue weight. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Current editing
Well, things seem to have heated up here again! Regarding the current reverting about the defence documents, while I totally believe that this is the genuine article, (and it is too bad for all that the Nick Baker website isn't in the Wayback machine), I am inclined to say that it might be best not to include the link for the moment. The fact that it is on Sparkzilla's website and nowhere else at present is too bad, but in any case I don't think it adds that much to what can be quoted from other sources, and it is not worth a revert war and getting blocked over. Having said that I maintain my comments above: this article is not of neutral point of view and needs editing to achieve this. I will try and make this priority in the next day or so. --Slp1 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I take that back. The trial documents are referred to in this Metropolis article . They have been seen, verified and referenced by Metropolis editorial staff. The documents were originally on the justicefornickbaker.org site. Whether the documents appear on my personal site is immaterial to their authenticity.


 * From the article: Baker’s defence documents revealed that Baker and Prunier went to Amsterdam and then to Belgium where Prunier was given a suitcase by members of the Israeli mafia. Prunier explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to the mafia and had to bring something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. After checking in the case in Baker’s name, the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point. Baker apparently wanted to get off of the flight when it transferred in London, but was persuaded to stay on the flight by Prunier. Nonetheless, he took the case through customs, initially saying the case was his until he changed his story. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are not competant to edit this article. From your home page:


 * "To express my anger and distaste of the support groups actions, I wrote an editorial in Metropolis, (We the Jury, September 4, 2004) but before I did so, to make totally sure that I was not mistaken, I decided to examine all public statements by Baker and the support group."


 * and


 * " I don't like being manipulated and lied to. I don't like my media being used to spread lies. I don't like Baker's supporters spreading their lies to a neutral encyclopedia. I don't like being denigrated by Iris Baker and her supporters for telling the truth. I don't like being threatened. I have had enough with their behavior so I am opening my report to the general public."


 * You are obviously angry and anti-Baker. I will warn you for the last time to stop editing this article with your CoI. Further you have to show reliable 3rd party sources that the document is genuine and not some progression of your anti-Baker crusade. Your employees are not a reliable sources for conformation that these are genuine, by the very fact that they are "your employees". Show at least *one* 3rd party reliable source that your claims regarding these court documents are genuine and NOT from your own magazine.David Lyons 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not know my state of mind. I was angry at the time (quite rightly so), now I just think Baker's supporters are misguided fools.


 * The COI only applies to the parts where I cite myself. Otherwise on this article, as an expert on this case, I can edit like any editor who has an interest in the subject matter. Especially to remove the POV edits that you continually put into the article. You have been told on numerous ocassions not to use COI as a way to influence POV disputes. And I will remind you once again that claims are not facts.


 * I wonder when, if ever, you will reveal your very real COI as a member of Baker's support group? -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As an outside voice, I would like point out to David that it is inappropriate to tell Sparkzilla not to edit this article. Everybody can edit WP, though if there is a WP:COI then extra care needs to be taken. As noted at WP:COI, the only time editing specific articles is strongly discouraged is when there is a financial incentive involved. Sparkzilla is, in my humble opinion, correct in saying that COI guidelines indicate that he needs to avoid citing himself. In my opinion the problem here is less to do with COI and more to do with POV. Both David Lyons and Sparkzilla have a POV on this case. Wikipedia articles need to be of neutral point of view and this makes editing this article (and working together) difficult for both. One of the most useful things that I have learned here on WP is that it is more effective to react slowly, thoughtfully and of course, civilly. Take a break, guys. Slp1 16:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments: Use of translated court documents as a source
'''Please allow non-involved editors to make their comments, unencumbered from involved editors rebuttals and further argumentation. Involved editors should keep their comments in their alloted section.'''

Disputed text
The dispute centers around whether translated court documents are acceptable as a source. The document was originally published on the now-defunct justicefornickbaker.org site and is now available from my personal homepage. -- Sparkzilla talk!

User:sparkzilla
is for inclusion and says that:
 * 1) The document was originally published on the now-defunct justicefornickbaker.org site
 * 2) The document was originally published by Baker's defense team (even though it incriminated Baker).
 * 3) As a published critic of Baker's campaign., my personal homepage contains supporting materials relevant to my claims and the case in general. In this case, I have kept a vital document that was deleted from the justicefronickbaker.org site.
 * 4) As a leading English-language publisher in Tokyo, I personally vouch for its authenticity
 * 5) The document is referenced by this article in Metropolis which states some of the key points in the document. From the article: Baker’s defence documents revealed that Baker and Prunier went to Amsterdam and then to Belgium where Prunier was given a suitcase by members of the Israeli mafia. Prunier explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to the mafia and had to bring something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. After checking in the case in Baker’s name, the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point.
 * 6) The document was reviewed and referenced by the writer of the article and by both the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Japan Today editorial teams.
 * 7) The document holds important notable and relevant supporting information about the case

Regarding StatisticalRegression's comment below. First let me note that I have been in conflict with this editor on several artclles so he is not as uninvolved as he would like to think and it is to be expected that his opinion is negative. Nonetheless, regarding his points 2 and 4 I can personally verify that these defense documents were the ones referred to in the Metropolis article, and that they were originally on the justicefornickbaker site. On point 3 he has his trials mixed up -- Iris Baker refused to release the documents from the first trial. These documents are from the appeal.

Regarding point 5 I would also like to point out that using a random image off the net to mask the identity of an anonymous writer is not unusual in publishing and in no way reflects on the reliability of Metropolis as a source, and anyone who would try to denigrate years of reporting using such a straw man is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:David Lyons
is against inclusion on the grounds that

Adopting your numbering, I would respond as follows:

1) justicefornickbaker.org, does not appear to be defunct. No reference to the document to which you refer can be found, neither upon the site, in the google search-engine cache, nor the internet archive. Is this some figment of your imagination?

2) There is no evidence to suggest that the document to which you refer was published by Baker's defence team. Indeed, had it been so, would not the documentation have been in Japanese? Can you provide, the name/s, qualification/s and credentials of the person or persons who translated this document into the English-language version you present?

3) Your personal home-page is not a reliable source for the pertinent documentation you claim "so vital". Your claim that you have retained a deleted document remains entirely a claim, unless you can provide supporting sources.

4) You are not a "leading" publisher, as printed media goes in Japan - you are small-fry and given the below comments upon your home-page, it is doubtful whether you are able to maintain an objective viewpoint regarding the Nick Baker case:-

"To express my anger and distaste of the support groups actions, I wrote an editorial in Metropolis, (We the Jury, September 4, 2004) but before I did so, to make totally sure that I was not mistaken, I decided to examine all public statements by Baker and the support group."

and

"I don't like being manipulated and lied to. I don't like my media being used to spread lies. I don't like Baker's supporters spreading their lies to a neutral encyclopedia. I don't like being denigrated by Iris Baker and her supporters for telling the truth. I don't like being threatened. I have had enough with their behavior so I am opening my report to the general public."

5) The document may be referenced marginally in your tiny publication, but given the above conflict of interest which you clearly harbour, it is doubtful whether anything you publish regarding Nick Baker can be taken as anything more than the rantings of an angry man with an axe to grind. If there really was, some kind of cover-up and subversion as you claim, there would be multiple reliable independent sources to draw upon - and I don't just mean local newspapers quoting you, I meaning serious in-depth reporting.

In summation: clearly, here is a very angry man with an axe to grind. If the document, he refers to is to be taken seriously, I would suggest he provide a better provenance than his private home-page, which according to WP policy is hardly suitable as a source. At least if the content were notable then there should be many sources for it. Furthermore, the author of the article in your publication, I'm sorry to say, cannot be found by the most simple of google searches - does she exist, or just another fake like the NUGW "article". Oh, BTW, I received an e-mail back from the photographer, whose picture your magazine used without permission. He'll be in touch :-) Tut tut, what a filthy rag. David Lyons 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
against, for the following reasons:
 * 1) The primary source is original document in Japanese not the translation. The translation hosted on Sparkzilla's website doesn't mention the translator. It's impossible to verify that document.
 * 2) The Metropolis article says "defense documents revealed..." but doesn't say who obtained them or where they were obtained from. A statement that falls well outside established journalistic standards. Furthermore, it's not stated that writer used the translation in question.
 * 3) The Metropolis article states "Even though Iris Baker refused to release or translate the documents from the trial..." which contradicts the assertion that the translation came from justicefornickbaker.org - a site run by Iris Baker.
 * 4) The justicefornickbaker.org site is not 'defunct' but is in fact still up, there is no mention that the translation ever appeared there, and I haven't found any evidence in caching archives.
 * 5) Sparkzilla vouching for Metropolis (his own publication) is fine, except that on at least one occasion Metropolis printed an article here and didn't bother attributing the photo to the photographer in violation of his copyright. The picture is problematic because it's a clear distortion of reality (the girl was never in Japan and never taught English) which is against journalistic ethics. Reliable sources do not distort truth.
 * The document is not verifiable, we can't verify it was used in the metropolis article, we can't verify it was released by Iris Baker on justicefornickbaker.org, and the identity of the metropolis article writer is in my mind questionable (see #5). Statisticalregression 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by
To reiterate what I said above, I do not believe that the original defence document should be referenced: while I personally don't doubt that it is genuine, it is not verifiable that it is what it purports to be. Sparkzilla's assurances and the brief references elsewhere are not enough to make this a reliable source of information. --Slp1 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)