Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:44, 28 May 2007

Nicholas John Baker received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Japan Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:51, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

• Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 1: Archive Page (Nov 2005 - Feb 2006)
• Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 2: Archive Page (Feb 2006 - Jan 2007)

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. 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". 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. Devlin said her claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case". 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)

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 (disambiguation).

"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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages works.

I would say that Metropolis is a "source of questionable reliability" WP:V#Sources - 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 website”.- That Iris Baker and the support group had lied. Exceptional claim.

According to Misplaced Pages 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 website”.

Comments from involved editors

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

Comments by respondents to this RFC

Comment by Cla68 (talk · contribs)

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 ZayZayEM (talk · contribs)

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 Jossi (talk · contribs)

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#Undue weight. 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 Addhoc (talk · contribs)

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 SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)

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 ‹(-¿-)› 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by RomaC (talk · contribs)

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)

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 ‹(-¿-)› 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 ‹(-¿-)› 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also think Jossi raises a good point about more sources. —

SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 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.

1. Declare your COI as a member of Baker's support group
2. Stop misrepresrenting the results of the RFC
3. Stop trying to invoke COI to push POV
4. 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. 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. To back up my claims I wrote a 30-page report which I circulated to all media reporting the case and which was notable enough that Iris Baker wrote a lengthy rant about me on her 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Mediation process. If even that fails, go to ‹(-¿-)› 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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, particualrly 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)

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". 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)

• Old requests for peer review
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles