Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12 Nick Baker (chef)

Mediation Case: 2007-01-12 Nick Baker (chef)
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: David Lyons 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Nick Baker (chef)


 * Who's involved?
 * sparkzilla


 * What's going on?
 * Potentially libelous material is being repeatedly reverted back on this BLP. Sparkzilla has failed to satisfy Wikipedia policy re: WP:V and mis-represented on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources talk page the importance of the publisher's and his publication this material appears in. There are also issues of undue weight in the article.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Have the situation examined to assess whether it does indeed meet BLP#self guidelines. Address the undue weight issue.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * via my User_talk:David_Lyons

Mediator response
I left messages with the parties and waiting to hear from them.


 * Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing. --Ideogram 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion
To save mediators time, one aspect of the issue was taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources:_three_questions The discussion resulted in the following exchange:


 * 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)

The relevance/notability of the source and publisher is also mentioned in the WP:RS talk page.

In addition an Admin User:Jossi checked and copyedited the section. The article as a whole is now properly cited.Sparkzilla 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight issues

 * There are still issues of undue weight remaining which need to be tackled. 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.


 * Let's deal with this remaining issue here. 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)


 * Unfortunately Sparkzilla has expressed his disinterest in mediation - can anyone suggest the next step? David Lyons 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)