Talk:Schapelle Corby/Archive 5

Recent sources of info
There's been a whole lot of coverage this weekend. I'll list some of the sources here for future reference and use...
 * Background Q&A
 * about the parole conditions
 * the corby "circus"
 * harassment of journalist/writer by Corby fans
 * Schapelle Corby must run the gauntlet of media and angry locals
 * The family, supporters and accusers of Schapelle Corby, 10 years on
 * Channel Nine battles to keep Schapelle Corby telemovie on air

These are just smh.com.au articles. No doubt there's more out there. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is also probably worth pointing out that wiki is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, let alone a women's magazine and therefore temporary and trivial detail is best avoided. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of the articles are retrospective in style, rather than the latest breaking news, therefore making them more useful for the focus required of wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd add to the list a reliable source concerning the background and tactics of members of the Expendable project 124.149.142.112 (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are they really notable? I'm only aware of it because of their attempts to re-write this article. Well, maybe if they are mentioned in sources such as the smh. lol --Merbabu (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - the other question, is whether we are doing anyone any favours by giving these people oxygen. They are vitriolic, nasty, and delusional. YEs, they have government documents thru FOI avenues, but the docs do not prove Corby's innocence - the group have made their own highly dubious interpretations of innocence. I've read some of their "reports" - they are not very impressive. Essentially they are alleging a conspiracy organised between a number of government, business, and media agencies across both Australia and Indonesia. Really? That's just silly. The group has harassed, defamed, and bashed (online) all the kinds of people and agencies in a position to possibly help Corby. They've even harassed people here on Wikipedia over the years. For the most part the agencies have ignored Expendable...and correctly in my opinion. The expendable rubbish could be, or already has been, very damaging to Corby's position.
 * Would be interesting to hear other editors' opinion on this.--Merbabu (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More on 2 of the people primarily behind the Expendable Project and the various aliases they use. They are lunatics, pure and simple, but I think they are notable lunatics.  They are not on the same level as 9/11 truthers, grassy knollers or moon landing on a sound stagers, but I think they are sufficiently notable.  What tipped it for me is Rosleigh Rose appearing in a www.expendable.tv T-Shirt on the day convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby was released.  The fact that Corby's family members actions promote the Project is to me a virtual stamp of approval of the allegations made on the site 124.168.245.109 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

She's admitted to it
.. and more. It was her third time doing the same drug run and it's also been let out that she faked crazy to attract leniency. How's that get nil coverage in the article proper and lead?Digger Nix (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you just added something about it to the article. That's good, and it's how things work here. The news about her possible confession (via perhaps not the most credible source) only appeared yesterday, didn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be coming 'not the most credible' where your reference point is Schapelle Corby(!), who courts and parole authorities have found to be consistently dishonest about key matters. Renae Lawrence, who is the source, stands in contrast as someone who has been consistently honest and remorseful once caught out with the drugs. She has not been convicted of an offence of dishonesty and has been found to be a credible witness in her own trial and that of her Bali Nine co-conspirators. Yet no parole for her so far, and indeed she endangers the issue by exposing herself for having kept quiet and declined to share to authorities this evidence of the other woman's guilt on the marijuana racket.Digger Nix (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the term "credible drug mule" does not sound convincing ... WWGB (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * She did a crime for a financial enticement, and if you suggest she's telling multiple lies which confirm what every court has found about the Ganja Queen then where's the payoff? It imperils her own chances of parole and opens the door for the Corby clan to target her with legal action, a thing they've been unshy about with other targets. Then there's the flunkies driven by Corby support groups who are sure to make her life hell with negative PR or threats. I wouldn't accuse her of lying, I'd accuse her of putting her foot in it. She's a convicted former drug mule who confessed quickly and who was found to have been truthful and cooperative with the Indonesian justice organs: the mirror image of this biography article's subject.Digger Nix (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There's probably some truth in what you say, but Wikipedia depends on its own form of reliable sources. We can certainly include what Lawrence has said, because it has been reported in major media outlets, but we can only attribute it to Lawrence, and not present it as the unquestioned truth. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've also got no problems with mentioning Lawrence's claims. However, they are just claims, with nothing to back them up, so we need to keep them in context and not give them too much weight. - Bilby (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Chronology
The chronology of this article is seriously messed up and in major need of reorganisation. Thoughts? AlanS (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There also appears to be quite a bit of repetition of material in places. AlanS (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Link insertion, and other issues
Hi all,

I noticed that in this edit, a link was added which seems borderline per WP:EL. Just wanted to get consensus whether this is an appropriate link to include in the article. I would also note the origional poster keeps reinsering it into the same place, despite my note saying that I've moved the link elsewhere. this also seems to relate to the content of the article, claiming we are "censoring" the article. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  12:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theory POV nonsense lacking in any credibility. Definitely does not belong. There is already an undue amount of the article devoted to alternate theories without introducing that. AlanS (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you opened your eyes and mind AlanS, you migth actually learn the difference bewtween conspiracy theory and evidence. Hundreds of gov documents provide evidence of what happened. They are published, but ignored. Conspiracy theory is what the gutter of the Aus media has been about, smearing and fabricating along the way. Their outputt is published here as fact. You should learn the difference between the two before you edit anything anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.28.32.1 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Report That Shames Wikipedia
Full report with precise examples on Google Docs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3n4aQlXNvd3OXcwMGoycEp5cG8/edit?usp=sharing It could not be more obvious what is going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.18.148.73 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read that when it was first floated years ago. There were a couple of points worth acting on, a couple which might be relevant but needed more support, and a large number which referred to changes (such as the inclusion of original research) which were against Wikipedia's policies. I made some changes based on comments made in it back then, but fundamentally, we cannot rely on the sources used in that document, as those sources are largely from The Expendable Project, which is not a reliable source - an anonymous self published online conspiracy site, while certainly well meant, is not useful in terms of this article. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

New struture
Another problem... The new "Various theories of Corby's Innocence" section header is not very neutral. Further, the title suggests that there are more than one mutually exclusive theory. As far as I understand that case, the theories (at least those presented here) all work together and are not mutually exclusive.

It's also not a very good way to structure the article - the baggage handlers theory was actually used by the defence in the trial as was the John Ford allegations. This info should belong in the trial section. If the argument is that this section is too long compared to the others, consider that the trial was the central part to the story and should be central to this article. That's when all the majority of attention was focussed on Corby and most of the info in this article was presented. By breaking this section up, we are making the article more unwieldy and confusing. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I was trying to separate out those sections first that had something to do with her deference from the other bits that are information about other people that clearly do not belong. AlanS (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not good practise to insert links to books (in the "Further reading'), that are no longer available because of proven legal issues. Obviously, something is not "Further reading" when it is no longer available to the public and contains proven inaccuracies (e.g. Eammon Duff's book). 101.162.192.52 (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Corby
, please explain how the material you keep on reverting about Michael Corby warrants inclusion in this article. This article is not about Michael Corby, it is about Schapelle Corby and as such anything not directly related to her ought to be removed. If you want the material about Michael Corby to be included in the pedia, start a page on him. AlanS (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You appear to have a very narrow definition of what Wikipedia is about. Good articles include information about the circumstances, relationships and defining factors of the subject. There were always strong suspicions (never disproved) that Corby was a drug mule working for her father. In that regard, it is essential that her father's background is also included in this article. It goes to his conduct, character and record. If other editors (not just you and HiLo) agree to delete this material, then I will abide by that consensus. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Without strong evidence, which would need to be sourced, that Corby was acting as a mule for her father the inclusion of the material you keep on reverting only serves to make WP:SYNTH insinuations. I'll remind you again of WP:3RR which you have just broken. AlanS (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ??? AlanS (talk)


 * But it is there, and sourced: "the drugs found in Corby's bag belonged to Michael Corby" (yes, taken out of context). How can this just appear out of the blue without any reasonable reference to Michael Corby's background? Please allow the readers some context and basis for the assertion. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the inclusion of:
 * "A book, Sins of the Father, by Sydney Morning Herald investigative journalist Eamonn Duff, said that the drugs found in Corby's bag belonged to Michael Corby. According to the book, Corby's father regularly bought marijuana from a South Australian drug syndicate headed by convicted drug trafficker Malcolm McCauley. The book says that this is the reason McCauley visited Corby in jail two weeks before her verdict. The book also describes how a fortnight before Corby's arrest, Queensland police received a signed informant's statement naming her father as a man who was delivering drugs on commercial flights to Bali."
 * As an alternative theory to her innocence. The rest of the material however gives undue weight to something for which there is no solid, sourced, evidence. AlanS (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I also believe this article is too long and needs to be more focused on the subject itself. Which you will see a lot of the edits I've made yesterday and today addresses. AlanS (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the material being removed is self-evidently relevant. And I've restored it pending a new consensus. It is about her father and a number of well publicised theories on the origin of the drugs. He has long been part of the story of the case - the is not "undue weight". The theories have been published by reliable sources, and if true (and they are certainly within the realm of possibility) are fundamental to the case. The deleted text conversely contains official police statements that "discredit" the claims of Michael Corby's drug trade role. All of this info is relevant and well-sourced. Our job on wikipedia is to present all the relevant info, there are plenty of other nut job web-sites (and pub conversations) who can allowed to pick and choose what they want to include. But not here.

The question of this article's length may be a valid one - but it is not resolved by chopping out whole paragraphs of well sourced info that has a central role in the story. The article is not necessarily well written (puffy?) and seems to have an odd order to it. It can be tightened up. But not chopped up. --Merbabu (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Much of the stuff you want to keep is the kind of stuff that's not permitted in courts, becasue it's smearing one person because of another's behaviour. I know we're not a court, but we must try very hard to keep things very relevant in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If her father was in the drug trade, then it would be highly relevant. The next question is reliability of the sources. They seem to be reliable. If your concerned about "smearing", then consider that these "smears" are broadly known and discussed - let's not pretend the claims wouldn't be otherwise be broadly known it if they won't in wikipedia. What perhaps isn't so broadly known, are the police comments that appear to "discredit" the claims. Ie, wikipedia can remain a rare accessible source that provides the full picture. --Merbabu (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph starting "A book, Sins of the Father ..." is more than enough information about Michael's alleged role. The rest of it is a building of an undue WP:SYNTH insinuation. How exactly does having a bunch of drink driving charges make you "in the drug trade"? How exactly does being busted with a couple of grams of pot about 30 years ago, at the time of Corby being busted, make you "in the drug trade"?. How exactly does an amount of pot being found on someone else's property make you "in the drug trade"?. AlanS (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The section about Michael Corby contains extensive reference to Eamonn Duff's book "The Sins of the Father," which was recently the subject of a successful court action for defamation. It is therefore legitimate to update the page with the new info. Someone keeps deleting it. What is the justification for this? I've seen none so far121.222.73.154 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Duff's book is now being discussed in its own section below.

Related persons
I propose that the majority of this section be removed as it is not directly related to Schapelle. Those bits that are directly related to the subject mater can be moved to other parts of the article. As it reads at the moment it seems like a bit of WP:SYNTH of guilt by association type argument. AlanS (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is simply too much wrong with this article to categorise in one sitting. Time for bed will finish tomorrow after work. AlanS (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree with removal. They all had a significant role in Corby's crime, defence or life behind bars. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You disagree with everything that may risk alleviating the abusive nature of the article. WWGB. It is the nastiest piece of smear I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Revolting. By the way, you give your hand away "They all had a significant role in Corby's crime". She didn;t commit a crime. The fact that you freely volunteer your biased position says you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near to this article.


 * You apparently disagree with the Indonesian justice system. That's fine for you, but it's not a perspective from which a Wikipedia article can be written. We report what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As HiLo48 points out she was convicted. Argue against that all you want, it's not going to change the fact. I however do not see what this for example:

"Clinton Rose,

Corby's half-brother, Clinton Rose, has spent time in jail for a range of offences. He was serving a 15 months sentence in Queensland for breaking and entering and fraud. This was his second time in prison.[109] In January 2002, Rose was convicted of drug possession. He had pleaded guilty to what the Southport District Judge, Robert Hall, described as a "campaign of crime". Rose pleaded guilty to a total of 62 charges accumulated over a six-month period."


 * has directly to do with Schapelle. Its inclusion is not directly relevant to her and is an insertion of irrelevant facts to foster a WP:SYNTH argument. If people think it is related to her crime provide the source. AlanS (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right AlanS. A lot of that section should disappear. I'm busy now, but if you're feeling bold, go for it! HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start removing those parts that do not have a directly stated relevance to her. AlanS (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK that's a bit of a start. I only touched those bits so far that could be holey removed without re-writing. This article is probably one of the worst I've seen when it comes to living persons. AlanS (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some re-organisation done. Next step will be that I completely rewrite the early life and family sections and have them under one heading. Also I will continue to whittle down the 'Other Persons' section moving those bits that are directly relevant to Schapelle and entirely removing those parts that aren't.AlanS (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jodi Powell was called "Delusional" by her estranged husband, so it is relevant to the section about her. Someone keep deleting the info and the reference without (so far), any justification 121.222.73.154 (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Including what an estranged husband thinks of Power is far more tabloid than encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits related Duff's book
Several IP's, probably the same person) have been making the same series of edits over the last few days. Some of their edits do seem worthy of consideration though.  I doubt they'll discuss here, but I'd like to suggest looking at a couple of changes related to Duff's book.  From the sources, Duff and the publisher did settle out of court in a defamation lawsuit with Mercedes and Michael.  Perhaps that should be included in the section, in the context that the book made broader claims about the family?  The rest of their edits I don't agree with and if they continue a period of semi-protection might be appropriate. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The out of court settlement is unfortunate for us. Rather than court transcripts we can easily and legally cite, an out of court settlement is surrounded by secrecy and confidentiality agreements. A simple description of the fact of the settlement can be included, but anything more from the book could be difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the book couldn't be used - happy for this to be clarified. The book ostensibly is a reliable source. We can say what it says. And it makes some pretty significant claims that have not be shown to be wrong. Sure, say the Corby's dispute it, however, the Corby's haven't shown it to be false, and an out of court settlement doesn't show it to be false either. Indeed, the book itself and the dispute are a part of the story that can be included. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Schapelle Corby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130727051958/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MkfHNiCm_k to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MkfHNiCm_k

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article?
This article appears to be in decent shape, at least at first glance. Are there any editors who are familiar with this topic and article, and willing to nominate this article for Good status (if it meets criteria)? This would be a great project to take on during the ongoing 420 Collaboration. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Renae Lawrence claims
I have noticed two extraordinary claims associated with Renae Lawrence from The Australian, these are behind a paywall meaning that the content is impossible to verify. I have found a News.com related article but I have no idea as to the reliability of Australian media sources in terms of tabloidism (particularly with the disclaimers at the end of the story's regarding potential criminal actions by the media in paying convicted felons). Can someone with a better understanding please review and consider if such extraordinary claims are suitable for a BLP, and if so should they be dealt with more cohesively in a section relating to Lawrence. Koncorde (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the usual story. Paid-for media smears (fake news), picked up and spun by the rest of the media. Then some Wikipedia editors try to use it to embelish to abuse on this page. Even the usually hostile Media Watch had to cover it:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-GXPtOH9xM


 * This is how it works here. Fabrications and outright lies and covered, whilst FOI material which proves facts is censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.17.174.120 (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Censorship
Why is Wikipedia allowing even the talk page to be censored? Particularly by someone (WWGB) with a long track record of changes to this page which are hostile to Schapelle Corby?

You base this article on gutter media smears and blatant fake news. You then delete and censor every effort to refer to the 1000+ AFP and government FOI cables and transcrips which demonstrate exactly what happened.

So what are you? You are the purveyors of fake news, by definition? Some of your editors even relish this role, and are openly zealous in reproducing abuse, and feeding of defamatory fantasy like Duff's book. To the informed third party it is sickening to see.

Then you have the gaule to launch Wikitribune. Are you serious? This article spells out how you have fed on fake news for years. You have fed on media reports which have been obvious in their nature, and which members of the public have repeatedly informed you about.

No doubt this will meet the same fate as the other edits, and be hidden from the world. Look at yourselves in the mirror.

Please escalate these comments to the highest echelons of the Wikipedia Foundation. I have a feeling that one day, when the truth does emerge, this will cause serious damage to the reputation of the encyclopedia, because I guarantee that it will not be forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.213.207.111 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have specific concerns about sources or text in the article, please note it here on this talk page. General complaints are not particularly useful. Ashmoo (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Deportation
I hardly call it deportation.. She is leaving the country now, today, 28th May. And not being cuffed and being chucked onto a flight back to Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.178 (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You may not consider it deportation, but the Indonesian government does. Deportation does not have to involve handcuffs or being dragged onto a plane. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no. She is leaving, walking from her place, to a vehicle outside. The vehicle takes her to the airport. Deportation involves force.. She is leaving voluntarily, because they force her. Can she ever return to Bali, or to any other part of Indonesia? What about any of the neighbouring countries?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.178 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * She has been formally deported, having been served with deportation papers, and banned from returning to Indonesia for 6 months. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * But we can agree. That it was voluntary and no force was need, unlike in some parts of the world. And its not nice that she is banned from returning to Indonesia for only six months! Should have been six years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.178 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)