Talk:Nicholas John Baker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Nicholas John Baker has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas John Baker article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Sources

First of all, I just want to say I have no connection to anything here, and have just been following along the conversation just out of an interest in how Wikipedia works -- and I still have little interest in editing this article -- I am not even sure why this is seen as notable, to be honest. But, I did live in Japan for some time, and remember reading the article about Nick Baker in Metropolis.

That being said, why are fairtrails.org, www.sarahludford.org.uk, or theforeigner-japan.com allowed to be used as sources? In spite of any COI problems, Metropolis is a major source of information for English speaking residents of Tokyo -- which currently boasts writers such as Oscar Johnson and Fred Varcose who have written for the Asahi Shimbun's English language edition and the Japan Times respectively. Can anyone find any source for this in the Japanese language press? If not, then why are the views of Mark Devlin, as publisher of a magazine that is well known in the foreign community in Japan, not notable but a MEP who is not notable enough to have her own article in Wikipedia is -- plus whose website is being used as a primary source in this article.

I don't know whose story to believe, but Nick Baker was convicted by a court of law in Japan, but the article seems to go out of its way to discredit the Japanese justice system. In its present state, it seems to have POV problems of its own. No matter what comes of the issue with user:sparkzilla, that will still need to be addressed. XinJeisan 11:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact laundering

Nothing that derives from an editorial constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Fact laundering. If a reliable source reported as fact that certain things happened, that is reliable, under our meaning of the word. If a reliable source reports, "John Smith, publisher of the Arkham Advertiser, today accused Dr. Henry Armitage of Miskatonic University of dabbling in the dark arts," that is merely proof that John Smith made a certain accusation. Any attempt to use such a source as proof that Armitge does in fact dabble in the dark arts is merely Fact laundering.

The fact laundering essay was written in response to an Arbitration case regarding Jack Hyles, a controversial religious leader. One of the issues in that case is that a former colleague had self-published a critical newsletter against Hyles, alleging marital infidelity and other misdeeds. At one point, the Chicago Post, in reporting on Hyles, wrote, "a former friend and colleague has accused Hyles of infidelity and other misdeeds." At the time, I too thought this was sufficiently reliable to include in the article. I have since changed my view, and parties here are advised to read through the case itself. If it is impermissable for Wikipedia to report "John Smith cheated on his wife" because the only source is unreliable for some reason (celebrity gossip magazine, self-published by Smith's political or business rivals, etc) then it is also impermissable to suggest that Smith cheated on his wife by referring to an unreliable accusation. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi and especially Quotation_of_material_from_an_unreliable_source. Thatcher131 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this useful information, Thatcher131, which makes a good deal of sense to me, and is a very helpful addition to this very complicated discussion. I am going to use this as a jumping off point for some discussions and a proposal.
  1. Firstly, having spent a good deal of time sourcing this article, I have a few remarks about it: this seems to be a local story of interest mainly in Gloucester and in Japan, and very, very little information is available from sources other than local newspapers/magazines and involved (and therefore likely partisan) websites (in which I personally would include the MEP). Even the BBC articles (of which there are a few) are local ones for the Gloucestershire area. I would therefore second User:XinJeisan's general question about what appropriate Reliable sources for such an article are. For the Gloucester papers, I can confirm that the local Gloucester newspapers cited are not free advertising sheets as has been claimed (sadly, without evidence), and are paid dailies with a very reasonable circulation and readership in the local area. Please see [1] [2][3]]The fact that their articles are archived by Lexis-Nexis and Factiva adds to their credibility to me, as does the fact that their reporting generally ties in well with the other sources of information (e.g Guardian, Independent). For the Japanese English language papers and magazines (and there are lots of different ones referenced), strong feelings have been expressed on both sides, and I look forward to consensus, but for my part the Josh Nobblestone article from Metropolis, still referenced in the article, appears to be a very well-researched article, including interviews with some of the principals. See [4] The information is generally consistent with that from other more unimpeachably reliable sources. So my question is, quite separate from the Mark Devlin aspect, what do people feel are and are not reliable sources for this article? What about the bit of original research from Hansard?
  2. Like User:XinJeisan, I have noticed POV issues in this article as a whole, with, for example, lots of information about Baker's defence and claims, but virtually nothing about the prosecution case against him: allusions are made to what it must have been, e.g. the discussion about the key and the "If anything goes wrong on the way to Japan, your family will be killed" comment, but none of it is explained in detail. My attempt at sourcing makes clear why this is: there is very little reliably sourced information about the other side of the story, which makes balancing the article problematic. Some of it that does exist does not appear at all. Is there a reason why Prunier's denials of Baker's claims are not included despite being mentioned in multiple local newspaper reports and the Independent article? see [5][6]
  3. As mentioned above, I am sympathetic to the "fact laundering" problem, and find this the best reason yet for why Mark Devlin's specific criticisms about Mrs. B. cannot be included. However, I am also sympathetic to the idea that Devlin's change of opinion was notable to several people who have commented on this page. I concur with others that the local Glos. newspapers are reliable sources for this issue, but are subject to fact laundering issue. But I think it should be possible to avoid both the fact laundering and the BLP issues by adding a sentence such as "Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan Today, withdrew his support for the Nick Baker campaign and suggested that supporters had misled the media". Nobody is mentioned, and no specific facts are laundered, but the general idea from the articles is there.

What do others think?--Slp1 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Slp1. His comments are very sensible, in my view. Like User: XinJeisan and Slp1, I also consider this article to be the product of selection bias (see below) after having read through all of the newspaper articles written on this subject. Further, I share XinJeisan's skepticism about the way in which sources are deemed appropriate in some cases for this article, but not in others. There should be some form of fairness and consistency at work otherwise the article should have a POV tag. I was in the process of writing similar criticisms to the ones offered by Slp1 above for this talk page's discussion board, when I noticed that Slp1 beat me to it! I have other comments I woud like to make at a later date, but unfortunately I don't have time to articulate them right now. J Readings 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Slp1, in regards to the Devlin sentence - Thatcher131's post is pretty clear about why reproducing the allegations is not a good thing. I personally feel that the allegations are a separate topic as it's a mother Baker - Devlin issue. Statisticalregression 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am with Statisticalregression on this one, and it also appears that Devlin actively contacted the local papers amongst others with his theories about the case, and one or two of them picked-up on it. Had they picked-up on the story without prompting from Devlin, I would be more inclined to attach a greater degree of notability to it. David Lyons 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. I know what you mean, Statistical regression. But take a look: The Swindon Advertiser article [7] isn't quoting from the editorial, which is here [8]. They are quite different words. And Devlin's comments aren't (by any means) just directed at Mrs. B, but at the support group in general. If the support group/website gets a mention here, then I don't think this is a separate topic. Regarding Mr. Lyons's comment, actively contacting newspapers is what people do to get media coverage, and I am prepared bet a million dollars that this is exactly what the support group did to get the coverage it did (very successfully, I might add!). So I don't see this as a reason for non-inclusion at all, even if it could be proved. Otherwise we'd have no article! --Slp1 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing that has me concerned, the words that are quoted in the Swindon Advisor include two sentances that are word-for-word from Mr. Devlins (sparkzillas) document called "TheNickBakerDeception". Two sentances:
"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."
are found in both the Swindon article here and in Mr.Devlin's document here so I have concerns that he might have contacted the Swindon during his campaign against the support group. I don't know how that affects the situation, if at all, but I found it troubling that there might be a direct Swindon-Devlin connection.Statisticalregression 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
SR. Just for the record - Devlin's home-page confirms he did send his report to the press [9] David Lyons 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with Slp1's very astute observation. We have to be both consistent and fair about the writing of this article. If the reason behind censoring the (let's call it) "Devlin editorial flip" becomes how he may or may not have contacted the media, then the notability of the entire article falls into question. I'm still open to the idea that the specifics of the Devlin editorial flip cannot be directly cited, but I would like to see a strong reason for why the mere fact that Devlin flipped itself cannot be cited, either. J Readings 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Devlin's claims allude to deception, financial impropriety, and fraud on the part of Baker's Mother and the support group. For inclusion of these kind of claims in a BLP, we have to be very careful indeed and these sources are not strong enough - what is needed is mainstream press. David Lyons 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I think that it is safe to say that we need a specific, fair, and consistent definition of "mainstream" that will be evenly applied to this article. Wouldn't you agree? J Readings 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your concern, Statistical, and it is disconcerting that the sentence is the same. But whether he contacted or was contacted by the Swindon Advertiser is immaterial. Lady L has a campaign of her own going, but she is quoted all over the place here. Some of her are quotes from things she has written and other are quotes that she gave to newspaper in response to interviews. Same for Mrs. B. The important thing, as I understand it, of the fact laundering thing is quoting facts (presumably BLP facts especially bad) that are from an unreliable source. The Swindon Advertiser is a reliable, mainstream source from my perspective, and several other editors appear to agree. I feel very uncomfortable with this cherry picking of reliable sources with these local papers: okay for some things (see below re Prunier), and not okay for a very, very watered down comment without mention of any specifics or any living people. Perhaps you can think of a phrasing that would satisfy you more. Slp1 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
right, I wasn't sure if the sentences appearing in both affected anything, they probably don't. I'm not so focused on the issue of reliability of the sources (swindon,citizen) as I am with Thatcher131's fact laundering issue and restating allegations that would violate BLP.Statisticalregression 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

outdent - I understand you concerns Slp1. There are two problematic areas here. 1) There is very little out actually out there critical of Baker and his Mother/support group from which to source information. Secondly, and this is also in response to JReadings above. In a biography, especially of a living person, the more negative the information becomes the more strict we have to be with the sources, which is why you arrive at a situation where it might be acceptable to use a local newspaper for a fairly non-contentious issue, but the same source should not be used for potentially libelous information. David Lyons 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The bickering between Nick Baker's mom and Devlin aren't the key points, nor is a mothers support for her son particularly notable. What is notable is that Baker's mom has enlisted one MEP to her cause, while a well known publisher in the English-speaking community in Japan has publicly announced that he does not believe that Nick Baker is not guilty. Those are notable events in this saga, and it seems to be must be a part of this article.XinJeisan 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks David for your comments. I rather fail to see how this is potentially libellous: "Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan Today, withdrew his support for the Nick Baker campaign and suggested that supporters had misled the media". The first part is true without a doubt, and the second part does not name anybody and is phrased as Devlin's opinion.But anyway, how about this: "In 2004, Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan Today, criticized the Nick Baker campaign and withdrew his support from it." Now not even supporters are mentioned. Would that suit you? I am open to suggestions for further revisions from you or others, of course.Slp1 02:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that second sentence is good for a number of reasons - doesn't appear to trigger any BLP or fact-L'ing plus it's about the same length as has the same depth of treatment as the other comments from the other entities. Although it's a bit wierd that we would have; comment on trial, comment on trial, comment on trial, comment on trial, comment on support group.....Statisticalregression 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If this is all we can say about Devlin, I wonder how notable it is? However, I shall refrain from further comment regarding this particular aspect of the article and defer to other editor's opinions. David Lyons 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Slp1, could you add that second sentence to the article along with the appropriate inline cites, or else write it here with the cites and I'll add it? I think we have a general opinion that that line is ok. Cla68 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this go under the section Reactions to the trail and that it be written. "However, Mark Devlin, publisher of Metropolis Magazine, withdrew his initial support for Nick Baker and pubically opposed their efforts." That edit would logically fit into the article. or, "However, In 2004, Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan Today, criticized the Nick Baker campaign and withdrew his support from it" I think the using the word However, and placing it at the end of the Reactions section is the best way both from both a logic and aestetic (sp) standpoint for this sentence.XinJeisan 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Slp1 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think about the flow thing when I suggested my sentence, and so have placed a variation on the general theme at pleases me more in the context of the paragraph.I hope it is okay with all!--Slp1 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Prunier: "I didn't dupe nick into carrying drugs..."

In reading through the dozens of newspaper articles written on this subject over the past couple days on Lexis-Nexis, I stumbled across an article interviewing James Prunier. It reads in part:

"The idea that I set him up and put somebody in prison, a friend or not a friend ... to me that is the pits," he had said then. Sadly everyone thinks I did round here." Mr Prunier admitted he was no angel and he had been involved in criminal activities.

"Everyone was just so caught up in this idea of this sort of Hollywood - loads of money, everybody travelling around the world," he said. "We were all really taken up by it and to be quite honest, really stupid.

"I should have stopped...if I was any sort of man I would have stopped him (Baker) and I wouldn't have been doing it myself.

(Source: "I didn'd dupe nick into carrying drugs," The Gloucester Citizen, People Section, August 20, 2004, pg. 9)

In an effort to provide more balance to this article, I believe that the reader should be presented with a *very brief* one sentence statement to the effect that the late James Prunier publicly asserted before his death that he did not dupe Nick Baker into carrying drugs. My reasoning: (1) it brings a little more balance to an article that is already perceived by some editors to have a selection bias in favor of exonerating Nick Baker (i.e., the article does not seem very neutral and encylopedic), (2) the Prunier statement is a publicly verifiable citation in a reliable third-party source, (3) Mr. Prunier is directly involved in the events of this case (therefore, he is a notable figure whose comments related to this case are obviously relevant).

If editors have any objections or comments, we should discuss them before the article is editted to reflect briefly this citation. J Readings 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem from my perspective - is this the same article that detailed his death? Also where's the best place to put it? Also just found this one [10] about Prunier's death, may want to see if that has anything useful.Statisticalregression 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As you might guess based on my comments above, I agree too. Slp1 23:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree this should be included. In fact, as Prunier was a very large part of the case, I had thought of making a separate section just called "James Prunier" or some such, which would include the above, his subsequent arrest with others in Belgium on similar charges and the circumstances surrounding his suicide in August 2005(?). There is also the question of the reports in several mainstream sources that say he tricked the three other young people in Belguim and they were released without charge, but the Metropolis article refers to the British Embassy as saying they were convicted. How to approach this? David Lyons 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that Nick Baker threatened to kill Prunier in at least one interview [[11]].—Preceding unsigned comment added by XinJeisan (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 July 2007
I'm not sure I would take Nick Baker's comment very seriously! I've said the same in far less serious circumstances. Good job nobody wrote my comment up in the newspaper! Slp1 01:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
First, sorry for not signing. Second, maybe, but it also shows the extent that the so-called friendship between the two has denegrated. First, Prunier is said to have threatned Baker's family, and Baker threatened Pruiner afterwards, it just goes on and on in circles. Also, I am sure that Prunier had received death threats as well due to this case, but I can't re-find the article. I know I didn't dream it up, though. Does anyone know what I am talking about? XinJeisan 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(< Xin, I remember reading somethig about the threats against Prunier, but I am not sure if it was in a discussion or in a source. As for Bakers comment, "I'll kill him/her" isn't always meant or accepted as a serious threat to the life of a person. The quote "I'll kill him" works well in the prose of the article, but would it be right to include a sentence like "Baker threatened Pruner's life from prison"?Statisticalregression 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)\

I wouldn't want to directly quote Baker, and of course the situation of where he is (in prison) should be mentioned. But, if Prunier received death threats from Baker supporters, and Baker said it, even if it was under the stress of prison life, it is notable, I think. XinJeisan 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
that works for me, as long as we don't try and draw a connection between the threat in prison and the threats on prunier (unless an article makes that connection as a fact).Statisticalregression 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If other editors are in agreement, I propose adding in a new section entitled "James Prunier" something along the lines of:

James Prunier

James Edward Leon Prunier, eight years Baker's senior met Baker, according to Baker's Mother "through football" two to three years prior to Baker's arrest.

After fleeing the airport when Baker was detained, his movements and mobile telephone conversations were monitored by Japanese police, who also photographed him leaving the country two days later. He was not questioned or detained by the Japanese authorities.

Some three months after Baker's arrest, Prunier was detained in Belgium, along with three other young British citizens for allegedly trying to smuggle ecstasy out of the country. Reports have claimed that Prunier's three companions were released without charge, whilst another has claimed they were convicted of the crime.

In August 2003, whilst awaiting trial, Prunier gave an interview with Britain's Central Television in which he denied he had set up Baker and claimed to have received death threats relating to Baker's case.

In August 2004, Prunier, an unstable cocaine and alcohol addict, was found dead on a railway track in Gloucester, aged 42. An inquest returned a suicide verdict.

I believe I can reliably source all of the above. Comments please. David Lyons 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

would it be worth the effort to try and weave that information into the article? I'm not against making a new section, just wondering the best way to include it allStatisticalregression 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stats. There is enough sourced information from interviews with Prunier that Baker's supporters claims and Prunier's statements, along with what the court said, could be placed together throughout. Also, I am a bit concerned with words such as "an unstable cocaine and alcohol addict." That Prunier committed suicide and had some troubles at the end of his life is no doubt important to the case, it is mainly notable because he can no longer be called to trial as a witness. The fact that he left no suicide note (because he didn't mention why he committed suicide) should also be included. XinJeisan 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, Mr. Lyons, I'm a little uncomfortable with making a section on James Prunier if this article is supposed to be a biography of "Nicholas John Baker." Perhaps my real objection is directed at User:jossi who changed the title of this article. Either the article is about Baker and the direct dealings with his associates (with undue weight considerations naturally attached, as before), or it's about the case and the relevant facts leading up to it (perhaps renaming the article by its court case title or a similar title). Which is it? If it's the former, it doesn't make any sense to have a section dedicated to the life of Prunier (which people will undoubtedly add to as time goes by, making it less and less about Nick Baker). The relevant quotes from Baker should be simply weaved into the existing text, I think. If it's the latter, then relevant background information should be provided for all of the key actors in this drama on an even scale with the relevant sources. Also, on a side issue, what are the reliable third-party sources for Prunier being "an unstable cocaine and alcohol addict" as applied to this case. Just curious. J Readings 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
XinJeisan. I think you are perhaps confused. I don't believe it was ever suggested that the Prunier death threats came from Baker's supporters. Do you have a source for that?
The alcohol and cocaine addiction is well-sourced by the BBC here
I'm fine with making a section on Prunier or weaving it in there. Whichever. I'd like to know whether anyone thinks anything is inappropriate or I've left anything major out. David Lyons 03:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Lyons (David?): thanks for providing the BBC link. Let me look through Lexis-Nexis for cross-referencing purposes, and I'll get back to you on this and the other facts. I'm uncomfortable with alleging that Prunier was a drug addict and alcoholic with only one source, regardless of whether it's the BBC. J Readings 06:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the quote about the death threats from reference #1 "The idea that I set him up and put somebody in prison, a friend or not a friend, anybody in the world, the thought that I would do that, is the pits. Sadly, everyone thinks I did round here. And it's getting too much to bear."

Mr Prunier says that since the news broke, he has had death threats, but says he will not be driven out of Stroud.

He also denies claims that he has tricked other people into carrying drugs through customs and destinations around the world.

[edit] Death threats recieved by Prunier

That seems to me that Prunier is claiming to have received death threats from people who think he set up Nick Baker. If you have another interpretation, I am happy to hear it. However, I didn't say nor do I have any problem with how you stated the information in your writeup. XinJeisan 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that the death threats were related to the Baker case, but they may have also come from those upset about the Belgian case. There's no mention either wayStatisticalregression 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
From my reading of the article, from the news broke means since people have learned about Nick Baker, imho. XinJeisan 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
is there a link to the article where Prunier makes the "since the news broke" comment? Statisticalregression 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes here. My interpretation of it is that since Nick's story broke, possibly the Belgian arrest, that local person or persons unknown (whether involved with Prunier "activities" or not is unclear) made the threats. David Lyons 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It does read like since the Baker story broke, but there is no reference to Bakers support group anywhere in the article, and the person/persons unknown could be anyone...we should definitely steer clear of making any speculation who made the threats. Statisticalregression 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, by Baker supporters I did in no way mean anyone connected to an organized support group. XinJeisan 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Prunier tale should be woven into the whole and not be a section on its own. I also feel uncomfortable with the drug, alcoholic thing.--Slp1 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(< question - did Prunier comment on Nick's version of events pertaining to the luggage exchange at the airport? Statisticalregression 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he did [12]Slp1 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we could put a blurb like "...an allegation that Prunier denied" or probably more accurately "....which Prunier's version contradicts" right?Statisticalregression 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baker's son

Fellow editors. I am thinking perhaps it would be better to remove the name of Baker's son from the main article. Mindful of the nature of internet archives and caches and so-forth, I think it inappropriate that an innocent in this affair remains indentifiable by name. I seem to remember that Baker's website made reference to the boy (which I now cannot find) but even so I feel we should show some sensitivity in this issue. David Lyons 10:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sixteen newspaper articles repeated the name of Baker's son. These newspapers include the majors like The Independent, The Guardian, and the Sunday Mercury, as well as a host of regional newspapers in the UK. Checking the internet, it's also on such websites as the BBC News, Foreignprisoners.com and a host of other websites. If the objective is to keep it off the internet and out of the mainstream press, that decision was already made by the press (and the Baker campaign) to include his son's name a long time ago. (BTW, I'm still checking the various Prunier sources. I'll get back to you by tomorrow morning.) Best, J Readings 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to the resources you do, this is merely a suggestion on my part. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other - merely a matter of sensitivity. I thought as wiki is the top google entry for Mr. Baker, it should be perhaps considered. BTW David is fine - may I refer to you as "JR" ;-)
Just call me J.R. Ewing. I'm down here in Dallas with my oil rigs and my fancy Texan hat. :-) Just kidding. JR is fine, David. J Readings 11:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the names per WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names, as those are private individuals not directly involved in this. We try as a rule of thumb not to expose family members unnecessarily to anything contentious, even if the names have been published elsewhere. By all means discuss this further if you disagree. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the part where I start to suck my teeth like a Japanese, tilt my head to one side, and try to understand the logic of this situation. On the one hand, we're seriously considering labelling James Prunier "a drug addict and alcoholic" based on one (and only one) source (more on that tomorrow), but we have a problem naming Nick Baker's son, George, on Wikipedia even though it's everywhere in the media (and was obviously disseminated by the Baker legal team/campaign to begin with.) Hmmm. I don't know. The policy states: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." This is obviously not the case, SlimVirgin. See above. In any case, my real concern here is consistency and fairness, across the board, not loss of context. I suppose that one can make the argument that Prunier recently died (so BLP does not apply), but I'm still looking at this situation and thinking "sensitivity? really?". FWIW, J Readings 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for causing you to suck your teeth. :-) The point is that the baby is not involved. Whether his name is A or B makes no difference to the story, and we don't want to hang an albatross round his neck for the rest of the time this article exists (which for all we know could be for the rest of his life). Wikipedia currently has a wider and more persistent reach than most other media, which is why we adopted that policy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the names of his wife and child are that important to the story, at the same time the names were released by the family to gain sympathy for Baker. The article that the information comes from [13] is sypathetic to Baker in its outlook, and even has a photo of Baker with his child.
At the same time, SlimVirgin removed the reference. I put it back in. It links to four different points in the article. Also, as above, the article at the moment is very poorly sources, as stated above, with websites of organizations and people linked directly with the Nick Baker for Justice group used as primary sources for the article. We need to find consensus here on this Talk Page what articles are acceptable or not and begin resourcing the article on the Talk Page.XinJeisan 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you XinJeisan. It will be a good opportunity to review the WP policies on Reliable sources so that we can make the decisions based on policy and not on opinion. I also think getting rid of the child's name is a very good plan. It doesn't add anything, and could cause harm. --Slp1 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan Sources, Neutral Sources, Reliable Sources, and Fairness

Hello All:

I hope everyone is having a more productive morning than I am. I wanted to share a few thoughts about this article in the hopes that a re-working will provide more stability and legitimacy to a greater readership.

First, let me state quite clearly that I hold no brief for Mark Devlin or Sparkzilla; I don’t know him nor do I know anyone associated with the Baker campaign; I share David Lyons’ legitimate concerns about undue weight and BLP concerns; that I only recently started to edit this article as of last week (having been busy with other articles); and that we should try our best to be both consistent and fair (Indeed, that’s my mantra for Wikipedia. Be consistent and fair!). That said, here are some of the more serious problems that arise, in my view, the moment we attempt to censor Metropolis and JapanToday from this article, as a couple of editors are now slowly but surely doing. As a compromise, I have a few suggestions below that I'm hoping can diplomatically resolve this mounting tension.

There is the clear perception of partisanship. It could be entirely innocent and circumstantial, granted, but here is a situation where Metropolis is slowly being removed from the article to source any material, but partisan sources such as Fair Trials Abroad and sarahludford.org.uk continue to be used to describe events in which allegedly neutral “facts” cannot be cross-referenced in reliable, independent third-party sources. (See footnotes 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21).

There are many reasons why we should adopt cross-referencing on these two aforementioned sources:

1. They're questionable sources writing about third-parties. See WP:V
2. They're making contentious political claims against the Japanese judicial system.
3. They're partisan sources.
4. They're self-serving sources.
5. They're not academic or peer-reviewed publications in any conventional sense.

I accept the argument that many newspapers also do not do real investigative journalism for the benefit of the people, that they're fed stories by partisan sources, and that they simply repeat them because they make good stories and sell more newspapers. That said, let me make this compromise.

If two or more newspaper sources cannot be found to cross-reference these seven footnoes, these "facts" really should be removed immediately from the article and placed on the talk page until they can be sourced by neutral, third-party venues. If the argument then becomes, "but these are the only sources that exist!," then I would reply per policy "then obviously the mainstream newspapers did not believe it was worth writing about or mentioning."

Another editor raises the ad hominem issue of credentials FOR THE PARTISAN "REACTION TO TRIAL" SECTION (let me emphasize that). If legal credentials and “expertise” (whatever that may mean for the purpose of that section) becomes the benchmark through which publicly verifiable editorials may be sorted, then the obvious question of fairness arises: how many of these cited petitioners, politicians, etc. are really appropriate for this WP article, either? How many of the cited 10,000 petitioners and politicians are lawyers? How many are “Japan Specialists”? How many of the cited politicians intimately know the Nick Baker case, and how does one prove that using publicly verifiable, third-party sources? I notice from the archives that Havard University Law professor, J. Mark Ramseyer's negative (albeit tangential) commentary regarding the case was deleted, but those positive comments made by others towards Nick Baker's case were surprisingly allowed to stay. Clearly if legal credentials and expertise are invoked for one person being allowed to comment on the case for a WP article, that standard should be invoked for all, no? Otherwise, it should not be used as an excuse to delete material from that section. Granted, there can be far more compelling reasons for removing materials, but it should be consistently applied.

I fear that I'm beginning to write too much on this subject, so I'll stop. Thanks for your time and patience, and I sincerely hope that my suggestions will be taken on board.J Readings 01:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your reasoning. Cla68 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with examining the sources but it sounded like you started off by saying 'since we're removing metropolis articles we should look at these'. Let's make the reason we include or remove any source to be that it's proper source for the text it's supporting. It would be best to deal with each source you mentioned independently as it will be easier to discuss Statisticalregression 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You've written rather a lot there to digest in one sitting, but I'll give you my rule of thumb regarding sources: The more perceivably contentious the material being added (and by that I mean more likely it is to be challenged by other editors), the more strict we have to be with sources. In the case of a BLP, we don't have to provide a very strict source to back-up the claim that Joe Bloggs is a bank cashier, but we do have to find multiple reliable sources to make the exceptional claims that he murdered the bank manager and robbed the vault. We have to use common-sense and consensus to draw the lines.
Regarding the article at hand, Sarah Ludford, a peer of the realm, MEP and justice spokeswoman for a major UK political party does seem, to my mind at least, a reasonable source as does the charity FTA. I do recognise your concerns about partisanship, however, it could also be argued that Mr. Devlin's publications have, in editorial standards shown a degree of partisanship too.
Since I want to maintain the highest possible standards, in principle I would have to agree that all claims should be referenced and cross-referenced - whether this is possible in this case I don't know. Would it be acceptable to you that if the claims in question cannot be found in newspapers but then appeared in two or more "partisan" sources, we can use them? I am concerned about using a newspaper as a measure of acceptability David Lyons 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

re wasted morning: but it's nighttime here! I also support this analysis and the suggested action. In fact, judging by [14] we must do it, ruling out David's proposal, I fear, since "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source". The facts tagged with citation needed should also be moved to this page. They have been there for a while now, and can be reinserted later if sourced. For myself, I am not yet convinced that Metropolis etc is an unreliable source, (though I admit I have yet to read through the archives on this subject!, but I will, I will!).Slp1 02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with J Reading's statement. I also think that the two Metropolis cover stories (not the Last Word opinion piece by Devlin) are just a reliable source as any other here. I don't agree that a partisian politician's website and an unknown (to the best of my knowledge) NGO should be seen as reliable sources for anything save their opinion on the case. This is a minor event that, in spite of Baroness Ludford's and Iris Baker's attempts, the British government has not been particularly involved in. (unlike the Michael Faye incident or even going back to the Namamugi Incident). To be honest, this is a common tale of a young westerner getting caught up in a culture of justice that he or she is unaware of (there has even been a movie made about a similar story). Since Wikipedia seems to agree that this is notable (though I personally am unsure that it is) we need to be aware of all aspects of the story and its context. XinJeisan 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

- In regards to the Ramseyer report, it seems the PDF is no longer available, but my impression from a google search is that it was only about the Japanese legal system. Perhaps someone who has access to it or has read it can tell us if it mentioned anything about Baker or Baker's trial? From the diff I found it was included on the page as an external link but didn't see one that used it as a source. Statisticalregression 02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a google.co.jp search for information on the ニック・ベイカー事件 (nikku beika- jiken) and found not much. I wonder if it was ever reported in the Japanese press, but I did find this [15]

which discusses the translation aspects of the situation. However, they too seem to have used nickbakerforjustice.com as a source of their information see [16]

I did find it used on Criminal justice system of Japan which is were I expected to find it (but that link is dead too). I don't see a point in pursuing the source any further.Statisticalregression 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reference and link from JSTOR if anyone is lucky like me and has access to it. Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate so High?

J. Mark Ramseyer; Eric B. Rasmusen The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1. (Jan., 2001), pp. 53-88.XinJeisan 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SR. I was just about to post the JSTOR link (a useful search engine for academic journal papers) when I noticed that XinJeisan beat me to it! In any case, several publications seem to have used the Ramseyer analysis in connection with the Baker case: for example, here, here, and here. But we should probably talk about whether the sources are acceptable for inclusion into the partisan "Reactions to trial" section. My opinion is that it would be okay. (Note to David, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll respond after lunch.) Best, J Readings 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

JR. I have thought more about your sourcing proposals regarding the "partisan" sites. Mindful of wiki policy, I think as long as they are not exceptional claims and are noted as the opinion of the person making them, then some of them can stay as is. However, I shall try and find additional sources for the more contentious claims.David Lyons 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi David, sorry I was verbose. First, I agree with you 100% when you call for high standards and accuracy. A look at my work on Wikipedia shows that I am a strong believer in in-line citations, and thorough consensus before acting (e.g., see the gaijin talk page). However, what you might consider a contentious or exceptional fact others might not, and vice versa. Ultimately, it risks becoming a partisan judgement call, especially if one examines the sources long enough. Newspapers and academic publications--however flawed--seem to be the only diplomatic option I can see out of this on-going problem. For discussion purposes here, I would divide this article into two theoretical sections. The first presents the facts of the case as presented by the neutral press corps, mindful, of course, that the press corps tends to be repetitive, too. The second section is the so-called "Reactions to trial" section which is partisan by definition. Ideally, both should have cross-references. But because this is a contentious article, everything above the "Reactions to trial" section really should have more than one reliable, publicly verifiable, independent, secondary source attached to it (i.e., newspapers or academic publications), especially the partisan sources claiming factual accuracy. Having looked through Lexis-Nexis, I (and perhaps Slp1) can start providing reliable, third-party, publicly verifiable cross-referencing for all current citations, and I would most definitely welcome your feedback and consensus on those sources. We have Factiva. We have Lexis-Nexis. We have the internet. I think that we can work together to build a strong, stable, and legitimate article. It can be done.J Readings 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, when I mentioned Slp1 above, I was thinking of him only because he subscribes to Factiva. I didn't mean to insult anyone else who also agrees, and would also like to provide secondary sources. By all means, contribute! J Readings 06:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe with that it is likely that a number of the claims can be referenced in one form or another from secondary sources, and I notice that David has started a job, which is great. I would repeat that my reading is that removing information from third party websites is required of us if it has not been also published by a reliable secondary source. [17]. My question would be whether one secondary source might be sufficient, especially for unexceptional claims. I also feel that the balance of the article will be helped by stricter adherence to the divisions ("facts" vs reactions) that JR suggests. --Slp1 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolis as a reliable source

Here, the difficulty seems to be, that if a Wiki user is affiliated with a local Tokyo foreign language news magazine, he/she opens him or herself up to cricism that they are being partial as Wikipedians, while at the same time serving as an ousider, defined impartial source.
As the disputes are then researched under the user-entry trail, and carried to the next Wiki entry, it becomes harder for the impartial mainstream source, to defend him or herself against charges of being partial to whatever has been reported in the news medium that he/she controls.
The common thread to a lot of these foreigner community in Japan-related entries, is that there are a lot of dog-chase-the-tail debates about what the standards should be for inclusion.
From a cursory review, it looks like a number of these get so hotly debated across entries, that the wiser move may simply be to delete these entries until more material arises to confirm whether or not it really is a noteworthy event. Again, after all, partisans for an article can simply set up their OWN website, and not seek to rely on Wiki's superior position in search engines.
In the Nick Baker case, it is particularly ironic, that Metropolis originally promoted Baker's sorry story. Only to later report NEW information that countered the original story. Then, also print an editorial retraction. So it's dog-chase-the-tail. Metropolis was worthy enough to highlight the alleged wrong. But it's too controversial to be relied on as a source for any later developments in the case?
Just because every train station in Japan gets a wiki entry, I am not so sure that anyone who is a foreigner in Japan and somehow gets noticed by press should also be a Wiki entry.Spellin 10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the obvious conflict of interest, lack of real editorial oversight, and clear attempt at ax-grinding, no, Metropolis is completely unsuitable as a reliable source. It's been contaminated beyond redemption, so you need to find an actual reliable source independent of it. --Calton | Talk 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure there is "conflict of interest". If you believe the facts as found by the Chiba Court, Baker had little defense. The stuff that was put out for the media to consume beforehand, was less factual than meant to get a criminal off the hook.
If Metropolis picked up the story as one of injustice, and then later found out that they were being duped by the defense, it's only right that they changed their editorial position. Criminals do not have the right to go manipulating public outlets for information, in order to get off on their crimes. If an outlet finds itself manipulated, it's only right that they change their editorial position. (That is the risk that manipulators take.)
It's unfair that a number of people here made trouble for Metropolis, when in fact it does try to get the accurate story out to the foreign community around Tokyo, Japan. None of the critics of Devlin seem to acknowledge this. They only want to promote Metropolis as "reliable" when it favors their interests, and "unreliable" when it is against their interests. Spellin 12:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're not sure if there's a conflict of interest, you are obviously not understanding what's happening here. Devlin is leading a private campaign against Nick Backer and his mother through his magazine. Fine. It's not exactly what I'd call ethical behaviour, but it's his little shitty magazine, let him write what he will and let the few who read the crap read it. But when he takes his campaigning to Wikipedia and tries and use his magazine as a reliable source, that's where we have to say stop. Heatedissuepuppet 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If you check out the discussion at the Wikipedia entry for the National Union of General Workers you will see that the people there concluded that Metropolis was not a reliable source. In short, the rag made up a fictitious writer and tried to cheat its readers. If we knew the rag did it that time, then one wonders how often do they print falsehoods as fact. Wanzhen 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC
Again, poor decisions by Crisscross regarding discolsure of source anomimity is not really relevent to Metropolis' reliability. Please remain on topic, and perhaps engage in the current discussion below.--ZayZayEM 03:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Zay, This sub-heading is Metropolis as a reliable source. Since Crisscross publishes Metropolis, it would seem acceptable to discuss both here, no? The situation Wanzhen refers to is that Metropolis published an "letter to the editor" hiding the fact that it was anonymous and published with it a photo stolen from a photographer masquerading as the author. It seems also that according to this interview, conducted in Sept 2006 (after the Baker debacle), Devlin, in response to the question: So you are hiring very qualified people who have had publishing, editorial, or journalistic background? replied: Not at this stage. Generally not.... This would, to my mind at least, cast doubt upon the magazines bona fides as a news source.David Lyons 08:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notablilty

So, what Carlton is saying is that not only is Mark Devlin unsuited to edit Wikipedia, he is unsuited to be a publisher? That is an interesting perspective. At the same time, if you have been following along in our discussion, you would see we have been discussing the fact that many primary and partisan sources with obvious COI issues are being used as sources of fact in this article as well.

There are so few actual known facts in this that just like User:Slp1 says, most everything that has been said even in the Metropolis artices as well as in the pro-Baker sources, can be found pretty much word for word in other newspaper sources -- most likely because the only source of information in this case is the Nick Baker group, and if you read through the articles no journalist has seemed to done any major investigation into this story. (If there is one, let me know)There is this article which is used as a reference from the Japan Times, but it is not a news story as well, but a commentary column that runs in the community section of the Japan Times, and I am personally unsure if any editoral oversight or fact checking occurs in these Zeit Gist columns. All Metropolis is guilty of doing is being the only media outlet to actually take a critical look at the information the pro-Baker group is handing out. That sounds pretty journalistic to me.

And, in that regard, I really agree with user:Spellin and wonder if a round of AfD wouldn't be a good idea before attempting to re-write the article. If the British Government had gotten involved in some open and formal way, this case would be notable, as I mentioned above. However, the British Government has not made a public statement in any way as far as I can find, save for answering direct questions at a ministerial question time. As noted above, there were not many references to this case in Japanese.

To sum, I agree with everything that JR has said up until now, and from what I saw of his work on the talk page at gaijin, there is really no worry that this article will be anything except NPOV at the end of the process, I just wonder if the effort and thought that JR and others is willing to put into this article is worthwhile.XinJeisan 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather, Japan Times has a rigid work flow that passes everything through the same process including editorial oversight - an email to them would be able to confirm that Zeitgist articles have oversight.Statisticalregression 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
XinJeisan's idea of an AFD is awfully tempting in some ways (ie.it would certainly avoid a lot of work if successful!) and I do think there are reasonable questions to ask about whether this article is too long, given that the subject is really only of regional interest and only one side of the story is easily available (but congrats on efforts below to find some Japanese sources!). However, with so many articles about Mr. Baker in newspapers, including a few in the Times, the Guardian and the Independent, I think that an AFD would determine that he meets the criteria for notability. I like this essay which explains things well about notability: [18] --Slp1 11:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The question of Notability could go to two different things:
One, is whether he is notable as a convicted criminal; or
Two, is he notable as a foreigner who apparently tried to smuggle illegal substances into Japan, and got hit with a much more substantial sentence than drug smugglers get in the West. (Although, not as tough as some Eastern countries like Singapore.)
Given the history of drug trafficking by Westerners in Asia (China, opium, etc.), the pro-article side should be thankful that no one included any commentary about how "this was just another one of them bringing in those bad substances".
Frankly, I do not think Mr. Baker was/is "notable". Secondly, I see his promotion being a product of Metropolis magazine, and that magazine quickly fell over itself to retract whatever promoting it had done.
Additions like Nick Baker are simply going to turn Wikipedia into a current events catalogue. Ten years from now, no one will even be talking about Nick Baker. (Probably three years from now.)
So I wish Japan-related articles could be written in a way that reflects upon whether a lot of these people and events aren't just current events. Spellin Spellin 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Spellin, since more than one editor here has expressed reservations about notability, have you considered putting up the article for [[WP:AfD —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lyons (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 July 2007
Hi Spellin, well Baker was perhaps notable as a criminal because the drugs in his suitcase were the largest ever drugs find at that airport, though this fact is not currently in the article! It should be, I think. And while I think many of your points are valid, I don't think it was Metropolis that was the basis of the promotion of his case. I think his dedicated family and support group were tireless in bringing his case forward and attracting the attention of media and at least one politician. They were very successful in their efforts, as can be seen by the tone of the media reports and the frequent quotes from his mother. --Slp1 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZeitGist

Here is my email and response from the Japan Times about the ZeitGist section. I took out all the proper names and my email. The editor didn't seem to answer the question directly, and referenced only the current article by Debito. I am not sure what this means in relation to using Zeit Gist columns for articles, but, I guess it is up to the community...

My advice would be to check out the extensive sources for Debito's writing, which can be found on his website, referenced at the end of the article in the newspaper or online. I think it's clear that Debito is using facts selectively to make a point - as any writer does to some degree - and it's up to the reader to decide based on the sources whether the writer has come to logical conclusions based on these "facts" or not.

Regards

Community Editor The Japan Times

>From: JT.HomePage.-.English@form2.japantimes.co.jp >To: community@japantimes.co.jp >Subject: JTO - Contact us >Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:29:15 +0900 > >

>Comment : Hello. I am a long time reader of the Japan Times, and I >have a question about the Zeit Gist section. It is kind of silly, >because it comes out of a discussion on editing articles at Wikipedia >(it is summer vacation at my grad school....) but I am wondering if >Zeit Gist articles can be considered as sources. I always thought that >The Japan Times solicits these articles through the statement at the >bottom of the page, and that these would fit in more on the opinion >page than the front page, if the Japan Times was the Wall Street >Journal or something like that. I notice that Debito is doing a good >job at interviewing and writing in a journaistic fashion, but, we all >know his point of view, and we know the article is written as such, >while not commenting on the accuracy in and of itself, we cannot take >it for a balanced perspective nor as objective journalistic truth >(maybe it isn't possible, but people who edit Wikipedia seem to believe so..) Anyways, thanks for! > taking the time to answer my question about the Zeit Gist section. >Keep up the good work!

XinJeisan 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, yea..looks like the person responding didn't get the gist of your questions. Maybe short, to the point questions would work better. We need to know who checks that the facts used in Z.G. articles are really facts. Statisticalregression 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
XinJeisan: thanks for taking time out of your schedule to check with the Japan Times editor. My personal opinion, having read the "Zeitgist" section for several years, is that it is not exactly the objective "just-the-facts-ma'am"-style journalism we come to expect from the front pages of any respectable newspaper, but also not high quality opinion-editorials either. It's kind of a grey area. I guess I would call those articles "populist op-ed" pieces, hence "the community." This is not to denigrate any of the section's authors, who I'm sure fit a niche market, but the response of the JT editor does call into question the neutrality and reliability of these "facts" and the dangers of laundering them. The bottom-line is that it just reinforces the need for cross-referencing in my opinion (as stated above). J Readings 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, XinJ - thank you for contacting them.Statisticalregression 06:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from me too for checking. It seems that The Independent published the exact same article, but I can only find it on something called findarticles.com [19]. Perhaps this might be a better source? David Lyons 06:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, David McNeill is a freelance journalist from Ireland working in Japan. He tends to write articles for a wide range of publications, and sometimes re-publishes the same article over and over again in foreign markets in order to put food on the table (if you get my meaning.) I also noticed that he published the same article in the Independent and another newspaper (can't remember which). My concern with McNeill's piece is that he makes a few assertions (quoted in the WP article) that I wasn't able to cross-reference with another reliable third-party source (i.e., another journalist) using Lexis-Nexis. Perhaps Slp1 had better luck using Factiva. J Readings 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering the number of times that Z.G. article is used, we should definitely try to either cross referenc/find additional sources. I'm going to jump right in and start working on that Statisticalregression 06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello JR, just so I can fully grasp you opinion re inclusion criteria - you feel that any assertions made should have at least two or more citations in reliable 3rd-party sources (in particular newspapers) written by separate bona-fide journalists? Cheers. David Lyons 06:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's my opinion. As I said the other day, I would be much more comfortable with "facts" being published by two reliable, third-party sources. They should be respected secondary sources, either in academic publications or newspapers. And by "sources," I mean authors. I accept that David McNeill is a journalist, so I don't want to be too argumentative about that article's inclusion provided that we found another journalist or academic who corroborates what he's specifically asserting as cited in this WP article. J Readings 06:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I realized after I wrote this email to the Japan Times I was spending too much time on this and wikipedia in general. (I am glad that the work was helpful, though :) ) This article and the related controversies show both what is good and bad about wikipedia. But, I am trying to become a real Japan expert (see graduate school, above) and not just a wikipolicy expert on Japan and Japan related articles, so I am going to step back after tonight from editing.
Probably the best advice comes from the Japan Times, and that is too look at the sources in each article, and because most of the disputed claims by the nick baker for justice side can be countered by this interview, that is all that is probably needed to improve the article.
However, it was the David McNeil article that pushed me over to write the Japan Times about this. If you read through the articles (which I did) they don't seem particularly deep or reflective. Most of them are just collection of quotes from the same primary sources that this article has. But, considering the large amount of drugs to be brought in, the timing (before the World Cup), and the fact that several newspapers as well as kyodo news mentioned the failure of his appeal, i don't feel like being bold and proposing and AfD. If I was writing my own op-ed piece, I would feel it neccessary to mention the history of drug smuggling into Asia by westerners, as well as the fact that his family should feel lucky that it was Japan and not Singapore, because they wouldn't be worrying about poor prision conditions if that was the case. I think this came up before, but, if the notablity comes from the nature of the case and not Nick Baker himself (and he certainly wasn't notable before he was arrested, and it is doubtful he will be notable once he is freed) wouldn't it be better to change the name of the article to something related to the case or event itself, as opposed to being about Nick Baker? XinJeisan 06:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese sources

Also, has anyone successfully found an article about the case in Japanese? (and kind of tough to do now as many Japanese news sites have short shelf lives for articles)Statisticalregression 07:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello SR. I typed "ニック・ベイカー" and "Nick Baker" (assuming those are correct) into the keyword search for Nikkei Telecom 21 which only covers the Japanese language news database for the Nihon Keizai Shimbun and all of its subsidiary publications. Not surprisingly, I didn't find anything. I don't have access to other Japanese language publications right now. Tomorrow I'll stop by the library on my way home from work, and I'll try the same keyword searches for the Asahi Shimbun, the Yomiuri Shimbun, and the Mainichi Shimbun electronic newspaper databases covering the past 5 years. Reading XinJeisan's post, I'm curious now if the Japanese press corps covered the story at all. J Readings 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be surprised if there was zero coverage. Searching by permutations of his last name might yield some success. Yes, Baker signed a confession, but that the confession was contested could have drawn attention - Japanese media does focuses on individuals who refuse to accept guilt and maintain innocence (at least this book gives that impression[20]
though I'm not sure if foreigner crime often makes the newspapers but it's quite possible as I believe I have heard there are some grumblings about the increasing crime rate being the result of increased numbers of foreigners. Oh, just had another thought, searching by what ever the Japanese call ecstasy might work too.Statisticalregression 08:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have poked around a bit and the very wonderful 2ch contributors (ahem) seem to have done a cut and paste job from what originally looks like some newspaper articles. Baker's name appeared as ”ニコラス・ベイカー” Perhaps a search using that variant might reveal the original sources. David Lyons 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the Yomiuri had an article at [21] but it's gone now. DL the katakana you mentioned seems to work a tab better. A quote that supposedly came from the yomiuri article has Nick's name as ニコラス・ベイカー I'll try looking for more sources under that derivation Statisticalregression 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In about seven hours from the time of this posting I'll be visiting the library to do a few Japanese keyword searches (see above) for the following: ""ニック・ベイカー", ”ニコラス・ベイカー”, "Nick Baker", "Nicholas John Baker," "Nicholas J. Baker," and "N.J. Baker". If there are any other suggestions, please let me know as soon as possible, and thanks for the earlier suggestions. J Readings 01:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You might try "ベイカー被告" David Lyons 01:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I will. Thanks.J Readings 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried MagazinePlus but couldn't find anything there either after using the various combinations above. After realizing the size of the drug bust as well as the timing (around the world cup) I would be surprised if there was 0 coverage -- if there wasn't any coverage in Japanese the notability of Nick Baker really takes a hit, unless the very fact that the japanese media did not report on a foreigner who carries in a huge bag of drugs and refuses to apologize or acknowledge any wrong-doing or fault makes it notable.XinJeisan 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<- well, with the world cup coming I can see how they might not make it 'front page' news, but it seems very unlikely that they ignored the incident. Perhaps a search with 成田国際空港 + MDMA would yield results, I will try it myself. I wouldn't assign much importance to the apparent lack of sources in Japanese language media, we haven't been looking long at all, and besides we have English language sources from Japan... Statisticalregression 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Major Dailies: Database Search Engine Results

Writing from the library, so this will need to be short and sweet.

Mainichi Shimbun: zero coverage.
Nihon Keizai Shimbun: zero coverage.
Sankei Shimbun: zero coverage.
Asahi Shimbun: one article only.

On the Asahi article, the title reads in Japanese: 「英国籍の被告が判決不服と控訴MDMA密輸事件」

That article was written on 14 June, 2003 for the morning edition of the paper, and put way in the back on page 31. They also didn't give it much space--122 words total. Not a lot, really. It was just a few sentences, actually.

Sankei Shimbun doesn't have any database results that I trust (but I couldn't find anything there either), and Yomiuri Shimbun has great coverage from the Meiji era until 1960, but unfortunately doesn't offer this library any coverage thereafter. Strange database, I thought. Anyway, I hope that helps to give everyone a little better idea of what the Japanese press corps seems to think of this subject. Looks like XinJeisan was right. J Readings 09:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking - Found this ref to the Roppongi Bar Association:[22]

Shunji Miyake, attorney-at-law and counsel to Baker, and Jake Adelstein, a journalist with extensive experience in criminal cases and court and government proceedings, will discuss the difficulties inherent in defending criminal cases in Japan and how the media has reported on the Baker case, the broad international interest in the case and reactions to it overseas.

and this:[23]

On May 10, 2003, almost a month before Baker's verdict was scheduled, this letter and the growing concerns surrounding the trial were reported in detail in Japan's largest newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun.

Adelstein works for the Japanese language Yomiuri, so if there's anything out there - that's where it'll likely be. Just like being detective, this. David Lyons 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning the pruning

Following the apparent consensus in "Partisan Sources, Neutral Sources, Reliable Sources, and Fairness" section above, I have given myself 90 minutes to begin the pruning. As a start, I will be removing any "facts" not supported by at least one independent source, as well as information followed by a 'fact' tag. I will be placing the deleted sentences here. Slp1 13:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
--

  1. Baker followed this suggestion and lined up in front of the customs gate.[1] Prunier meanwhile joined another queue with Baker's sports bag.[citation needed]
  2. The defence argued that there was collusion between prosecutors and customs investigation officers regarding the initial customs officers report.[citation needed] A reconstruction of the case and its contents was submitted in order to show that the key could have been in a pocket in the suitcase all along and that the customs officials, who had earlier said that Baker had had the key on his person and had tossed it into the case might have lied.[2]
  3. Baker was awarded time served of 1,172 days against the sentence, excluding a percentage of time held in remand during the district court trial. His work rate was raised from ¥10,000 to ¥20,000 (approximately £97.58) per day. A daily "work rate" is the sum deducted from his fine, if it remains unpaid.[citation needed]
  4. the prosecutor, and one of the judges was changed [2] (Japan does not have a jury system, each trial is overseen by three judges).
  5. Iris Baker later presented the petition to the Tokyo High Court.[citation needed]
  1. In the summer of 2003, soon after the Chiba District Court verdict, Baker's mother Iris launched an awareness campaign and website and called on concerned people to contact the Japanese and British embassies in their countries to demand fair and just treatment for Baker and other detainees in Japan.[citation needed] but I have replaced with a sourced statement about the support group.

References

  1. ^ Nick Baker, Japan, March 2004. Fair Trials Abroad (March, 2004). Retrieved on 2007-05-25.
  2. ^ a b Nick Baker case - key proves key to the defence. Sarah Ludford MEP (June 8, 2005). Retrieved on 2007-01-16.

I have a source here for "Japan does not have a jury system - trials are overseen by three judges" Please check it and re-add if you think it suitable.[24] David Lyons 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite suitable to me, (though it is an opinion column) but personally I am not sure that the comment really adds that much, especially in its current rather odd form. But maybe something similarly explanatory can be woven in at some point. I would prefer something that doesn't seem to imply that it is better to have juries, which would be a matter of opinion, I guess.--Slp1 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right and this belongs in a different article.David Lyons 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote design

Could someone please explain a small technical issue to me/us? How does this double footnote column work now that it's been added to the Nick Baker article here? Does it literally create two columns? If so, at what number of footnotes does that function usually kick in? Does it only work on certain internet browsers (I use MS IE)because I don't see any difference yet? What am I missing here? FYI, I'm thinking about adding it to the articles that I edit. Thanks in advance. J Readings 23:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange. There are two columns on my screen, but I use Firefox, so maybe that's it?? --Slp1 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange, indeed. I also tried viewing the page using the opera browser and there was only a single column. Last time I checked, 70%+ of all internet users surf with either MS IE or Opera, and yet here we are putting codes in that will only work for a small minority of internet surfers (I'm seen the code on many other pages). I wonder if there's someone we can contact in the higher ups of Wikipedia to help correct this coding problem. Any ideas? J Readings 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
JR. That code should just automatically resize and split the refs into two neat columns. If you're on a Mac, I suspect you are using Safari. In that case, it doesn't show up as two columns. I use Firefox like Slp1 and it formats correctly. It is not only browser, but also platform dependent, it seems. This is an ongoing problem for any web-site designer as the various browsers out there interpret the html "standards" differently. It's really a case of "We like standards, we've got lots of them" David Lyons 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I put the code in there, works fine for me on firefox. strange how it doesn't work on I.E. Statisticalregression 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Hi all,
I have been working on a bit of a reorganization of the material here, with some additions and a bit of a pruning of repetitive stuff. But I have a question or two for the troops.

  1. Can anybody find another source for "According to Baker, in April 2002, while he and Prunier travelled to Europe to buy up clothes to resell at flea markets in the countryside, Prunier suggested a trip to Japan for the upcoming FIFA World Cup in June. Baker, a football fanatic, was eager to go, but the championships coincided with the busiest months of his fencing business, and the trip was initially cancelled"? There is Metropolis, but nothing else that I know about that has the flea market/trip cancelling part. Should it get deleted if we can't find corroboration, per JR?
  2. What do others think of the reliability of www.theforeigner-japan.com ? From my perspective it may not to have the editorial oversight WP needs, since anybody can submit stuff, and in this case the writer was also the managing editor. And frankly this [25]doesn't give me confidence!!

Looking forward to your comments.--Slp1 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After doing several keyword searches, I found nothing that mentions "Prunier travell[ing] to Europe to buy up clothes to resell at flea markets in the countryside." Apparently, none of the covered newspapers or magazines found it necessary to report that detail (assuming it's even true.) I haven't checked yet, but it probably comes from a partisan source somewhere. I think that it's best to remove all mention of the flea market/trip cancelling part to the talk page until we find some solid cross-referenced support for it.
The second clause -- "Prunier suggested a trip to Japan for the upcoming FIFA World Cup" was reported extensively in several newspapers. Example: "Baker and Mr Prunier became friends about three years ago when they met at Brimscombe Football Club, in Stroud. They decided to travel together when Baker said that he intended to go to Japan to collect World Cup souvenirs, and Mr Prunier wanted to go to book a flat for the tournament." (Leo Lewis in Tokyo and Lewis Smith, " Drug trial Briton 'may die in Japanese cell,'" The Times (London), June 13, 2003, pg. 14), cross-referenced in David McNeill's piece in which McNeill mentions the World Cup souvenirs, but not Prunier's wanting to come along for the tournament. Also, McNeill makes no mention of Europe and buying clothes in his article. Also, the Japan Economic Newswire ("Drug smuggler's friends appeal to Blair for fair appeal," Japan Economic Newswire,September 12, 2003) corroborates the "World Cup souvenirs" issue, too. Those are just three of 20 articles I scanned which included that clause. It seems reasonable enough to keep that clause in the article I hope that helps a little.
As for the other issue -- www.theforeigner-japancom -- I'm not sure what to do about this site. Is it a bona fide news source? I know they apparently called up Harvard University law professor, J. Mark Ramseyer, in order to get his take on the trial and then reported the results of that interview in their publication/website. Does that constitute investigative reporting? Maybe. I'm not really sure, to be honest. What do others think about that source? J Readings 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey JR/SP , I'll try to comment on a few of the items you brought up - I don't see a problem with theforeigner.com as a source, I think printing a retraction demonstrates an earnest attempt to correct a mistake, even the NY Times has a section for retractions. Investigative journalism (as per my understanding) goes beyond calling up a professor who wrote a book on the subject of the Japanese legal system for an opinion. Seems getting a published authority's take on the topic was done to provide scope to the article. It's clearly not main-stream press, but is it strong enough to support the claims being sourced to it? At this point, I don't see a problem with using it as is.
- does anyone have access to source #9 (guardian) ? I don't see a problem removing the 'flea market/cancelling previous trip' bit, you are right - it most likely came from a partisan source. Statisticalregression 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi SR and JR (it's nice to see we are on initial terms here!). Thanks for your comments, which are helpful. I have access to the Guardian article (I added it, so I had better!) None of the flea market/trip cancelling part is mentioned in it, but the souvenirs and the flat renting part is. --Slp1 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for weighing-in late on this. I have no opinion either way whether to include the flea-market, etc., or not - "does it add anything to the article and is it an appropriate source?" is perhaps the question to ask ourselves. The Foreigner I would put in the same bracket as Metropolis - and by that I mean that it is not "mainstream", but might be useful for non-contentious supporting references. Investigative journalism? - No. If you want that go see Duncan Campbell (who I particularly respect), but I agree with SR, that the apology for mistakes therein, should be considered a good thing rather than negative. Here's a question...does anyone think we should keep the "easy going" reference in the pre-arrest section? Does it add anything to the article? David Lyons 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all. I tend to agree about 'easy-going', and it seems we concur with removing the fleamarket part. Personally, I think we are going a little far expecting "real" investigative journalism in this case. I am just happy to see a journalist who isn't simply regurgitating somebody else's press release, and, for example, actually interviewing a few people themselves.
As I said above, I am planning some edits to reorganize the material, remove duplication and adding some aspects currently not included (information about the key, Prunier etc). All multiply sourced, you will be glad to know! By the way, my researches confirms David Lyons research that there was one article in Yomiuri Shimbun, probably on May 10, 2003, and certainly in May 2003. Several articles around this time mention interest in the Japanese media. I think it would be great to get a copy from a library (for example), assuming it is possible, and assuming somebody knows enough Japanese to be able to translate what it says. That counts me out of altogether!! --Slp1 13:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
On Monday evening after work, I'll stop by the library in order to look up the two mentioned Yomiuri articles. They shouldn't be too hard to find (assuming the dates are right.) I'm sorry that I haven't spent as much time on this article as everyone else. In any case, many thanks to everyone for all of their hard work. Like Slp1, I was going to suggest that we put the final touches of balance on this article by weaving some Prunier commentary throughout taken from various newspaper sources (maybe I can help on that next week along with the copyediting). That should make it even more NPOV for the reader, and maybe if we're lucky, recommend a peer review for an upgrade to G or FA status in a few weeks time? Just a thought at this stage. It gives us something to shoot for. J Readings 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi JR. My research on Google Japan, 2ch and the Japanese language 'net has thrown up another few dates for the Yomiuri Shimbun. If you do indeed plan on taking the trouble to go to the library, then I hope this might help: (all 2003) 05/10, 05/17, 05/23, 05/28, 06/07, 06/11, 06/13 & 06/28. David Lyons 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for these. I'll have a look and report back on Tuesday. J Readings 07:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great, JR, as does offers of copyediting etc. While you are at it, see what you think of how the whole thing is organized: I am not sure I like the timeline/courtcase organization, but am honestly not sure what other realistic options there are. Besides this, while I am more satisfied with the "story" now, but I still think there are things to be added, including recent complaints of ill-treatment, frostbite etc, a Ramseyer-type critique, British government involvement (there has been some), the Japanese viewpoint, clarifying/expanding the tantalizing snippets about the prosecution case, and no doubt other stuff!. Then we could be ready for PR and hopefully GA. I would think that FA is beyond us now, as there is just so much that is unknown/unclear at present. Your comment is timely though, since an article that I did a lot of work on (including going to the library!) is slated to be on the main page on Tuesday. Wish us luck! --Slp1 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A quick update: unexpected work constraints prevented me from getting to the library before closing time on both Monday and Tuesday. I'll try my best to get to the library sometime this week. Again, sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your patience. Regards, J Readings 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recents edits

As you will see, I have spent way too long today on a reorganization and continued with sourcing, etc, though there remains stuff to be done. I have deleted a few bits of sourced material that I either did not feel added much to the story or was repetitious. I have also added information about Prunier etc, as well as other aspects of the story that I noted in my research. I would be glad for comments and improvements as required! --Slp1 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Metropolis as a supporting source

An article from Metropolis appears to be used quite a lot as a source for this article[26] . I am curious as to why this article is included as a repetitive source, when in recent confrontations an editorial by Metropolis' Mark Devlin was shot down due to Metropolis being an unnoteworthy rag. I will be reinstating a non BLP-violating version of the text referenced to Devlin's editorial if noone disputes it on any real basis.--ZayZayEM 04:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there were several issues raised - JR and another editor have been trying to source to 'non-partisian' references in as many cases as possible, I'm pretty sure the there were reservations on using Metropolis because the partisan aspect as well. Since there has been so much drama surrounding the sparzilla/metropolis material, would you consider posting the changes you are proposing on the talk page so we can discuss it?Statisticalregression 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Will do. The only BLP issues I found with the text pertained to Iris Baker. I did have an edited version, but I can't find where I placed it. I will try to formulate a similar one and post it here first.
AFAICT the above Metropolis source was back in the day when Metropolis was on Baker's side, and seems to be pushing his side of the story., that's why I'm worried about its use and the exclusion of more recent exposes by the paper.--ZayZayEM 06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We are gradually trying to replace all non-mainstream sources with double cross-referenced mainstream sources. Not wishing to disparage "Metropolis" but it is not an "appropriate" source for the kind of claims made in Devlin's editorial. That is not to say that the magazine is an unreliable source per se, it is just inappropriate for these kind of claims. Note the section above Fact Laundering where it says Nothing that derives from an editorial constitutes a reliable source.... In any case please do post your proposed text on the talk page for discussion. David Lyons 06:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
ZayZay, the reason the editorial was removed as a source is that it included contentious material about living persons and in particular, as I recall, about a relative of the subject of this article, who has not been convicted of any crime. Any such material must be sourced to an appropriate, mainstream source, which in a case like this would be the mainstream media. See WP:BLP. If they haven't picked it up, there might be a good reason, which they're in a much better positon to judge than us. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that an RfC on this subject accepted the Metropolis material with conditions. Metropolis is mainstream material in Japan since it's one of the only English-language sources for domestic-Japan-related news and has a staff of credible journalists as documented by Devlin on his user page in an exchange with SV. Baker's supporters have reason to dismiss the Metropolis reporting, but it should be considered as part of the story. Cla68 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
One article RfC is not in a position to overturn the BLP policy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Material will not refer to any LP aside from Devlin.--ZayZayEM 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The link will refer in a contentious way to living persons, which is why it can't be included. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If Metropolis is an innapropriate source, why is a different Metropolis article being used several times in this article as a source?--ZayZayEM 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because it's not making contentious claims about living persons. My own view is that everything sourced to Metropolis should be sourced to a more mainstream publication, but that's an editorial decision, not an administrative one. The contentious BLP edits are another matter. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed insertion

Along the lines of:

Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, 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.[1] Additionally he questioned the actions of the support group, saying the seemed more concerned with making "noise" that Devlin felt had an anti-Japanese sentiment than upholding justice[2]
1= 'Iris sees her son in Japan prison' (Glou. Citizen)
2= 'We, the jury: The Nick Baker case' (Devlins editorial in Japan today)

Content no longer refers to any LP. (No comments directed at I. Baker). I have read the Metropolis article and cannot find any specific BLP violating material. No contentious claims are made regarding Baker. Devlin repeatedly states he is not calling Nick guilty. Comments are levelled at behaviour of I. Baker, support groups and the press regarding the case.

The text uses a non-Metropolis source that verifies Devlin's status as a notable commentator.

I welcome any comments on the wording of this text before insertion. I'm tired and stressed from uni, and have embroilled myself in issues over at Influenza pandemic.--ZayZayEM 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I look over the past (rather extensive) inclusion discussions....looked at the text you are proposing Zay, and here are some comments/questions (just shooting from the hip!) that I have and hopefully you and others will comment on/answer:
<> The Citizen (and two other local sources) probably didn't pick up on Devlin's flip independently, if they were contacted directly by Devlin during his campaign against Iris/Supp. Grp, does it taint the source?
<> the fact baker had visited Japan two months prior as noted in the Citizen came from Devlin's editorial & thus would (technically) be fact laundering....(just briging it up)....
<> I think even linking to the Devlin editorial (which contains attacks) triggers some BLP issues.
<> If Devlin first supported the cause because he believed Baker was innocent but changed his mind when he found out things he felt pointed towards guilt which compelled him to retaliate in print because he felt misled... shouldn't we instead just say something to that effect? (and wouldn't it be secondary based research)?
I dunno, I'm just trying to vet things that come to my mind when I consider the text. When I looked through the past discussions, I noticed that there were a few editors that felt the article had some POV'ing, but we could adjust the lead to explain that cases where foreigners are tried in Japan garner the attention of media and often focus on controversial aspects of guilt or innocence. (again, I'm shooting from the hip here).Statisticalregression 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


On second reading of the sentance included, which I have edited a little, I don't mind just leaving it that. I would however like to understand why the editorial itself cannot be linked. Please specify the BLP-violating material. Any attacks in the editorial are directed at the support group, which is not a Living Person.--ZayZayEM 00:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the sentence, everything could just be sourced to the Devlin editorial and in that case if there's no BLP problem actually using it as a source....seems fine to me. If we're including the Citizen article as a source to establish notability of the Devlin's flip, I'd like to see what others think about the tainting issue.Statisticalregression 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, concerning Bakers previous trip to Japan, wouldn't it be more useful to include in the background information? (example) Baker said that Prunier and he, who had been travelling together in Europe, had decided to go to Japan before the 2002 FIFA World Cup to buy souvenirs and allow Prunier to rent a flat for the tournament.[9][14] This was to be Bakers second trip to Japan. Baker and Prunier left Brussels National Airport in Belgium on April 12, transited through London's Heathrow Airport and arrived at Tokyo's Narita airport at approximately 11:00 a.m. JST, on April 13, 2002. Statisticalregression 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We need a source. Plus, if we are trusting Devlin's research, it's only notable because he had been there only two months earlier, making the "I was just buying souvenirs" excuse seem less likely (but not necessarily untrue).--ZayZayEM 10:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my point was on the placement of the first visit info in to the background section, *assuming* that we would (if possible) source it (to Devlins editorial), but I don't think were on the same page here as it sounds like you're talking more about editing for impact in regards to the previous visit which has me searching for my POV ejection seat handle. I think we need to figure out a few things before we continue:
  1. Can we use Devlins editorial as a source? (i.e. would doing so trigger BLP?)
  2. If we can use it as a source, how can we use it (i.e. can we use the info on the first trip?)
Comments anyone? Statisticalregression 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

<- Zay, I moved the devlin sentence up to the first paragraph in the 'reactions to trials' section as it seems to fit there date wise and subject wise, although maybe a seperate paragraph in the middle would be better? Pls take a look at it and change it if you feel otherwise. Also I was thinking of adding one bit of info to the end of the devlin sentence....something to this effect:

..."withdrew his support in 2004 and publicly criticized the support groups campaign tactics and reluctance to share full information."

but not sure if it's good or notStatisticalregression 07:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yomiuri Shimbun

Hello All:

I'm typing from the library, so this post will have to be short. First, apologies for the delay. I wasn't able to get to the library until today.

Second, a special thanks to David Lyons for his suggested dates. They were quite helpful in reading through the backpages which (surprise, surprise) is exactly where the Yomiuri editors decided to place these very short articles (in the evening editions, no less!).

Of the 8 suggested dates, I was only able to confirm the existence of 5 articles. No Yomiuri editorials, unfortunately.

The good news is that I found one op-ed piece dated 28 June, 2003 written by a 「J・アデルステイン」(English spelling?) in Japanese. I haven't actually read the op-ed yet (and the library is closing shortly, so I don't have the chance to copy it and take it home), but I'll return when the library opens again on Thursday in order to copy it and perhaps translate the relevant parts for the Reactions section.

I hope that helps.

Best, J Readings 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JR. Many thanks for your efforts with the Japanese sources. I guess we can now say that the topic has a least a modicum of notability in Japan too (as the Yomiuri is the world's largest circulation newspaper), although we cannot yet say the the topic had widespread reporting there. If and when you get time and the Japanese language sources say anything not reported in the English language media, perhaps you could let us know. As this is the English Wikipedia, I understand that English language sources are preferred, although non-English sources can be used at a pinch - maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong. Unfortunately, the op-ed cannot be used as they are by there very nature considered an unreliable source. The J・アデルステイン that you ask about is Mr. Jake Adelstein. David Lyons 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello David. Actually, my understanding is that the op-ed *can* be used if and only if it is used in the Reactions section, which is partisan by definition. I'll check with our colleagues over at Reliable sources/noticeboard to get their feedback and report back later. I already know for a fact that any foreign-language material needs to be footnoted very carefully with the original passage text so that WP readers can check the accuracy of the translation for themselves. Best, J Readings 02:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Op-eds are fine as long as they are not used to introduce facts, only opinions, and those opinions are accurately portrayed. They cannot be used if they violate WP:BLP, and shouldn't be used if they are self published. I doubt we are going to have a big discussion on whether Y. Shimbun is a self-published paper.--ZayZayEM 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
JR/ZayZay. Despite what our learned friend above stated, I have looked over the RS archives to get a feel of discussion to date about op-ed's. It would seem that there are several factors (aren't there always!) which might allow or disallow a particular op-ed. These include: The authors' expertise and notability in the subject at hand; whether the publication has editorial oversight/fact-checking of the op-ed; does the publication categorically state that editorial oversight exists - this could also manifest itself in a disclaimer. Lastly how controversial the topic is bearing in mind BLP.
All that being said, of course the text for inclusion into wikipedia has to be attributed correctly.
In Mr Adelstein's case, I would say that he does have editorial oversight, the Yomiuri is a reliable source with a history of fact checking and that Adelstein has expertise, as he has been on the Yomiuri crime-beat section for some years. So, as long as his opinion is attributed correctly and if he says anything notable and not outside of BLP guidelines then it is good to go.David Lyons 04:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of copyright infringement issues, this is going to be a tricky situation. I won't be able to paste the entire original Japanese text on this talk page for consensus and consultation (correct me if I'm wrong). Consequently, everyone is going to have to rely on my best judgment for what seems to be a "notable opinion" from Mr. Adelstein. What I can do is paste the relevant section in Japanese on the talk page with my first draft translation, and we can discuss whether or not that attribution is a faithful reading of the original text. I never managed to get back to the library to copy that article (I got caught up doing other things!) but I'll stop by tomorrow after work. We'll take it from there. Thanks, J Readings 04:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Please add inline citations to the lead as per WP:LEAD. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justification of Paragraphs

User:Statisticalregression made this edit today. I think we really need to change it back. If you take a look at the page now using a MS IE Browser, you'll automatically know what I'm talking about. The Nick Baker image is now floating way above the rest of the body text. Sorry, J Readings 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that, I'll take out the justifications if I cant' figure out a way to fix that, & will check those types of changes in the future with more than one browserStatisticalregression 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)