Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page protection

I've protected the page following the 3RR complaint. I've also removed the final lead paragraph as it covered the contentious material, and I've removed the reference to defence documents further down.

Have these allegations been published by anyone other than Metropolis? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the allegations about the Israeli mafia, then no, I don't believe so, based on newspaper archive searches with Factiva--Slp1 20:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the allegations attributed only to Metropolis for a number of reasons: (1) it's a city guide with a low circulation; (2) the allegations appear not to have been published elsewhere; (3) they are very serious; (4) they rely on primary-source material the provenance of which is unclear; (5) doubt has been expressed that the author of one of the Metropolis articles exists; (6) the person who published the Metropolis allegations seems to have added them to this article.

We need to find a serious source other than Metropolis that has published this material before we can safely include it, and the provenance of the primary source material would have to be clearer. The allegations are too serious to take any chances with. If anyone from Metropolis is reading this, I apologize and mean no disrespect. We have a very strict policy on what can be published about living persons (see WP:BLP), so it would be better to use a mainstream newspaper as a source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also archiving previous discussion that mentions the issues so it's not picked up by Google. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The defense documents corroberate the claims in the Metropolis article. I dont know why you removed the paragraph regarding my criticism of the case. I have three third-party references for that (which Slp1 will confirm) -- Sparkzilla talk! 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that they're defence documents, which is why we need another source. If you wrote that material, I'm afraid it means you stand in a conflict of interest in relation to this article. It would therefore be best to allow the other editors to decide how to proceed. Do you know whether the same material has been picked up by anyone else? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, thanks for your note on my talk page. I've removed it because these allegations can't be described or linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. Therefore, please discuss them in very general terms only, and without linking to the publication in question. If you need to give me details that haven't already been discussed on talk (which I've read), please e-mail them using the link on my user page.

However, I have to say that, regardless of any more details you might have, what it boils down to is whether any source other than Metropolis, or publications under its control, has published these allegations. If not, I don't see how we can report them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, SqueakBox 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my initial criticism of the case (not the article that includes the defense docs) has three third-party sources (Swindon Advertiser, Gloustershire Echo, The Citizen). That criticism should be put back in any case. It was also the subject of an RFC when my criticism only had one source - the consensus was that more sources should be added to avoid undue weight. Slp1 was kind enough to point me to two extra sources via Factiva which should be more than enough to show that my opposition to the case was notable and relevant. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding the use of the defense docs -- the unravelling of Baker's story happened after mainstream newspapers had forgotten about the case. Metropolis, as the largest distribution English magazine in Japan (30,000 copies weekly/67,500 readers or 50% of all English-speaking foreigners in Japan), and its sister site Japan Today, which also covered the story (over two million page views/month) means Metropolis coverage of the inconsistencies of Baker's stories was very widely coverered in the English-speaking community in Japan. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't a mainstream news source, particularly not for this kind of allegation. There's also the issue that the publisher is the writer of much of the material, which means there's no third-party editorial oversight; he has expressed his personal anger about the case on his website; he appears to be the only one wanting to add the material to Wikipedia; the writer of one of the key stories under dispute in his publication appears not to exist (or so it is alleged); the stories are based on what are reportedly defence documents, even though they don't look as though they are; it's not clear what the original language was or who translated them; the provenance of them is unknown and they're not signed; the story in them sounds dodgy at best; and no other publication has picked up on the claims, perhaps for the same reason that we're reluctant to. All in all, this is a situation where our BLP policy kicks in, which means we can't publish the allegations until they're published by a mainstream news organization. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(<-)This is the section I am talking about:

Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, an English-language publication based in Japan, withdrew his support from Baker's cause in his publication, taking issue with the fact that Baker had visited Japan two months before his arrest. He questioned the actions of the support group and claimed that Iris Baker was "deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention".

Three third-party sources for my criticism of the case (independent of the defense documents). -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three quotes from English newspapers on the now archived page which are indeed accurate copies from an internet newspaper archive. They all mention Mark Devlin as a publisher/editor living in Japan who has publicly criticized the support campaign for withholding information about the case. One mentions the prior trip to Japan, which is confirmed/explained by supporters in the same article. I believe that this section is appropriately sourced from reliable sources, but none of the other more specific details are mentioned in these articles, and as noted above I cannot find other sources confirming it. Slp1 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What do other editors think about including that Devlin has withdrawn his support, using the local British newspapers as sources. Is it notable enough to mention, and is it properly sourced? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, the way it's written now seems strange to me. If a publisher uses his publication as a soapbox and local papers pick up on it, is it worthy of inclusion? He's the only publisher in Japan that used his publication to support and eventually to condemn. Seems like it's information that more relevant to the article about Metropolis magazine than about Nick Baker.Statisticalregression 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(<-)As Slp1 says, these third-party sources confirm both my criticism and some details of the case. We already had an RFC about my criticism when there were even less sources than now. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept the defence docs issue for now, but I think that my criticism is very reliably sourced and should be reincluded. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep deleting the sources. They are clearly reliable and relevant. I would urge you to reinclude the material based upon them. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors of the page know what the sources say, and you've posted the section above that you'd like to see restored, so it's up to the other editors to decide whether it's notable enough. What we try to avoid is allowing Wikipedia to become a platform for any single group, individual, or publication, and that particularly applies in BLPs. So in cases of dispute like this, we need to see multiple, independent sources, and that's what's lacking here. It seems there is one person making all these allegations. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been a reader of Metropolis, and believe it to be a legitimate news source, since I've seen it do credible reporting on other stories here in Japan. I remember when Devlin via Metropolis was giving outspoken support for Baker's cause, and I also noticed when Devlin withdrew his support and detailed the reasons why in his publication. I believe his and Metropolis reporting on Baker's case to be credible and noteworthy. Since other sources have confirmed Devlin's involvement, I think that it passes the verifiability test, and I don't have any problem with it being mentioned in this article. Cla68 23:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Methinks we should unprotect the article as there are COI issuers but Cla isnt a part of that, all the same Slim is being well intentioned and we ideally should be looking for stuff in Metropolis "and" other sources, SqueakBox 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Mark Devlin section, I am inclined to believe that in this case multiple local newspapers are adequate verifiability. I note from searches that mainstream UK papers have been interested in this case in the past, but all the recent articles have been published in local press, suggesting that media-fatigue may indeed have set in among the national papers. I also believe that it is a notable enough part of the story to be restored. --Slp1 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not notable enough for inclusion. Compounded by an undue weight issue. Can anyone find an unbiased (ie not Mr "Angry" Devlin) criticism of Baker/support group to use as a source? David Lyons 03:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if Devlin is "angry" that doesn't necessarily mean that he's not credible. According to him, after he or his reporters discovered the falsehoods and misrepresentations of Baker's supporters, it led him to withdraw what had previously been strong support on his part for Baker's cause. Metropolis, in my opinion, has done an excellent job at finding and presenting new details about the events, and these findings are definitely notable enough for this article. I think one problem is that this article is titled "Nick Baker" which makes it a BLP. This article should be titled, "Nick Baker drug smuggling incident" or something like that. Cla68 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As Slim said we have to be very careful - this is just too contentious an issue to be run with just a Metropolis' editorial by Devlin and a feature article which, the bona-fides of the writer cannot be confirmed - Devlin could have even of written it himself. A mainstream news source for confirmation is required. Devlin has already conceded that the so-called court documents are inadmissible. No disrespect, but whether you think Metropolis has done an excellent job or not is irrelevent - what is required are verifiable sources. The article title, may be changed to whatever, but the core is Baker, which, by definition, would make this a BLP whichever way you look at it.David Lyons 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont confuse the issue. We are discussing my editorial (which I did write myself), and the reporting of it in three independent sources. Two non-involved editors have already said that it is acceptable and I hope they will reinsert it. Also please stop referring to me as "angry". I have told you several times now that you have no idea of my current state of mind. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If independent, credible sources have verified and reported on Devlin's editorial, then it can be mentioned in the article. The text should make it clear that it is Devlin's opinion, which it appeared to do already. If Devlin's editorial and opinion is notable enough to be mentioned in three separate, neutral sources that are reporting on the subject, then it's notable enough for this article. Cla68 04:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question, are the articles reporting on the editorial or are they reporting on the disjunction between Mark Devlin and Iris Baker? Statisticalregression 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone list the links to those other three articles here so we can read them and fashion a paragraph for this article that accurately reflects what they are reporting? Cla68 07:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cla68, the relevant parts from the three sources are here [1]. Slp1 has already confirmed that all the articles are available on Factiva. If you really would like to check independently please email me and I will give you my Factiva login. Swindon Advertiser [2] is available on the web. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who wasn’t involved in any of the earlier discussions, I agree with Cla68 and Slp1. On the one hand, David Lyons makes a strong point that we should avoid undue weight being afforded to minority views of the trial. However, I think that Mr. Lyons goes a little too far in insisting that Mark Devlin’s editorial cannot be cited at all within the WP article.

My reasoning:

(1) There is a section entitled “Reactions to trials” which presumably include both positive and negative reactions as stipulated by Wikipedia’s NPOV policy;

(2) It is a well-established fact that Mark Devlin wrote a publicly verifiable, third-party editorial on the case in which he withdrew his support for the Nick Baker defense team (therefore, it is not original research);

(3) The editorial only received a quick one or two sentence description in the WP article making it clear to readers that this was Mr. Devlin’s opinion only (therefore, it shouldn’t be in violation of the undue weight clause);

(4) Three UK newspapers (UK Newquest Regional Press, Gloucestershire Echo, and The Gloucester Citizen) reported Mr. Devlin’s views (thus making them notable per WP policy);

(5) UK Newsquest Regional Press, like it or not, also describes Mr. Devlin as a “leading publisher” in Japan within its article (thus, making his views particularly noteworthy); and finally

(6) It’s dangerous to start censoring publicly verifiable minority editorials simply because we disagree with them. The reader should be allowed to make up his or her own mind on that issue provided that it is marked carefully as opinion within the WP article. As the policy states, “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.” (See WP:SOAP).

FWIW, J Readings 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, J Readings. An additional note to say that I agree with David Lyons that changing the name of the article would not change the core BLP issue.--Slp1 12:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of alternate text

I looked at the Swindon Advisor here. The article is titled "Prisoner's mother is accused by publisher". This particular article didn't mention the editorial written by Mr. Devlin (JT+Metropolis publisher) but did include comments quoted as coming from him. Just to be certian, I checked the Japan Today article here and the quoted text isn't from that editorial. In this (the Swindon Advisor) article basically all the information appears to revolve around the dispute between Mr. Devlin and Mrs. Baker: (emphasis added by me)

But her visit was rocked when leading publisher Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention. Mr Devlin, who publishes Japan Today magazine, has now withdrawn his support from the campaign. Mr Devlin said: "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son."

So should we start off with a sentence something like this?:

The publisher of Japan Today, Mark Devlin, has accused Iris Baker (Nick Baker's mother) of deceiving the media regarding her son's case. He has stated that he believes Iris Baker didn't release and continues to suppress complete information about the first trial. He has called for removal of the Justice for Nick Baker website and a return of funds raised on behalf of her son.

Now that's just a suggestion....and I'm just offering it as a starting point.Statisticalregression 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You should check the other sources too. The Citizen and the Echo clearly mention the editorial. The relevant parts from the three sources are here [3] I don't see what was wrong with the original text - it was to the point and not too long. As four of you seem to agree that my criticism of the case merits inclusion may I humbly suggest that the original that was taken out in error is reinstated first and that other suggestions are discussed from now. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I am in complete agreement, but that I think it warrants discussion and we should try to see if we can come up with a few sentences that are accurate and don't cross any WP lines. The archive is just swimming with dissension over what's appropriate and an awful headache to read through.Statisticalregression 09:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You just need to read the three sources. Here they are...

Plus the original editorial [4]. As I said already, you'd be as well to simply reinstate the original text. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(<-)Removed sources as they are all here and you already included a link to them previously and I have read them, posting them again is causing clutterification(?) of the discussion. The Echo article 'echoed' what is already in the Swindon article & didn't provide any new information. Statisticalregression 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough snip, though you did seem somewhat confused. Anyway, the more important article is the Citizen where it states quite clearly the title of the editorial and the discussion of the first trip. Once agian I ask you to simply reinstate the original text. -- Sparkzilla talk! 10:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Slight problem with the clips... they don't show the complete text, the Swindon article that I can see in full does mention the failed meeting attempt.

Not sure if this is any better, but here's a second suggestion:

The publisher of Japan Today, Mark Devlin, accused Iris Baker (Nick Baker's mother) of deceiving the media and believes Iris Baker didn't release complete information has suppressed details about the first trial. He called for removal of the support website and a return of funds raised on behalf of Nick after withdrawing his support in an editorial. On a visit to Japan to see her son, Mrs. Baker attempted to meet with Mr.Devlin but he declined.

Again, just a suggestion for others to look at and check to see what might be useful from it. Isn't there an online version of the Citizen article?Statisticalregression 10:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the Citizen article is here. The meeting-that-never-was is not notable for obvious reasons. The important part is the text regarding Baker's first trip to Japan. As further backup of this claim I have an archive of the original page form J4NB.org clearly states he came to Japan two months before his arrest (see bottom of page).[5]. -- Sparkzilla talk! 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is my effort:

In an editorial, the publisher of Japan Today, Mark Devlin, withdrew his support for Nick Baker and accused Iris Baker (Nick Baker's mother) of deceiving the media,(ref Swindon, Citizen and Glos) claiming that she had suppressed details about the first trial, including information that Baker had also visited Japan two months before his arrest.(ref Citizen) Nick Baker supporters said that this was a birthday trip for a member of Baker's football club.(ref Citizen) Devlin called for removal of the support website and a return of funds raised on behalf of Nick. On a visit to Japan to see her son, Mrs. Baker attempted to meet with Mr.Devlin but he declined.(ref Swindon)--Slp1 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the comments below, I included the funds things, the website and the meeting because Statisticalregression did, but I would be very satisfied if these were not included, but they are serious allegations with only one source. --Slp1 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(< I'm afraid I have to withdraw any support for inclusion of Devlin/Metropolis material - The article is about Nick Baker - the relationship or arguments between bakers mother and Mr. Devlin are their own and perhaps would be germane on another article but not this one. Statisticalregression 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cross-referenced sources for contentious materials

I know precious little about the Nick Baker case beyond what I read in the newspapers, but I would like to help improve the article whenever possible based on what I read.

Using a Lexis-Nexis document search, I found a reliable, third-party source that seems to be only slightly at odds with one of the statements recently deleted by an editor from the main article due to a lack of cross-referencing.

The deleted sentence originally read: "In Baker's case, he will have 150 days added to his sentence [emphasis added] if the fine is not paid." The source I found reads: "As well as reducing the sentence, the high court reduced his fine from 5 million yen to 3 million yen. If Baker does not pay that sum within the next four weeks he will have to serve 150 days hard labor, which will not count [emphasis added] toward his 11-year sentence." Japan Economic Newswire, "British drug smuggler rules out further appeal," Kyodo News Service, International News, November 4, 2005. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only other article that I could find which mentions the 150 days hard labor clause in third-party sources, but at least it does confirm one of the points in the deleted sentence. I hope that helps. J Readings 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you, JR. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regarding the "added to this sentence" clause of the original, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "[emphasis added]", but the Kyodo News article essentially confirms that, too. It's just stated a little differently. Sorry about that. J Readings 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• J Readings, would you also be able to see if there are other sources to support the last sentance in the article "Baker's local MP, David Drew, in a letter posted to the support group's website, has expressed his dissatisfaction with Iris Baker, saying he had undertaken his own investigation into the case and found that the findings of his discussions with the UK police "did not tally with the contents of the support website."[6]? The Japan Today article seems to indicate that the information came from a message board (kind of difficult to determine who the message came from). Maybe you could find something in Lexis Nexis to corroborate it?Statisticalregression 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked on Factiva, and there is no source for the David Drew comment there. There are however, sources for the section about hoping for a transfer in 2008. "Let me complete my prison sentence in UK", The Citizen, 3 July 2007: Mrs Baker, 58 said:...."Hopefully he'll be able to serve the rest of his sentence in Britain, now that he's served a third of this sentence in Japan." The country is the only one which demands prisoners do at least a third of the sentence in its jails. and "Mother hits out at Japanese courts" Nick is due to be transferred to British jail next year when he will have served half(sic) his sentence, but Mrs Baker is not complacent ."I still continue to fight for Nick and as far as I know he will be transferred back next year," she said." Tom Shepherd 4 June 2007 Newsquest Media Group Newspapers as well as others. All local papers but this seems to be who is interested. Slp1 23:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another article "Mother calls on Blair to help imprisoned son" "The earliest Nick can be considered for transfer to a British jail is 2008 and Iris is determined the British government should use all its powers to make that happen." Tom Shepherd, 10 January 2007, Newsquest Media GroupSlp1 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Factiva and Lexis-Nexis seem to overlap in their database searches, so I found similar articles to the ones posted above by Slp. It seems to me that the originally contentious sentences can be slightly re-edited to reflect these additional citations, no? (I'm just asking). As for the alleged MP David Drew comment, no, I'm afraid not: I wasn't able to find anything relevant that cross-references the Japan Today article. J Readings 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi JR, it wasn't so much those sentences that were contentious as the source, because the article we were linking to contained very contentious claims. Those sentences can certainly be restored with the new sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected so that can be done. I'd advise Sparkzilla not to edit the article, but to make any suggestions on talk. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted your comments regarding the verifiability of the defense documents. However, given the comments above in favor of reinclusion, I would like to request tha you restore the section regarding my criticism of the Baker group that you removed, as it is properly sourced, notable and relevant. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Other issues regarding the inclusion of Devlin's criticism

Maybe we're missing the point. Even if there is a source reporting on Devlin's Metropolis magazine criticisms, does that necessarily qualify them for inclusion in the article? The Reactions section cites a Member of European Parliament, the International Bar Association, international watchdog group Fair Trials Abroad and a Japanese University Professor. These seem the sort of sources to consult regarding a Japanese criminal trial. If we want to know when the Gas Panic Bar has their Happy Hour, then we turn to the Metropolis city guide. RomaC 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of Metropolis is irrelevant. Three independent sources thought my comments were notable enough to include in their newspapers. This is far within the definitions of notability, relevance and verifiability for my criticism to be noted in this article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 12:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors' opinions are not "irrelevant," and "noted" is the key word here. Let's say that perhaps your reactions to the trial could be noted, but they certainly do not warrant more space than the combined total given the Member of Parliament, International Bar Association and Professor mentioned above. In the article history, that was the case and that is the problem. RomaC 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to recap, David Lyons and RomaC argue that it shouldn't be restored; Statisticalregression is unsure; Slp1, JReading, and Cla68 think it should.

My concern is that this isn't notable enough, yet it implies dishonesty not only on the part of the accused, but of his mother, with a further implication of financial dishonesty as well as of having held documents back. These are very serious charges, yet there is just one source for them (Devlin) reported in three very small publications, which may be freesheets. I'm also concerned that Sparkzilla (who has said he is Devlin) seems very keen to have the material restored. SZ, it might help if you could explain why you're so anxious to see the allegations added back to the article. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that my initial criticism of Baker and his support team was widely published in Japan through my own media, and that those claims exist is supported by three independent sources published in Baker's hometown/local area in the UK, and that Iris Baker responded to the claims, I think it is unacceptable that the claims are not included in this article. In your deletion of items relating to the defense documents you mistakenly threw the baby out with the bathwater by removing properly sourced material that has been through an RFC and admin oversight already and I think it is quite reasonable to ask that the material be restored to its original state. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a slightly side issue, can I ask you a general question, SlimVirgin, about how one deals with somebody convicted of a crime here on WP? The question is sparked by your use of the word "accused" (which I realize you might mean in relation to Devlin's accusations against him, but anyway I still have the question!). How does WP deal with questions of guilt or innocence if there is court judgment (from a democratic country, say) against someone? Can we call somebody a murderer if a judge has said the person is one? Is a judge/jury's verdict a verification of the notability of the prosecution case in some way? I have looked for information about this before but been unable to find it (probably my fault!). Slp1 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Touching here on the issues raised by RomaC and Slim regarding notability. Sparkzilla has on numerous occasions referred to himself as an expert on the case. SZ, can you point us to some reliable 3rd party sources that confirm your expertise in this case, or perhaps something that shows a acceptable (perhaps academic background?) qualification that allows you to pronounce upon the Japanese legal and/or judicial systems. Comparing with the other sources quoted, as Roma says, there is the International Bar Association, a professor of linguistics, a MEP?? This would be far more beneficial for your case to have your material included.David Lyons 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... I was a notable supporter of the case and in regular contact with Iris Baker; I commissioned two articles about the case in Metropolis/Japan Today, and was instrumental in getting another published (the foreigner.com); I am a published critic of the case (confirmed by three independent source); I am the only person to have written a 30-page analysis on all Baker's published statements (not linked to here but available on my personal website); Because of the commentary and report I was the subject of a personal attack by Iris Baker (also on my site); I attended several of the appeal trial sessions; I have been in discussions with the British Embassy about the case; I also happen to be the publisher of Japan's largest circulation English magazine and of Japan Today, the world's largest site for discussion of Japan news (two million page views/month). I have dealt with hundreds of support groups during my time as publisher. Please note carefully my criticisms do not at any point pass any judgement on Japan's legal system or process but on the actions of a support group witholding information from the media - a clear area of expertise for a publisher. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(<- So then the issue is not about your opinion of the trial, but about those of the support group. I'm starting to wonder how criticism of a support group belongs on a BLP.Statisticalregression 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In my editorial and the three indfependent sources it is quite clear: I criticise Bakers supporters for misleading the media and for hiding parts of Baker's story that were relevant to a determination of his guilt or innocence. Baker's actions up to and during his arrest and the actions of his supporters in presenting that information is highly relevant to this article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(<- okay, so I was looking at the "Reaction to Trials" section, specifically the opinions by several entities. Those entities commented on aspects of the execution of 'due process' in regards to Baker's case (a.k.a. 'fair' trial). Mr. Devlin's comments are not comments on, or about, the validity of the trials. Instead they are something different....but what are they? He feels Nick Baker is guilty (correct me if I am wrong). He first felt Baker was innocent, then discovered information that lead him to believe Baker was guilty....but that kind of opinion doesn't really belong there... and the trial didn't end with a hung jury or something, Nick was convicted. There's no reason to create an article called "Nick Baker, innocent or guilty?" as the matter has been definitively dealt with. Has Mr. Devlin had commented on the validity of the trials ?Statisticalregression 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reactions regarding due process are obviously from Baker's supporters, as that is their area of interest. As it reads now, one would think that there was no negative reaction to Baker's case at all. As a critic of the case my commentary concerns Baker's support group misleading of the media and the public about the case, which leads to an exploration of what the real story is -- the fact that Baker actually came to Japan two months before arrest makes ALL claims by the group suspect. My highlighting inconsistencies in Baker's story was notable enough to be published in three independent sources. All of which is a "reaction to the trial". -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

'reaction to the trail' or 'reaction to the support group's conduct'? You mentioned above "I criticise Bakers supporters for misleading the media and for hiding parts of Baker's story that were relevant to a determination of his guilt or innocence." The way I read the content in the 3 articles is that you are critical of the support group/supporters, but I am puzzled about what you mean by "hiding parts of Baker's story that were relevant to a determination of his guilt or innocence" - are you saying they withheld information from the court? A court is the sole entity that determines guilt or innocence. Withholding information from the media that is relevant to determining innocence or guilt "in the court of public opinion" isn't relevant. If the family/support group withheld information from the Japanese judiciary, than it would be extremely relevant.Statisticalregression 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update

Just to recap, David Lyons and RomaC argue that it shouldn't be restored; Statisticalregression is unsure; Slp1, JReading, and Cla68 think it should.

Statisticalregression has made up his mind for non-inclusion[7].David Lyons 08:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SZ. The above question was:

...can you point us to some reliable 3rd party sources that confirm your expertise in this case?

not "can you tell us why you think you are an expert?"David Lyons 08:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My criticisms (as published in the sources above) are on the actions of a support group witholding information from the media - a clear area of expertise for a publisher. In short, the support group (of which you are an undisclosed member) misled me and other publishers about this case to get support for their media campaign. My comments regarding the support group and Iris Baker were notable enough for inclusion in three separate newspapers and are notable, relevant and verifiable through independent media - well within the bounds for inclusion in this article. Note that, as I have already answered this three times now, I will no longer respond to this line of questioning,

By the way, when will you declare your obvious COI as a member of Baker's support group? -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

COI concerns

I've been reading some of the archives here and elsewhere,and I see this issue has been raging for some time. For example, there are COI discussions here and here. Mangoejuice has summed up the situation well: [8]

Sparkzilla, as a connected party, should appreciate that his perspective is too close to the events to make good editorial judgements, and back off, and remember that he doesn't WP:OWN the article on Nick Baker. Sparkzilla has eventually, seemingly, submitted to some outside input, but had been pressing an extensive amount of material from Metropolis / Devlin into the article. Sparkzilla should back off ... it's inappropriate to cite yourself in situations where the Metropolis coverage is not clearly noteworthy. It's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight on the coverage in your own publication. I am particularly concerned about this because Metropolis, despite being prominent in its small niche, is obviously a pretty low-level publication as things go in Japan ... If the Metropolis coverage is worth mentioning, let someone else be the one to include it ... I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way. Consider this a wake-up call: you have made some valuable contributions but you have also been editing inappropriately and it needs to stop.

I'm going to ask Sparkzilla to stop editing this article and refrain from commenting further about the Bakers on this or any other talk page. I also feel the article should not contain any reference to his campaign. He runs a self-published free sheet for the English community in Japan. He is making very serious allegations against Baker and his family based on no evidence. Allusions to his criticism have been published by three local advertising sheets in the UK. This is definitely not a good-enough source for a serious allegation against living persons.

Sparkzilla has argued that the only reason his criticism was not reported by the mainstream press is that they have stopped reporting on the case. That's a fair point. But did the mainstream press report his campaign when he was supporting the Bakers, while the newspapers were still interested? If not, that suggests a lack of notability, and UNDUE kicks in.

It would definitely be a violation of UNDUE to devote as much space to Sparkzilla's opinion as to the views of the European Parliament, Sarah Ludford, Iris Baker, the International Bar Association, Fair Trials Abroad, and Professor Makiko Mizuno, which is what Sparkzilla is suggesting we return to. [9] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you giving your opinion on this dispute as a decision-making authority or as one other voice with equal weight as the other editors who have expressed their opinions on inclusion or not on this page?

On the question of notability, isn't any publication or news source that has its own page on Wikipedia considered notable? There aren't very many English-language publications in Japan that do investigative reporting. Tokyo Journal and Metropolis may be the two main ones along with Stars and Stripes, which is intended for a particular audience. The Japan Times and Yomiuri Shimbun (English edition) occasionally do original reporting, but usually just reprint articles from other sources such as Kyodo News and AP. Anyway, Baker's mother responded publicly to Devlin's criticism of her advocacy efforts and this was reported in her hometown newspapers. That's notable enough for mention in this article.

Also, I think it's ok for editors with a very close relationship to the article's subject matter to comment on the article's talk page (need another example?) as long as the relationship is disclosed (umm....never mind). Anyway, it's unfortunate that the Tokyo Journal or The Japan Times didn't pick up on the excellent investigative journalism that Metropolis did, so we have what we have here, a judgement call, and my opinion, with respect to everyone else's here, including SV's, is inclusion. Cla68 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than spend so much time pointing out my COI, even though I have not edited the article directly regarding my own citations for some time, I think it would be better for you, SV, to join in the discussion of the proposed text to replace the text you deleted. I am beginning to question your impartiality regarding my edits, considering that we were previously in conflict some months ago regarding the Gere/Crawford marrige BLP issue. If you continue to be non-constructive I will take the issue to RFC for independent advice. However, I hope you will follow the comments of J Readings above.

As has been pointed out by several editors, my COI extends only to discussion of my own citations and sources in the article. As an expert on the case, I will continue to correct POV edits in other areas of the article, particularly to correct POV edits those by David Lyons, who has an undeclared COI as a member, if not the leader, of Baker's support group.

Regarding my citations, I am letting other editors discuss the proposed text. Once again I will remind you that there are three independent sources regarding my criticism of the support group, well within WP policy. I hope you will assist them. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to play that game with me, Sparkzilla. I have no involvement with you whatsoever. My only recollection of you (and even that I only remembered today) is when you turned up at WP:BLP to try to change the policy because of a dispute you were having at Richard Gere. I had no part in the Gere dispute, and no interest in it. I opposed your attempt to change the policy, as did every other editor on the page, as I recall.

Your edits have been problematic for a long time, because the allegations you are making are very serious, and many editors and admins have pointed that out to you. At some point, the situation has to be dealt with. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Given our previous conflict (which was not as clear cut as you suggest), and your non-constructive attitude regarding the reinstatement of well-sourced items that are well withing WP policy, I have asked for independent Admin oversight. [10]. I hope you will recuse yourself from this article and let an independent admin take over. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, although I don't agree with SV's position in this dispute, I don't think she's acting in bad faith here. Her opinion should have equal weight with the other editors in this discussion, and, so far, the weight of those arguments is for some form of inclusion. Cla68 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine if SV was actually discussing the proposed text in a constructive manner. So far, I see removal of well-sourced items and no discussion about the proposed reinclusion of text by SV. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I've observed, going to the noticeboard too early and too often may get you labled in a negative way and may hurt your credibility. Cla68 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am concerned that SV has made no constructive attempt to discuss the proposed text, and have to wonder if this is related to our previous conflict. I hope SV will actually address the text. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have withdrawn my support for inclusion in *this* article, the article is about Nick Baker, not Iris Baker-Mr. Devlin relationship.Statisticalregression 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Baker's support group, led by Ms. Baker, has waged an extremely public campaign for Baker's cause. Actions by them in response to criticism of the case is notable if reported in credible secondary sources, which is the case here. Cla68 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cla68, I understand your argument for inclusion, but the more I looked at the sources the more I felt they would belong in a different article. That's my take on itStatisticalregression 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate your reasoned response. Cla68 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin please respect consensus

Consensus already was gathered by a RFC that the editorial comments by Devlin should be included as long as 1) They were represented as editorial personal comments by Devlin (who as a leading English source publisher in Japan is a usable source) 2) Independent third party sources could be found.

These were both satisfied.

Please explain your rationale for disregarding consensus previously reached without discussion...--ZayZayEM 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The request by User:ZayZayEM is something that I would second (third?). My impression after carefully re-reading the back-and-forth over the past two days (not to mention the archives, and the Wikipedia policies) is that this situation has spiralled sadly out of control. J Readings 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading the disaster on the Admin notice board, what I gathered is there's a problem with that it constituted an extension of a campaign of personal attacks and BLP kicked in, one of the admins said something to the effect that even if it was allowed from a previous RFC that it acceptable to be removed. check WP:AN/I for the pertaining posts. My impression is even though Devlins comments are reported in 3 different sources, the sources are 'free locals' and that reporting of his comments doesn't constitute verification of his claims, just a reporting of his allegations. Statisticalregression 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. The additional sources provided are free periodicals that, in my view, are not reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that they're reliable sources (even if they might not be being used reliably). They have real editors, and real, qualified, trained, unionised, journalists. They're local papers, but they're not the local free sheets. The editor at the echo would gut anyone making stuff up. declaring COI: I knew reporters and photogs from both papers. Dan Beale 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, whether they are free or not is immaterial. Can you say why they are not reliable? They have independent editorial teams, have regular publication, contain local news, and are widely distributed in their local area.

FACT CHECK UPDATE 1: [11]. The Citizen, which is a primary source for confiramtion of my commentary, is a paid publication. From the website...

The Citizen, Gloucestershire Echo and The Forester are part of Gloucestershire Media, the leading publishers of newspapers and electronic media in the county. Gloucestershire Media, motto "Get More from life", is itself part of Northcliffe Newspapers, the regional press division of the Daily Mail group.

The Citizen is the evening newspaper based in Gloucester. It is published six days a week and covers the south-west of the county including Stroud and the Forest of Dean. It has certified sales of over 32,000 (July-Dec ABC) with a readership of more than 80,000. Ian Mean has been editor since 2002.

The Gloucestershire Echo is also published six days a week from Cheltenham, covering the north and east Gloucestershire including Tewkesbury, and much of the Cotswolds from Evesham to Cirencester.

FACT CHECK UPDATE 2: The Swindon Advertiser, despite its name, is also a PAID-FOR newspaper (circulation around 20,000 every day with 58,000 readers). [12]

These sources are clearly reliable. There is no BLP violation. My criticisms of the case are reliably sourced and should never have been taken out without discussion. Banning me for daring to object to their removal on the article's talk page is an abuse of admin priviledge. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that really changes the situation, those papers quoting you doesn't constitute a verification of your claims. Statisticalregression 05:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They verify that the claim exists, and verify the reason for the claim (Baker's prior trip) which is more than sufficient for inclusion as a claim on WP. Note that some of the claims of Baker's supporters have no independent verification yet they are still included on the page. -- Sparkzilla talk!

As far as *my understanding goes*, it's the kind of claim that's being made. Negative/Denigrating/libelous type claims made only by one individual are a BLP issue, even if 3 sources included a quote of that claim in an article. Yes, verification that you made the claim exists (I don't remember that being an issue before)..but the claim legitimacy itself is not verified.Statisticalregression 05:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think about it, this article is full of claims by Baker's supporters with no independent verification. How about the claim he spendt 20 days without food, or many others through the article. There are many aricles on WP with non-corroberated claims (Michael Jackson's oxygen tent springs to mind). In any case, although I don't agree I understand your point and will leave it to other editors to discuss. -- Sparkzilla talk!

RFC

Can someone please fix the RFC so it links to an active discussion/section here or in the archives or delete the RFC if it's no longer active? Thanks! --ElKevbo 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC link removed per requestStatisticalregression 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)