Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 2

message: The introduction to the article is way too long. Can I suggest that the detailed sequence of events (supposedly Baker's recounting of them) be moved to a section that labels it appropriately? Fagstein 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro suggestion 

message: Following the above intro suggestion, SparkZilla had reworked it, but I have trouble with his placing of factual information about James Prunier under the heading "Baker's Account". Struggling to find an appropriate section to place it under, I decided to make a new section, entitled "James Prunier" David Lyons 05:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a real need for a separate Prunier section -- it splits the flow of the events outside the courtroom, and places undue focus on Prunier too early on the page. Rather than have two sections, I changed the title of the section to "Events surrounding Baker's arrest" and reworked the two sections into one.Sparkzilla 07:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section "James Prunier" 

message: Sparkzilla's request for mediation:
"Baker's supporters, particularly David Lyons are attacking the page to either 1) delete or belittle arguments negative to Baker's claims of innocence 2) personalise the case against Mark Devlin, making it appear he is the only critic of the case 3) Belittling the media that criticism of Baker appeared in 4) removing factual data, such as a comparison of the arrest rates in the US and Japan. I believe that the article is reasonable as it stands by my last edit and would like like to request your help in mediating to prevent the page becoming an extension of Baker's support page. Thank you"
is rejected as he/she "Fails to demonstrate agreement of the parties to mediate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_1#Nick_Baker_.28disputed_conviction.29
David Lyons 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you are bringing this up now. The RFM was denied in February 2006.Sparkzilla 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation/Rejected 

message: The article title is rather biased. Quite possibly this person is innocent but we don't know that, and many actual criminals claim to be innocent too. Can somebody think of a better title? As it is, we may as well name the article "Nick Baker (innocent man)" because that's the impression being given. How about: (prisoner) or (convict)? --kingboyk 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion, in which way is the article title biased? Baker has been convicted and he disputed that conviction. The notable point of this case is that he disputed the conviction. Had he not done so, then it is unlikely that his story would even have appeared on Wikipedia. David Lyons 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend Nick Baker (chef), since the intro claims he is a professional chef.  However, other than the intro sentence, there seems to be no other mention of that role. -- Bovineone 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "disputed conviction" may not be appropriate because there are many people in prison who claim to be innocent. Baker's case is different because he disputes his conviction in Japan. Might I suggest Nick Baker (Prisoner in Japan)? Sparkzilla 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: We only have your word that Mr. Devlin was a supporter at all - I can find one positive article in his publication (although not written by him). Was he a supporter, and could you tell us what makes him "prominent"?
:Iris Baker says Mr Devlin was a supporter herself in the "spam" mail.
:Devlin approached me in September 2003 claiming he wanted to help. He seemed quite keen to help out with ideas for fundraising and so on. He made banners and pages to the effect that people should rally to "save an innocent man" and attempted to turn Nick's trial into an OJ Simpson-style guilt-or-innocence internet debate on his website.
::It's pretty clear from her quote that she she never said this. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So a person who "mades banners and pages" and who published an article positive to Baker's case is not a supporter? How much more sad nonsense will you come up with to try to discredit Devlin? Sparkzilla 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In removing the quote I was trying to save Devlin further embarrassment. Read between the lines - she's ridiculing him. Hardly accolades lauded upon a supporter - let alone a "prominent" one. Ah well, leave it if you must. David Lyons 11:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I'm sure Devlin is grateful for your consideration. Iris Baker's tone is negative because she wrote her comment after Devlin exposed her. Nonetheless, it still proves he was a supporter, and a prominent one enough to merit a long rant against him. Sparkzilla 11:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr Devlin as a prominent supporter

message: If Mr. Devlin was somehow famous, or a well-known commentator on the Japanese criminal justice system, or an acknowledged expert in the field of human rights or penal reform or the like, he could perhaps claim some notability. Being the publisher of a free magazine does not in and of itself suggest notability in this case.
:Notability arises not just from the size of the magazine, but from the fact that a publisher who had contact with the group realised that they had misinformed him. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No indeed - didn't say it was. Notability arises from being an expert in your field, or an author/journalist published in respected 3rd-party publications. You have been unable to show Devlin and the other author are either. The campaign has many high-profile supporters: A Baroness, 6 MEP'S, 2 British MP's, human rights groups. Devlin was never one of them. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. Metropolis is cerified by Japan's Audit Bureau of circulations for 30,000 copies. It's a plain fact stated in the magazine itself and I'm pretty certain they publish the actual certificate on their site somewhere. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are misrepresenting the advertising content of the magazine. Most magazines have 30% advertising (it's how they, y'know, make money). I also have a copy in front of me, and out of over 70 pages, I see only one page of gentlemen's club ads, the remainder being ads for travel services, international property and phone services, bars and restaurants. Check the Village Voice or any other city magazine and you will find many, many more ads for escorts etc. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hardly. Metropolis has printed hundreds of articles and hundreds of editorials. Baker's supporters were happy to have the magazine support the case initially, but now the magazine is against them they are interested in discrediting it in any way they can. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How ever many times I request it, you still will not, or can not, address the issue and produce one single piece of evidence to show that Mark Devlin or Kirsten Holloway are respected experts in there field or are published in reliable 3rd-party publications to establish their bona-fides and satisfy the requirements of BLP #self. David Lyons 11:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Please take some time to read our policy of biographies of living persons. All material that is deemed by any editor, and that it is not supported by solid sources, can be deleted from the article and the talk page witout restrictions related to WP:3RR. Editors that re-add such material may be blocked for disruption. The only manner in which the disputed material can remain in the article is by carefully sourcing and attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: this article needs to abide by [[WP:BLP]] 

message: This article needs citations, not just "External links". --ElectricEye (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think this essay could be it's own article. --ElectricEye (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Japanese Justice System and the 99.97% Conviction rate 

message: Can we condense the criticism section? Also, in cases like this the media, supporters and defenders tend to mix the two issues of fair trial and guilt. They really are two separate issues and I think the article would make more sense the all the players were described in their view on these two issues. --Gbleem 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell me how you would like to condense the section and I will give it a go. I don't quite understand the second part of your comment - could you elaborate? Thanks Sparkzilla 07:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite "after learning Baker been to Japan" bit. Changed Swindon bit for what the article actually says. Can't find "Dishonesty" bit in Devlin op-ed piece, so changed to what it actually said - (I'm sure someone can pull out a better piece). All spam mail spat info comes from either Baker's site (partizan), and Devlin's private home page - not acceptable sources for this BLP, so removed. David Lyons 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Spam mail: See 3 below.
The three questions again: 
1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page? 
2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case? 
3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not remove the information again. If you must condense it, I have suggested an edit further down the page. Sparkzilla 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find anything in the Metropolis article about "introducing" mafia to Baker, so changed to what it actually said. David Lyons 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: Since much of the discussion about Baker's case revolves around his treatment during the 23-day detention I have added a "Detention" section. Please feel free to add properly cited material Sparkzilla 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detention section

message: It is my intention to move all the comments at the bottom of the page to their respective sections. This will give better flow and will allow each item to be cited properly. Sparkzilla 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions to trials 

message: There are many links in the EL section that should be used as sources for material in the article. If these are dups, they should be removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Nick_Baker_.28chef.29 Sparkzilla 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename page to Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) 

message: I added citations to the Appeal Court section. However, I am concerned about this part:
The defence argued that there was collusion between prosecutors and customs investigation officers regarding the initial customs officers report, particularly as it related to the whereabouts of the key to the case. They also argued that Baker's statements showed coercion by investigators and that Baker's statements had been incorrectly interpreted and inaccurately translated. The defense also argued that the "Belgian Evidence" and Baker's tax returns should have been admitted in the lower court. 
The defense submitted testimony from a linguistics professor, showing gross discrepancies in the Chiba district court trials translation and further testimony from a photographic expert purportedly showing the key zipped up inside a pouch in the suitcase - the implication being that Baker could not have thrown the key into the case rebutting the customs officers' testimony. 
Could someone find a source for both paragraphs? It would also be good if someone could properly cite the Support Group section and the comments in the Reactions to the Trials section Sparkzilla 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the correct way to cite these? Some cites seem to go directly to an external URL, and some to the reference section, which in turn goes to a URL. David Lyons 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything should go to the references section. You can follow the examples in the page. Sparkzilla 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Not a big deal but it would be better you have a secondary source that shows Prunier went to Radley. Don;t you have a newspaper article or something on J4NB? Sparkzilla 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to have a secondary source, I agree - but I don't think it's a point of much contention. Remove it if it bothers you. David Lyons 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radley College

message: Before
In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site.[20] Since she claimed Devlin had said she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited him to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she could proceed with a libel action. Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case".[21] To date no libel suit has been filed.
After?
In November 2004, after Devlin emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to media following the case, Iris Baker accused him of being a spammer and of harvesting emails from the support site. She also indicated her intention to sue him for libel. [20] Devlin said her claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case". [21] Sparkzilla 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you move this over to medcab, where there is a space for compromise suggestions, please? David Lyons 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not interested in mediation. Please respond here. Sparkzilla 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why have you responded several times on the mediation page and also tried to accuse me of bad faith on the NPOV talk page? David Lyons 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baker-Devlin Spat Proposal

message: Before contemplating the removal of sources from the Internet Archive (notably the appeal defence pdf), it should be considered that the only person authorised to remove pages from the Internet archive is the site owner who, according to the whois record, is Iris Baker 
Removing the appeal defence pdf pages from J4NB proves that members of the support group are involved in a cover-up. If the same pages are removed from the Internet archive it will provide clear evidence of Iris Baker's involvement. Sparkzilla 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that evidence, if we would stipulate such, is not proof. Furthermore, the issue of what is "clear evidence" is hardly verified. --Malangthon 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of pages from Internet Archive

message: Is this case still active or can I close it?  --Ideogram 13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that Medcab requires both parties to agree to mediation. Since Sparkzilla refuses, as far as I am concerned, it is closed. David Lyons 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing.  --Ideogram 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I'm talking about. You want me to post on the talk page where there already is a consensus against the whole Metropolis section? When you yourself even refuse to participate in a mediation about that topic? Heatedissuepuppet 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Cross-posting from the peer review page: Evidence of very serious sourcing problems here, although I assume good faith and sincerely recognize the efforts of the editors involved to create a good article. First, a cited Guardian articles reads, in part, "Mr Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate inter preters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." The current Wikipedia article reads, "Baker said his words had been misunderstood by officials with a poor grasp of English and inadequate interpreters who attended an interrogation which was never recorded or witnessed by a defence lawyer." It then gives a reference, but does not put the direct quotes in quotation marks, nor is it the correct reference, which is to the article cited ninth, not the article cited eighth. ...The next citation I looked at showed me that the Wikipedia article reads, "the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point." The source article reads "the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, and showed him three murder-scene photos to illustrate their point." Again, this is cited, but not put in quotes; this one is an example of inappropriate paraphrasing. I did not delve further into the sources after finding these problems on my first run-through, but this is enough to tell me that the whole text of the article needs to be checked against its sources for similar problems. Dekimasuよ! 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. One of the reasons I asked for peer review was to get exactly this kind of comment. The main editors of this article have been looking at it for such a long time that items like this can be difficult to see. that said, I don't consider these particluarly serious as they can be fixed easily. Please feel free to make edits where you feel they are necessary and if those edits bring up some other issues then they can be discussed here. Sparkzilla 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of very serious sourcing problems 

message: ====User:sparkzilla====
is for inclusion and says that:
Metropolis broke the story that Baker was lying about the circumstances of his arrest, first in an op-ed, followed with a review of the case that disclosed many unknown facts about the case.
:Claim 1: Op-eds are allowed to be included in BLPs as long as they do not cite facts. Citing opinions is allowed. The removed op-ed is a written as a claim. It is notable because of the person who made it (a previous supporter, publisher of Japan's largest circulation English magazine), and because it was a major reversal of opinion about the case.
:Claims 2-4 are not exceptional claims in their own right. They support the major claim that Baker and his team deceived the public. Considering that this is a disputed conviction, and considering that Bajker was found guilty, it is not an exceptional claim to present sources that say that Baker's story is not what it originally appeared.
:Sparkzila says that supporting claims need not have multiple sources. There are thousands of similar examples in Wikipedia, where a single article has brought to light original material about a topic.
====User:David Lyons====
is against inclusion and says:
* These claims are exceptional. Multiple sources for each should be provided especially as this is a BLP. 
I withdraw from this hashed RfC. David Lyons 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Lyons, please open a CoI as soon as possible. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin himself or a very close associate of his. Anybody taking a closer look at his edits will come to the same conclusion, no matter how much Sparkzilla will complain about these "speculations" that several users, independent of each other, have voiced. This and any other editing conflict Sparkzilla is involved with (bar the Richard Gere "gerbiling" issue) won't be resolved until this basic problem is dealt with. Heatedissuepuppet 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (for the record - this comment was removed by Sparkzilla, see my comments below. While David Lyons has since then removed the original comment I replied to, Sparkzilla had no right to remove this comment, so I'm re-instating it for now)Heatedissuepuppet 09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the comment made by User:Heatedissuepuppet deleted and replaced (see (09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the single source issue, much of what is produced here seems to have but one source (a spectacular example is the article on the Goth's destruction of the Roman army at Adrianople which, historically has but one source). However, in my opinion, the events related in the Nick Baker article are about persons still living and given that even WP is accountable for veracity, I can not but think that the article must have more than one source. If the single source issue can not be resolved, WP should seriously consider removing the article. --Malangthon 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, this comment was removed by Sparkzilla after I was indefinately blocked (that block has obviously been lifted since), with some vague reference to Meatpuppet policy ([]), despite the fact that nobody ever suggested I was a meatpuppet, and despite the fact that there is nothing in the meatpuppet policy that allows editors to remove comments others have made from the talk page. Heatedissuepuppet 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from involved editors

message: is against inclusion and says:
* These claims are exceptional. Multiple sources for each should be provided especially as this is a BLP. 
I withdraw from this hashed RfC. David Lyons 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Lyons, please open a CoI as soon as possible. It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin himself or a very close associate of his. Anybody taking a closer look at his edits will come to the same conclusion, no matter how much Sparkzilla will complain about these "speculations" that several users, independent of each other, have voiced. This and any other editing conflict Sparkzilla is involved with (bar the Richard Gere "gerbiling" issue) won't be resolved until this basic problem is dealt with. Heatedissuepuppet 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (for the record - this comment was removed by Sparkzilla, see my comments below. While David Lyons has since then removed the original comment I replied to, Sparkzilla had no right to remove this comment, so I'm re-instating it for now)Heatedissuepuppet 09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the comment made by User:Heatedissuepuppet deleted and replaced (see (09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the single source issue, much of what is produced here seems to have but one source (a spectacular example is the article on the Goth's destruction of the Roman army at Adrianople which, historically has but one source). However, in my opinion, the events related in the Nick Baker article are about persons still living and given that even WP is accountable for veracity, I can not but think that the article must have more than one source. If the single source issue can not be resolved, WP should seriously consider removing the article. --Malangthon 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:David Lyons]]

message: I'm against the inclusion as long as there is no uninvolved, second hand source documenting these events, in accordance with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Any piece of information which CANNOT be confirmed accordingly should be deleted. Heatedissuepuppet 07:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, this comment was removed by Sparkzilla after I was indefinately blocked (that block has obviously been lifted since), with some vague reference to Meatpuppet policy ([]), despite the fact that nobody ever suggested I was a meatpuppet, and despite the fact that there is nothing in the meatpuppet policy that allows editors to remove comments others have made from the talk page. Heatedissuepuppet 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Heatedissuepuppet]]

message: ==== Comment by  ====
I believe that the reporting done by Metropolis on the matter is credible and should be included in the article.  They're not exceptional claims because the journal stakes its credibility on the facts of the story that they're reporting, and the writers of the story are named.  As far as I know, no one has rebutted the Metropolis story, not even Baker's supporters themselves.  The reporting done by Metropolis is significant to Baker's story, because Baker is a foreigner in Japan and Metropolis is one of the major news sources in English in Japan that reports on stories about foreigners in Japan.  If you don't want to give total credence to the Metropolis reporting, all that is necessary to do is state that, "A story in Metropolis claims that Baker's story is inconsistent..." to show that the story is from a single journal. Cla68 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the cleanup. It really helps having a simple request. My view is as follows: As we are discussing a single article, an op-ed, I would argue that unless other secondary sources confirm these claims, using this article to further claims by an involved party would be an infraction on WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is quite simple, really: if these claims are any notable these would be reported in numerous sources and not just an one op-ed. So, editors would be better advised to look for additional sources for these claims, at which point will be possible to add them to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest changing the 'Criticism by Metropolis magazine' to 'Criticism of the Campaign' and rewriting the section so it doesn't revolve around a single source. Addhoc 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by respondents to this RFC 

message: I believe that the reporting done by Metropolis on the matter is credible and should be included in the article.  They're not exceptional claims because the journal stakes its credibility on the facts of the story that they're reporting, and the writers of the story are named.  As far as I know, no one has rebutted the Metropolis story, not even Baker's supporters themselves.  The reporting done by Metropolis is significant to Baker's story, because Baker is a foreigner in Japan and Metropolis is one of the major news sources in English in Japan that reports on stories about foreigners in Japan.  If you don't want to give total credence to the Metropolis reporting, all that is necessary to do is state that, "A story in Metropolis claims that Baker's story is inconsistent..." to show that the story is from a single journal. Cla68 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Cla68}} 

message: Editorial by notable voice is accredited appropriately. WP:UNDUE may apply, but I would rather include this information rather than disinclude - it is portrayed as opinion of one man from one journal, not as fact.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|ZayZayEM}} 

message: If editors here want to attract other editors to assist them with their content dispute, they should know better than to make a mess of the request. Editors do not have time to sift through all these comments, and an ensuing editwar in this page. Make a short comment stating your position and the nature of the dispute and take a couple of days off to allow other editors to comment. I refuse to comment on this dispute under these circumstances. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the cleanup. It really helps having a simple request. My view is as follows: As we are discussing a single article, an op-ed, I would argue that unless other secondary sources confirm these claims, using this article to further claims by an involved party would be an infraction on WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is quite simple, really: if these claims are any notable these would be reported in numerous sources and not just an one op-ed. So, editors would be better advised to look for additional sources for these claims, at which point will be possible to add them to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Jossi}} 

message: I would suggest the editors review this article to see if they consider that it helps verify any of the contested statements. Addhoc 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest changing the 'Criticism by Metropolis magazine' to 'Criticism of the Campaign' and rewriting the section so it doesn't revolve around a single source. Addhoc 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Addhoc}} 

message: Without living and breathing this particular topic, my take is something of a mixture of the above.  I agree with Cla68, that language identifying this as a single-source item could permit its inclusion, but not as Cla68 specified it (because that version left out the op-ed nature of the piece, and incorrectly labelled it an "article", which implies journalistic integrity and ethics, and research, which are possibly if not outright likely to be absent.)  I don't agree with Cla68, and do agree with David Lyons, that the claim is exceptional.  But also agree with inclusion-proponent's position that the supporting material is not exceptional; the exceptional part is the core idea that Baker's claims may not be what they seem; any particular source isn't exceptional (though theoretically could be, if the source were "exceptionally" dubious).  I see no evidence that Metropolis is itself unreliable; rather, the problem is that editorials and letters-to-the-editor are by their very nature unreliable and sources real-world facts.  Proponent, however, makes a good argument that the only fact being sourced by the Metropolis op-ed is that such an op-ed was published, and by whom.  The question necessarily then becomes, in my mind, whether the opinion expressed in the op-ed is notable/encyclopedic or just random "noise".  Additional sources help establish it as non-noise.  Which brings us to undue weight.  Despite the above, I tend to agree with Jossi and ZayZayEM that undue weight is at least a question worth raising here, and that (as also expressed by Addhoc) more sources would resolve that question.  In the absence of more sources, I lean slightly toward saying that, as long as the "inconsistent story" theory is identified in the prose as to the nature of its sources, it is probably okay to include it; but I remain on the fence about that:  I don't personally know enough about the topic of this article to be certain that the weight afforded this theory is due and of genuinely encyclopedic interest.  PS: I am not watchlisting this; if further response by me is needed, it will have to be manually requested. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by {{User|SMcCandlish}}

message: On the WP:COIN there is a current report raising serious questions about Sparkzilla regarding this and other articles. Suggest this discussion be put on hold pending what happens there. Also, Sparkzilla, the instructions for this RfC are clear, "Involved editors should keep their comments in their alloted section," please respect them.RomaC 05:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|RomaC}} 

message: :::I am also happy to stand back from the article. I think the article was fine a few edits ago before David Lyons started adding POV edits about the circumstances of Baker's arrest. They are claims, not facts. I would like to suggest that we go back to that version and that both myself and David Lyons (and his meatpuppet Heatedissuepuppet) no longer edit this article at all. it would save us all a lot of time and energy. Sparkzilla 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sparkzilla is in agreement, I am willing to refrain from editing the particulars pertaining to this RfC. I still intend to edit matters relating to this article outside of the scope of this RfC. David Lyons 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should both should step back from it completely. It's a waste of your time and mine, and frankly it wont help Baker any. I suggest that we stay at this edit and that we both stop posting completely. Sparkzilla 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding involved editors standing down from this article

message: I agree with David Lyons that 1) Involved parties should not make attempts to summarise uninvolved party's commentary. 2) In light of the fact that Sparkzilla has a very strong COI regarding the source for these editorial comments - I am far more in favour of exclusion now.
I agree with Sparkzilla on the below issue reagrding claims by Baker should be marked as such.--ZayZayEM 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: The "Reactions to the trials" section had unencyclopedic content and was not written in an encyclopedic tone. It also had POV issues. It has been redistributed to other sections, mainly to the support campaign section. 
The article is too long and needs more editing to make it concise. If people want to find out more detail, they can check the sources.
Items with old unsourced tags have been deleted. However, many unsourced items remain, particularly in the support campaign section. Policy actually says that unsourced items on a BLP should be removed immediately and only reinserted when properly sourced. Please add appropriate sources or the items will be deleted after two weeks. Sparkzilla 12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the two week period will run out on May 31. Please add your sources before then or all currently fact-tagged edits will be deleted. Sparkzilla 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still some fact-tagged items. Please try to source them today. -- Sparkzilla talk! 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Items were removed. Please feel free to add again if properly sourced. -- Sparkzilla talk! 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: ====User:sparkzilla====
is for inclusion and says that:
#The document was originally published on the now-defunct justicefornickbaker.org site 
#The document was originally published by Baker's defense team (even though it incriminated Baker).
#As a published critic of Baker's campaign.
, my personal homepage contains supporting materials relevant to my claims and the case in general. In this case, I have kept a vital document that was deleted from the justicefronickbaker.org site.
#As a leading English-language publisher in Tokyo, I personally vouch for its authenticity
#The document is referenced by this article in Metropolis  which states some of the key points in the document. From the article: Baker’s defence documents revealed that Baker and Prunier went to Amsterdam and then to Belgium where Prunier was given a suitcase by members of the Israeli mafia. Prunier explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to the mafia and had to bring something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. After checking in the case in Baker’s name, the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point.
#The document was reviewed and referenced by the writer of the article and by both the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Japan Today  editorial teams.
#The document holds important notable and relevant supporting information about the case
Regarding StatisticalRegression's comment below. First let me note that I have been in conflict with this editor on several artclles so he is not as uninvolved as he would like to think and it is to be expected that his opinion is negative. Nonetheless, regarding his points 2 and 4 I can personally verify that these defense documents were the ones referred to in the Metropolis article, and that they were originally on the justicefornickbaker site. On point 3 he has his trials mixed up -- Iris Baker refused to release the documents from the first trial. These documents are from the appeal. 
Regarding point 5 I would also like to point out that using a random image off the net to mask the identity of an anonymous writer is not unusual in publishing and in no way reflects on the reliability of Metropolis as a source, and anyone who would try to denigrate years of reporting using such a straw man is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from involved editors

message: is for inclusion and says that:
#The document was originally published on the now-defunct justicefornickbaker.org site 
#The document was originally published by Baker's defense team (even though it incriminated Baker).
#As a published critic of Baker's campaign.
, my personal homepage contains supporting materials relevant to my claims and the case in general. In this case, I have kept a vital document that was deleted from the justicefronickbaker.org site.
#As a leading English-language publisher in Tokyo, I personally vouch for its authenticity
#The document is referenced by this article in Metropolis  which states some of the key points in the document. From the article: Baker’s defence documents revealed that Baker and Prunier went to Amsterdam and then to Belgium where Prunier was given a suitcase by members of the Israeli mafia. Prunier explained to Baker that he had to pay off a drug debt to the mafia and had to bring something, possibly sex pills, back from Japan. After checking in the case in Baker’s name, the mafia members threatened Baker that if he told about the plan his family would be killed, showing him three grisly murder-scene photographs to illustrate their point.
#The document was reviewed and referenced by the writer of the article and by both the Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Japan Today  editorial teams.
#The document holds important notable and relevant supporting information about the case
Regarding StatisticalRegression's comment below. First let me note that I have been in conflict with this editor on several artclles so he is not as uninvolved as he would like to think and it is to be expected that his opinion is negative. Nonetheless, regarding his points 2 and 4 I can personally verify that these defense documents were the ones referred to in the Metropolis article, and that they were originally on the justicefornickbaker site. On point 3 he has his trials mixed up -- Iris Baker refused to release the documents from the first trial. These documents are from the appeal. 
Regarding point 5 I would also like to point out that using a random image off the net to mask the identity of an anonymous writer is not unusual in publishing and in no way reflects on the reliability of Metropolis as a source, and anyone who would try to denigrate years of reporting using such a straw man is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:sparkzilla]]

message: is against inclusion on the grounds that 
Adopting your numbering, I would respond as follows:
1) justicefornickbaker.org, does not appear to be defunct. No reference to the document to which you refer can be found, neither upon the site, in the google search-engine cache, nor the internet archive. Is this some figment of your imagination?
2) There is no evidence to suggest that the document to which you refer was published by Baker's defence team. Indeed, had it been so, would not the documentation have been in Japanese? Can you provide, the name/s, qualification/s and credentials of the person or persons who translated this document into the English-language version you present?
3) Your personal home-page is not a reliable source for the pertinent documentation you claim "so vital". Your claim that you have retained a deleted document remains entirely a claim, unless you can provide supporting sources.
4) You are not a "leading" publisher, as printed media goes in Japan - you are small-fry and given the below comments upon your home-page, it is doubtful whether you are able to maintain an objective viewpoint regarding the Nick Baker case:-
"To express my anger and distaste of the support groups actions, I wrote an editorial in Metropolis, (We the Jury, September 4, 2004) but before I did so, to make totally sure that I was not mistaken, I decided to examine all public statements by Baker and the support group."
and
"I don't like being manipulated and lied to. I don't like my media being used to spread lies. I don't like Baker's supporters spreading their lies to a neutral encyclopedia. I don't like being denigrated by Iris Baker and her supporters for telling the truth. I don't like being threatened. I have had enough with their behavior so I am opening my report to the general public."
5) The document may be referenced marginally in your tiny publication, but given the above conflict of interest which you clearly harbour, it is doubtful whether anything you publish regarding Nick Baker can be taken as anything more than the rantings of an angry man with an axe to grind. If there really was, some kind of cover-up and subversion as you claim, there would be multiple reliable independent sources to draw upon - and I don't just mean local newspapers quoting you, I meaning serious in-depth reporting.
In summation: clearly, here is a very angry man with an axe to grind. If the document, he refers to is to be taken seriously, I would suggest he provide a better provenance than his private home-page, which according to WP policy is hardly suitable as a source. At least if the content were notable then there should be many sources for it. Furthermore, the author of the article in your publication, I'm sorry to say, cannot be found by the most simple of google searches - does she exist, or just another fake like the NUGW "article". Oh, BTW, I received an e-mail back from the photographer, whose picture your magazine used without permission. He'll be in touch :-) Tut tut, what a filthy rag. David Lyons 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:David Lyons]]

message: ==== Comment by  ====
against, for the following reasons:
::1) The primary source is original document in Japanese not the translation. The translation hosted on Sparkzilla's website doesn't mention the translator. It's impossible to verify that document.
::2) The Metropolis article says "defense documents revealed..." but doesn't say who obtained them or where they were obtained from. A statement that falls well outside established journalistic standards. Furthermore, it's not stated that writer used the translation in question.
::3) The Metropolis article states "Even though Iris Baker refused to release or translate the documents from the trial..." which contradicts the assertion that the translation came from justicefornickbaker.org - a site run by Iris Baker.
::4) The justicefornickbaker.org site is not 'defunct' but is in fact still up, there is no mention that the translation ever appeared there, and I haven't found any evidence in caching archives.
::5) Sparkzilla vouching for Metropolis (his own publication) is fine, except that on at least one occasion Metropolis printed an article here and didn't bother attributing the photo to the photographer in violation of his copyright. The picture is problematic because it's a clear distortion of reality (the girl was never in Japan and never taught English) which is against journalistic ethics. Reliable sources do not distort truth.
::: The document is not verifiable, we can't verify it was used in the metropolis article, we can't verify it was released by Iris Baker on justicefornickbaker.org, and the identity of the metropolis article writer is in my mind questionable (see #5). Statisticalregression 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from uninvolved editors

message: against, for the following reasons:
::1) The primary source is original document in Japanese not the translation. The translation hosted on Sparkzilla's website doesn't mention the translator. It's impossible to verify that document.
::2) The Metropolis article says "defense documents revealed..." but doesn't say who obtained them or where they were obtained from. A statement that falls well outside established journalistic standards. Furthermore, it's not stated that writer used the translation in question.
::3) The Metropolis article states "Even though Iris Baker refused to release or translate the documents from the trial..." which contradicts the assertion that the translation came from justicefornickbaker.org - a site run by Iris Baker.
::4) The justicefornickbaker.org site is not 'defunct' but is in fact still up, there is no mention that the translation ever appeared there, and I haven't found any evidence in caching archives.
::5) Sparkzilla vouching for Metropolis (his own publication) is fine, except that on at least one occasion Metropolis printed an article here and didn't bother attributing the photo to the photographer in violation of his copyright. The picture is problematic because it's a clear distortion of reality (the girl was never in Japan and never taught English) which is against journalistic ethics. Reliable sources do not distort truth.
::: The document is not verifiable, we can't verify it was used in the metropolis article, we can't verify it was released by Iris Baker on justicefornickbaker.org, and the identity of the metropolis article writer is in my mind questionable (see #5). Statisticalregression 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Statisticalregression}} 

message: To reiterate what I said above, I do not believe that the original defence document should be referenced: while I personally don't doubt that it is genuine, it is not verifiable that it is what it purports to be.  Sparkzilla's assurances and the brief references elsewhere are not enough to make this a reliable source of information. --Slp1 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{user|Slp1}}