Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 3

message: I know precious little about the Nick Baker case beyond what I read in the newspapers, but I would like to help improve the article whenever possible based on what I read.
Using a Lexis-Nexis document search, I found a reliable, third-party source that seems to be only slightly at odds with one of the statements recently deleted by an editor from the main article due to a lack of cross-referencing. 
The deleted sentence originally read: "In Baker's case, he will have 150 days added to his sentence [emphasis added] if the fine is not paid." The source I found reads: "As well as reducing the sentence, the high court reduced his fine from 5 million yen to 3 million yen. If Baker does not pay that sum within the next four weeks he will have to serve 150 days hard labor, which will not count [emphasis added] toward his 11-year sentence." Japan Economic Newswire, "British drug smuggler rules out further appeal," Kyodo News Service, International News, November 4, 2005. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only other article that I could find which mentions the 150 days hard labor clause in third-party sources, but at least it does confirm one of the points in the deleted sentence. I hope that helps. J Readings 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you, JR. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Regarding the "added to this sentence" clause of the original, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote "[emphasis added]", but the Kyodo News article essentially confirms that, too. It's just stated a little differently. Sorry about that. J Readings 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked on Factiva, and there is no source for the David Drew comment there.  There are however, sources for the section about hoping for a transfer in 2008.  "Let me complete my prison sentence in UK", The Citizen, 3 July 2007: Mrs Baker, 58 said:...."Hopefully he'll be able to serve the rest of his sentence in Britain, now that he's served a third of this sentence in Japan."  The country is the only one which demands prisoners do at least a third of the sentence in its jails. and "Mother hits out at Japanese courts" Nick is due to be transferred to British jail next year when he will have served half(sic) his sentence, but Mrs Baker is not complacent ."I still continue to fight for Nick and as far as I know he will be transferred back next year," she said." Tom Shepherd 4 June 2007 Newsquest Media Group Newspapers as well as others.  All local papers but this seems to be who is interested. Slp1 23:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article "Mother calls on Blair to help imprisoned son" "The earliest Nick can be considered for transfer to a British jail is 2008 and Iris is determined the British government should use all its powers to make that happen." Tom Shepherd, 10 January 2007, Newsquest Media GroupSlp1 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Factiva and Lexis-Nexis seem to overlap in their database searches, so I found similar articles to the ones posted above by Slp. It seems to me that the originally contentious sentences can be slightly re-edited to reflect these additional citations, no? (I'm just asking). As for the alleged MP David Drew comment, no, I'm afraid not: I wasn't able to find anything relevant that cross-references the Japan Today article. J Readings 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JR, it wasn't so much those sentences that were contentious as the source, because the article we were linking to contained very contentious claims. Those sentences can certainly be restored with the new sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've unprotected so that can be done. I'd advise Sparkzilla not to edit the article, but to make any suggestions on talk. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have accepted your comments regarding the verifiability of the defense documents. However, given the comments above in favor of reinclusion, I would like to request tha you restore the section regarding my criticism of the Baker group that you removed, as it is properly sourced, notable and relevant. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-referenced sources for contentious materials

message: Can someone please fix the RFC so it links to an active discussion/section here or in the archives or delete the RFC if it's no longer active?  Thanks!  --ElKevbo 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC link removed per requestStatisticalregression 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC