Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Can someone do a NPOV edit here?

Starts off well, but the article from this point down is spiraling off into an augment edit war -- Wikipedia is not a debate forum, someone be bold and redo this, look for and weed out weasel words and original research.

There is also a serious undue weight issue here.

Here's an explanation on this provided by Jimbo Wales, September 2003, from the mailing list:

(snip)

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So just who are the "detractors" -- I suspect a sock puppet army, in any case they are taking undue weight in an article about an arrest, a conviction, and a supporters' campaign. 212.130.26.104 08:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

POV's removed. The introduction appears balanced and it is quite correct to include the entries of the three main players (Mr. Nick Baker, the prosecution and the defense). The detractors and supporters viewpoints and counter-arguments are held by extremely small minorities and do not belong on Wikipedia regardless of whether the point are provable or not. The prosecution argument needs fleshing out more.

219.123.156.18 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC) NPOV notice removed

From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

Wikipedia is not an extension of the Justice for Nick Baker site. It is in the public interest to present all the issues of the case so that Wikipedia readers will have full access to the facts of the case and the controversy it generated.

Whoa, hold your horses, NPOV flags should be discussed here not deleted unilaterally. I have seen the website above, and there is an issue about what should be reported from it, I agree. This question was raised on the Schapelle Corby article as well. But first, I want to know who are the "detractors" here? All I see referenced is one magazine publisher. The first of many many points presented by the "detractors" is as follows: "To give the impression that Baker was an innocent abroad, Baker's supporters withheld the fact that Baker had already been to Japan with Prunier just two months before his arrest. If this information had been known at the time of the initial media exposure (it was released some months after), the case would never have been able to generate the interest it did."

From the start we have a strong POV - "To give the impression" - how can "detractors" report on the intention of others? Then "witheld" - again this is conjecture, not saying something hardly equals "withholding". "If this information had been known..." - purely speculative, nobody knows what might have happened next if something had or had not been done. In short there is too much original research and there are too many weasel words in the "detractors" arguments as they stand in the reaction to the case section. Also the "detractors" comments need to be attributed or should be removed.218.176.34.86 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Question of Balance

THe page as it currently stands more accurately reflects the situation as it is today. Showing a whole page of defence arguments to counter three cherry-picked prosecution arguments (from among the many) is hardly showing a neutral point of view.

The views of the detractors, who must surely greatly outnumber the supporters now most of the facts about the case have come out are important. This reflects the way opinion has moved away from Mr Baker. This in itself is important to show if you are going to cover all aspects of the case.

If you are not going to allow more information on the Prosecution arguments of which there are an equal number to the Defence arguments(given that the judge rebutted every single Defence argument at the summing-up in October) then you had better reserve a warning for the page in it's original form.

Yup, it's a Major Edit!

Folks, when the Nick Baker article become longer than the Wikipedia entry for the Hundred Years War, I knew it was time do a major edit. I have added Prosecution arguments and cut Defence arguments for balance and I have removed the message-board style "Detractors attack Supporters" and "Supporters attack Detractors" tailspin that had plagued the article. This was a lot of work and I hope others who find errors will make corrections, but please can you come here to the Talk page if you have arguments to make about the edit. 218.176.34.86 07:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a Baker Support site

The analogy about the Hundred Year War is misleading. The Baker story is a current event and is more similar to a topic such as the Iraq War, with the many opinions and details that come with a current, controversial, and still-unfolding event.

There was no necessity to do a major edit. The page was a reasonable, fair and dispassionate account of Baker's situation and the controversy that arose from it. By editing it to a large degree you have antagonised those who have contributed multiple details to the site to give a fair overview of all of the issues in this controversial case.

As has been said before, this page is not an extension of Baker's support site. Because Baker's support group mislead the public about the circumstances of Baker's arrest and trial the actual circumstances of the case and the support group's actions (which are all part of the public record) should be presented clearly on the page.

The detractors views are neither presented as a message board nor is there any "tailspin". The points are presented dispassionately, and are reasonably static. The deliniation of clear areas for supporters and detractors points makes the page easier to read and prevents discussions occurring in the main body of the text.

To avoid further reverts I suggest you use this discussion area to offer your suggestions to edit this current page on a line-by-line and paragraph-by-paragraph basis. If you can think of a better format please propose it here, but do not erase items out of hand. If you do not think a particular piece of data fits into Wikipedia you should challenge it, not erase it.

219.123.156.18 05:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither an extension of Japan Today/Metropolis publishers opinions

Revised to previous edit by 218.176.34.86. This is more concise, factual and Wikipedian than previous incarnations of this story. Additional prosecution arguments had been added for balance.

Baker's sorry tale hardly merits a comparison with the Iraq war! Neither is it a "still-unfolding event." Baker's appeals are over and he is serving his time.

So-called "anonymous detractors" should provide supporting sources, (outside of main detractor, Devlin's own "Metropolis" & "Japan Today" publications) of wrong doing by either Iris Baker or the support group, however they cannot. As it is, they played a very small part in the whole affair and that should be accurately reflected in the entry.

David Lyons 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Verification, not deletion Deleting valid detractors' arguments about the case with no discussion is not acceptable. I suggest reduction of some of petty squabbles between Baker's supporters and Devlin as it does neither any credit, and the possible addition of the prosecution arguments. The actual points of controversy should either be shown to be unsupported or left as-is, although the lists should probably be converted to non-list form

Factual and verifiable sources please The following have been removed with an explaination why. In general, material appearing on Wikipedia (see the bottom of this page even) "must be based on verifiable sources". Certain detractors claims about this case will continue to be removed until they can supply supporting evidence. It is unacceptable to place unverified material on Wikipedia and then charge opposing viewpoint holders to disprove it.

• One is never arrested for "smuggling drugs" - the specific charges against Nick Baker were "violating the Narcotic and Psychotropic Drug Control Law and Customs Law" - These are weasel words by detractors.

• It is factual and salient to note the time elapsed between the beginning and end of the appeal trial and further where Baker is currently serving time.

• Detractors complained that "there are only 3 cherry-picked prosecution arguments", and yet remove them when more are added for balance.

• "It is still not clear how and why a professional chef would have reason to travel to Japan twice in two months." - The implication being what? That he is a drug-smuggler? Pure conjecture - removed.

• "Detractors have pointed out that Viagra is more expensive in Japan that in any other country." Provide sources to show this claim is true - removed.

• "Baker therefore knew he was involved in a smuggling operation." - "therefore" suggests an assumption on the detractors part - removed

• "Even though it was just a few months after 9/11, according to Baker, Prunier was able to check-in his case under Baker's name, without the check-in attendant or Baker noticing." - False. Baker notes himself in a letter from prison (posted on the supporters website) "At check-in, we checked-in together (it didn't appear odd to me as I usually do this when travelling with my fiancee). Mr A gave me his passport while he put HIS CASE and my bag on the scale thing" - removed

• "Baker wanted to get off the plane in London but Prunier persuaded him to stay on the flight. Detractos point out that if he was a dupe, he would not need to be persuaded." - Would detractors kindly stick to factual information - not what they believe or deduce - removed.

• "Detractors argue that it is highly unlikely that Prunier would expose himself to the risks associated with trying to dupe Baker into taking the case in the customs hall. If Baker's story is true, Prunier's plan would have relied on Prunier being assured of going through immigration first and having time to arrange the bags (even though the two friends were traveling together). Prunier would also have had to manage the risk of Baker refusing to take the case through customs and of Baker calling him over when he was stopped by the customs officer." - Would detractors kindly stick to factual information - not what they believe or deduce - removed.

• "Baker said he did not receive legal counsel in his first 23-days although he was visited by a Bar Association duty lawyer." - where does Baker say this? Provide a verifiable source - removed.

• "Even if Prunier was caught for allegedly duping other people later it does not mean that Baker was not involved in the Japan smuggling operation." - neither does it mean he was. This is pure conjecture - removed

• "They also can prove that the support group has willfully misled the public to get publicity for the case." - prove it - removed.

• "Baker and Prunier had associated with Israeli traffickers in Belgium." - Back up this claim with a verifiable source - removed

• "According to a U.S. prosecutor Baker's statement to the customs officer when asked to search the bag ("Sure, it's me mate's") is internally inconsistent. It means "Go ahead and search the case, but if you find anything, it's not mine." In normal circumstances a person would call their friend over or refuse." - which US prosecutor? An anonymous poster on Japan Today? - provide verifiable sources please - removed.

• "Baker implied that the Embassy did not support him when he was first arrested when in fact, he was visited by an English-speaking member of the Embassy who created a Prison Visit Record." - Where does he imply this? Baker even pointed to the PVR in a letter published on the supporters website: "There is also the matter of the PVR (Prison Visit Record) written by the embassy within days of my arrest." - removed.

It is Wikiquette to sign comments on a talk page - please.

David Lyons 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of lists

See Wikipedia:Lists

This edit was intended to get the page into an encyclopedia-like entry that gives a concise, streamlined overview of the case. The lists that were previously on the page have been condensed into non-list form. While it is tempting to add more and more detail about the case, Wikipedia is not really the place to rehash arguments and every minor detail about the case. If someone wants to find out more detail about they can use the links.

If you feel something important was taken out please try to discuss it here first.

05/12/19 02:14 edit

Fixed up some typos, inaccuracies and spelling/grammer (and probably introduced a few of my own!). Tried to make the entry more concise. Added some pertinant factual info and re-added response comments to the appeal trial.David Lyons 02:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed quotes -- They are far too long and not Wikipedia style. If people want to read the quotes they can go to individual articles or websites. Also, please refrain from petty edits that devalue Metropolis and Japan Today's status as widely distributed media in Japan. Sparkzilla 06:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What is UnWiki about the quotes you removed? Please explain Sparkzilla.David Lyons 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

07:18 edit -- Added a little history of Japanese jury system and forthcoming changes to the jury law in 2009. Added opposing comment to Ramseyer et al: re 99.97% conviction rate.David Lyons 07:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"When it was revealed..." is sensationalist - removed. "publisher of Metropolis, the largest circulation English magazine in Japan, and Japan Today, Japan's largest English Internet news and information portal..." This is unnecessary and smacks of advertising. If people want to know about these publications - link to them. "...been given a suitcase to bring back sex pills for them from Japan..." Untrue, Baker actually said sex-pills or money or clothes. Stick to facts pleaseDavid Lyons 07:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted comments & reactions to verdict

What is unwikipedian about germane comments from professionals and lay people who have been involved in the case from the beginning?222.229.230.54 10:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons why the quotes should be removed.

1. They take up more than half the article
2. They do not conform to NPOV and are an attempt to bolster positive sentiment about Baker's case
3. Each quote is too long
4. The quote by the Japanese prisoner is very weakly connected to the case
5. The quotes do not add any information that is not already in the article.
6. The quotes are available on the reference sites, particularly the Justice for Nick Baker site, which has all the positive quotes on its front page. This gives rise to the feeling that the article is (once again) becoming an extension of the support page.
7. The inclusion of long quotations does not match any other Disputed Conviction articles, and does not match the general format of Wikipedia pages. Out of 15 Disputed convictions, only Schappelle Corby has some quotes. Even then the quotes are by real celebrities, actually add extra information to the article, and have been converted to an overview format with links to the actual quotes.

While I think the reaction section is unecessary, I propose: "Public reaction to Baker's appeal verdict was mixed. Iris Baker and Baker's supporters vowed to fight on in their campaign to highlight injustices in the Japan's criminal justice system."

Sparkzilla 11:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Mark Devlin and an unknown amount of anonymous posters on a minor internet forum do not an controversy make. It should be noted that in not *ONE* another publication can any critcal articles be found. Is this article about Nick Baker or Mark Devlin?David Lyons 08:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Baker's supporters continue to try to make it appear as though there was little criticism of the case on minor messageboards, when in fact the criticism was widespread with many discussions with hundreds of posts on the largest messageboard in Japan. No discussion of Baker's guit or innocence was allowed on Baker's support board. Supporters have also tried to make it appear that Devlin was the only person critical of the case. In addition to Devlin and the messageboard detractors, which inluded several ex-supporters, even Baker's own MP was critical of the activities of the support group. Sparkzilla 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The translation of documents. I have had these facts confirmed to me personally by the British vice consul at Tokyo within the last three weeks. The documents were translated some time after the district court trial ended. They were done primarily for a pro-bono barrister in the UK. A copy was passed tp the family. SparkZilla, where do you get your "Facts" from, Metropolis?David Lyons 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also talked with the British Vice Consul on several occassions in person and he said the documents were translated for the family at the time of the Chiba trial. In any case, Iris Baker was aware of the full contents before the Appeal trial.Sparkzilla 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of conviction rates between U.S. and Japan

A comparison of the arrest and conviction rates in Japan and the US is relevant because without the comparison it would appear that Japan's justice system is very harsh, when in fact a person is far less likely to be arrested and convicted in Japan than in the US. Attempts to remove this information lend sympathy to Baker's case and do not conform to NPOV.

please see "Not about the USA or Metropolis Magazine" below.

Mediation Request

A Mediation request has been made to stop supporters changing the facts, and the presentation of the facts of the case. Sparkzilla 00:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Request for Arbitration/Mediation is also premature. This should properly follow other steps to resolve editing disputes. Please see Resolving Disputes. Thanks!David Lyons 03:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this version. I think it is reasonably fair as it stands.Sparkzilla 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Added reactions to the trials section

To Sparkzilla: Thanks for your input, I decided to edited down the section which you objected to, reducing the size and removing some quotations. It may be natural to want to voice your own position but bear in mind that this cannot be done by overriding other parts of the article.

The response to the Baker trials by prominent Japanese and international authorities is germane and should not be repeatedly blanked so as to leave only the arguments of a lone magazine publisher who is openly critical of Baker's supporters.

The wikified quotes are better. However, criticism of the case and of the support group was from multiple sources as noted above.Sparkzilla 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of USA conviction and arrest rates

Arranged final comments into alphabetical order by source; standardised to British spelling; removed weasel words, for example substituted "said" (NPOV, this is reporting an opinion or position) for "noted" (POV because it implies something happened and was observed).

The US has the most people in jail per capita of any country in the world, higher than Sudan or Cuba -- so it's just dragging a red herring to bring up American crime rates and incarceration numbers in the discussion of a British defendant in a Japanese court case. One could try to discount criticism of any judicial system by saying "there are more people in jail in the USA" -- that would be an invalid argument. Doesn't change the facts though -- out of every 100 defendants in a US courtroom, 11 are freed (89% conviction rate); whereas only *3* out of 10,000 are judged "not guilty" in Japan (99.97% rate).

The 99.97% conviction rate is a situation the international legal community and Japan Federation of Bar Associations alike see as unacceptable. I even have problems with including Ramseyer as the only source here, as he's definitly got a minority view, but his paper is widely-cited so it may be ok to have the reference. But having TWO different American citations is just too much here.

Whether the conviction rate is unacceptable or not is not the issue. It is useful for the casual reader to compare conviction rates between nations. However, I defer to the mediator on this issue.Sparkzilla 06:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment from a Japanese culture scholar w/ absolutely no prior knowledge of the Nick Baker case, the 99.97% conviction rate (which I believe is a slightly dated statistic, and the rate is going down) reflects a different judicial process wherein immediate and full disclosure of all information is the best chance for any clemency. If you're ever arrested by the J. police, your best bet is answering every question, even seemingly irrelevant ones completely and honestly. Personally, I suspect Baker is innocent, btw. - Naif 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Metropolis & Japan Today circulations

Repeatedly referring to Mr Devlin's publication as "Metropolis, Japan's largest circulation English language free magazine, and Japan Today, an Internet news portal," is long and does seem to me to be something like advertising. People can check for details of the magazine elsewhere, or perhaps a Metropolis Magazine entry on Wikipedia would be a good idea? In any case this is not the place to promote the magazine.

Please don't refer to "discussion board posters" as evidence of opposition to Baker's supporters or campaign. Anonymous discussion forums and chat rooms and so on are not proper sources.

Baker's supporters continue to remove information regarding the circulation and influence of Metropolis/Japan Today. By belittling the size of these publications they would like the casual reader to think that criticism of Baker was localised and small.

Metropolis is the largest circulation English-language magazine in Japan. It is a 64-80 page city guide and classifieds magazine with features and commentary about life in Japan, and other issues, such as the Baker case. Metropolis is the only English-magazine in Japan with Audit Bureau of Circulation certification. Weekly circulation is 30,000 copies to 600 distribution locations in Tokyo, Yokohama and Chiba. The magazine alone reaches 67,500 readers every week, the majority of English-speaking foreigners in Tokyo. It should be noted that until Devlin wrote his piece critical of the campaign the supporters, including Iris Baker, were extremely happy to have had publicity in the magazine.

In addition to the print magazine, the articles were republished on Metropolis's sister publication, Japan Today (now remaned Crisscross News Japan). Japan Today is the largest Internet news and information portal about Japan in English in the world, with 14 million page views each month and over two million unique users. The site currently has an Alexa.com ranking of 7200. Japan Today's main feature is its large-scale discussion system, which a large volume of discussion of the Baker case took place (No discussion of the guilt or innocence was allowed on the Baker support site). Over the period of the appeal trial the discussions that Baker's supporters characterise as "minor" had thousands of posts from hundreds of participants. By the end of the appeal, after it had been shown that Baker's support team had misled the public about the case, the large majority of comments were negative.

Sparkzilla 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow amazing you had all that info at your fingertips! I still don't see why that means the circulation has to be presented in an article about Nick Baker? I would also remove anything that belittled or claimed the magazine was localised and small. Where does that appear in the article?219.113.209.102 05:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement of circulation is a matter of fact, not promotion. The defense of this item has been brought about by Baker's supporters claims that the publications are "minor" and "tiny" in edit comments and the removal of "largest circulation" information multiple times. This supports their attempt to paint criticism of the case as minor, when in fact it was widespread. I will not put it back in at this time, but the actual facts remain here for the benefit of mediators.Sparkzilla 06:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations

To Sparkzilla: I guess your right about that point, I can see what you mean.David Lyons 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Repetition of positions

I have taken out the other repeated information in the Reactions section simply to show how difficult it is to follow who has which position without it. I suggest they are reinstated to aid readability. Sparkzilla 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote attibuted to Devlin

"Devlin argued the support group had no supporting evidence for their claims that Prunier was a professional con man."

I can only find 3 articles where Devlin has commented publicly on the case - none of which includes the above quote. Can someone show the verifiable source for this? I propose to remove it within 7 days otherwise.David Lyons 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Guardian reference and changes to Timeline

There is no way to verify that the support group believed that the Belgian dupes were set free because they had read it in the Guardian. There is no mention of this point anywhere else on the web. The item is unverifiable, and counts as original research.

Putting aside the question of who gave the information to the Guardian in the first place, as the leader of the support group Iris Baker had been in contact with the Belgian authorities during the trial; it would be surprising if she did not know the status of the dupes. Please also note that it was The British Embassy, not the support group that revealed the fact. Sparkzilla 10:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing The Guardian article cannot be described as original research, so I assume you must be referring to "The support group initially claimed, based a news report in The Guardian, a respected British newspaper, that the Belgian dupes had been set free outright." I have reworked the reference accordingly.210.235.211.232 08:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article is mentioned as one of the news items. However, It is impossible to verify for sure that this article was the reason that the support group made their decision. There is no mention of how the suppoort group came to its deciciosn on the web. The only mention of this point is on Wikipedia, therefore it counts as original research.

Also, as noted above, Iris Baker was in regular contact with the Belgian authorities and the UK Embassy and almost certainly knew that they had actually been released.

Please note that the controversy started when Devlin published his editorial. The section has be reverted.Sparkzilla 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In the rework, where does it say that the support group based it's claims on The Guardian article? It states two facts 1) The Guardian published two articles in the July stating that those arrested with Prunier were tricked and released and 2) that the support group said the same thing in it's website which was set-up the following August. Both factual and verifiable and NOT original research. You opinion about whether Iris Baker knew or not is pure supposition and is no reason to revert the article as it stands. Chronological ordering makes the most sensible approach. Reverted.210.235.211.232 09:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Criticism of the Support Group" and outlines the controversy surrounding the case. The timeline of how this controversy unfolded is more important than the bogus timeline presented, especially when such a timeline starts with an unverifiable connection between a Guardian article and the support group's activities, which is a response to verifiable information revealed at the end of the trial.

The Guardian item cannot be placed in the section because there is no external reference between the article, and the Support group's decison.

My opinion regarding Iris Baker's knowledge is an opinion - that is why it is not in the main article. Your opinion on the Guardian article is unverifiable and should be removed.

Sparkzilla 09:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have improved the timeline of the controversy. Where is your citation for the support group saying they used the Guardian as their source? Sparkzilla 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to comment on the best time-line for the contraversy section. However, I cannot accept your reasoning regarding the Guardian reference. Do you deny that The Guardian published two articles in July 2003 referring to Prunier's Belgian companions being "Tricked...and released"? Do you deny that the Justice for Nick Baker support site said the same thing on it's front page in August of the same year? (Do a whois for when the website was set-up). Where in my *revised* version does it say that the support used it's source as the Guardian? Reinserted.210.235.211.232 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Libel

Devlin's page says clearly that both the harvesting and the spamming claims (not claim) are ludicrous. "Mrs Baker accused me of harvesting email addresses from the Justice for Nick Baker support site and of sending out a spam email attack. These claims are a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case and the cover-up activities of both Iris Baker and the support group."

Intro suggestion

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)

New Section "James Prunier"

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)

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)

Request for Mediation/Rejected

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)

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)

Article title

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removal of section regarding Criticism of Baker and the Support group

SparkZilla. Aw, sorry about that. You could have tagged it :-)

As the editor who adds or restores material likely to be challenged, the burden of evidence lies with you to cite reliable and credible third-party sources for every single claim.

We have to be particularly careful where we are dealing with biographies of living people. Especially so, as this is of an extraordinary and potentially libelous nature. Go read WP:BLP

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately" & "Be very firm about high quality references."

It is quite clear that Mr. Devlin and the Baker camp are involved in an ongoing feud. Mr Delvin's personal homepage

"False claims about Mark Devlin by Iris Baker

On Nov 14, 2004, I was the subject of a misguided personal attack by Iris Baker, mother of Nick Baker, a Briton who is currently serving 11 years for smuggling a record quantity of drugs into Japan. Mrs Baker is upset that I exposed how she misled the media and the public in her campaign to free her son and that I alerted other media that she was misleading them.

...SNIP...

Baker's homepage

The majority of the contentious material is drawn from Mr. Devlin's own magazine. Note WP:V#SELF

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Note the "well-known professional journalist" bit - Mr Devlin doesn't even describe himself as a journalist!!!

Also note the "may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications". Can you cite other articles in reliable third-party publications by Mr Devlin or the authors of the other articles in Mr. Devlin's magazine?David Lyons 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP. Please see the section on "Using the subject as a source"

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.

It is relevant to the person's notability;

It is not contentious;

It is not unduly self-serving;

There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

Direct statements by Iris Baker and Mark Devlin are both acceptable as they are authoritiative statments about the dispute by the subjects themselves. In fact, most of the information about the dispute comes from Iris Baker and the Justice for Nick Baker site, surely the most authoritative of all sources on this case. As for third-party sources, the dispute was covered in this article in the Swindon Advertiser[1].

Other supporting documentation comes from the defense documents that were published on the Justice For Nick Baker site. Sparkzilla 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check WP:BLP#Reliable_sources

"Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject."

Note the "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject." bit. The subject of this article is Nick Baker, not his mother's web-site nor Metropolis magazine. Therefore, I don't know why you are trying to invoke WP:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_source.

You are repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. To use the potentially libelous material contained in the two self-published articles you cite, you must prove that Mark Devlin and the other author "Kirsten Holloway" are both well-known professional journalists with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. To date, this you have failed to do. David Lyons 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's go through it paragraph by paragraph to show that the information does not come from Mr Devlin's publications.

Criticism of Baker and the Support group

In January 2004 the support group released information that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest.

Verified on JFNB site.

In March 2004 some of Baker's defence documents were released on Baker's support site. The documents indicated that when Baker and Prunier had been travelling in Europe, Prunier introduced two Israelis to Baker and later told him that he owed them "20,000" and was being sent to Japan to collect something for them ("sex pills; clothes or money"). The Israelis provided the case to Prunier. The statements also indicated that the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, showing him three murder-scene photos. Iris Baker denied that Baker was involved with the Israeli Mafia.

From defense documents released on JFNB site.

Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, a Tokyo-based English language free magazine, and Japan Today, an Internet news portal, initially supported Baker's cause and promoted the case through his publications. After learning that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest he reversed his position and wrote in a September 4, 2004 editorial that Iris Baker and the support group had not been honest in their presentation of facts to the public.

THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION IN SWINDON ADVERTISER. Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable.

On September 6 2004, Baker's supporters asked his local MP David Drew to make representations upon Baker's behalf. Drew responded that he had made representations "up to and including the Foreign Office" and while he accepted that the Japanese penal system was "brutal", his own "cross-examination" of the UK police did not tally with the comments on the support website and suggested an "international enquiry" was underway. Iris Baker responded by contacting the Foreign Office who were unaware of any representations by Drew to either themselves or the British Embassy. Iris Baker's further enquiries to a Chief Detective Inspector with the Gloustershire police confirmed that there was no local or international enquiry underway as Drew claimed.

Verified from JFNB site.

In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site. Since Devlin claimed she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited Devlin to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she may proceed with a libel action.

This is direct from Iris Baker, on the JFNB site.

Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "ludicrous". To date no libel suit has been filed.

Direct response from Mr Devlin's personal site.

Towards the end of the appeal the British Embassy released information thet the Belgian dupes had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences. Baker's supporters claim that they based their information that the dupes had been set free on two articles in that appeared in The Guardian in July of 2003.

Although all available appeal court documents were released on the support web-site, Iris Baker refused to release or translate the district court documents during the appeal. The British Embassy later confirmed that it had translated the original Chiba district court documents into English for a pro-bono UK barrister. A copy was passed to the family sometime after the Chiba trial.

All of this was already dealt with in the talk section and mainly comes from JFNB site.

So you can see that NOTHING in this section comes from Mr Devlin's publications. Everything is verifiable from the Nick Baker site, an authority on the case, or a third-party source.

The page has been reverted. I have also posted the following message onto the BLP Noticeboard, and would advise you that if you want to revert it again that you seek mediation.

The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.

I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.

Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.

I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice.

Sparkzilla 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Now let's go through it...

(Metropolis magazine article #1 = "The Last Word - We the Jury" by Mark Devlin in Metropolis magazine. Issue #545. Sept 3rd 2004.)

(Metropolis magazine article #2 = "True Crime" by Kirsten Holloway in Metropolis magazine. Issue #608. November 18th 2005.)

"In January 2004 the support group released information that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest."

Sparkzilla: "Verified on JFNB site."

Really? Where?

Claim in Metropolis magazine article #1:

"It was then revealed that this wasn't Baker's first trip to Japan. In fact he had visited just two months before his arrest"

Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.

"In March 2004 some of Baker's defence documents were released on Baker's support site. The documents indicated that when Baker and Prunier had been travelling in Europe, Prunier introduced two Israelis to Baker and later told him that he owed them "20,000" and was being sent to Japan to collect something for them ("sex pills; clothes or money"). The Israelis provided the case to Prunier. The statements also indicated that the Israelis threatened Baker after check-in at the airport, threatening to kill members of his family, showing him three murder-scene photos. Iris Baker denied that Baker was involved with the Israeli Mafia."

Sparkzilla: "From defense documents released on JFNB site."

Really? Where?

Claim in Metropolis magazine article #2:

"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."

Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.

"Mark Devlin, the publisher of Metropolis, a Tokyo-based English language free magazine, and Japan Today, an Internet news portal, initially supported Baker's cause and promoted the case through his publications. After learning that Baker had been to Japan two months before his arrest he reversed his position and wrote in a September 4, 2004 editorial that Iris Baker and the support group had not been honest in their presentation of facts to the public."

Sparkzilla: "THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION IN SWINDON ADVERTISER. Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable."

The Swindon Advertiser:

"But her visit was rocked when leading publisher Mark Devlin claimed Mrs Baker was deceiving the media regarding her son's arrest and detention.

Mr Devlin, who publishes Japan Today magazine, has now withdrawn his support from the campaign.

Mr Devlin said: "Baker's case would never have received the attention it has gained if Iris Baker had released complete information about the first trial. She continues to suppress information about the first trial to this day. It is my belief that the Justice for Nick Baker should be disbanded and the website taken offline. It remains to be seen whether Iris Baker will return the funds she has raised for her son."

Angry Mrs Baker said she had never taken any money for herself. She said: "I emphatically defend myself. I believe he is innocent and all I want is a fair trial. I tried to meet Mr Devlin in Tokyo but he refused. ""

Verification of what? This merely repeats Devlin's spurious claims.

Sparkzilla: "Even if the third-party verification was not there, as Mr Devlin is the publisher of the largest English magazine in Japan, his reversal of opinion, even if published in his own magazine, is notable"

Notability? Devlin is a publisher, not a journalist. You still haven't cited Devlin's & Holloway's credentials as well-known professional journalists - please do so.

"On September 6 2004, Baker's supporters asked his local MP David Drew to make representations upon Baker's behalf. Drew responded that he had made representations "up to and including the Foreign Office" and while he accepted that the Japanese penal system was "brutal", his own "cross-examination" of the UK police did not tally with the comments on the support website and suggested an "international enquiry" was underway. Iris Baker responded by contacting the Foreign Office who were unaware of any representations by Drew to either themselves or the British Embassy. Iris Baker's further enquiries to a Chief Detective Inspector with the Gloustershire police confirmed that there was no local or international enquiry underway as Drew claimed."

Sparkzilla: Verified from JFNB site.

Really? Where?

Claim in Metropolis magazine article #2:

"Even Baker’s own MP, David Drew, would not give his support, citing that his findings “did not tally with the account on [Baker’s] website.”"

Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.

"Towards the end of the appeal the British Embassy released information thet the Belgian dupes had actually been convicted and released with time served and suspended sentences. Baker's supporters claim that they based their information that the dupes had been set free on two articles in that appeared in The Guardian in July of 2003.

Although all available appeal court documents were released on the support web-site, Iris Baker refused to release or translate the district court documents during the appeal. The British Embassy later confirmed that it had translated the original Chiba district court documents into English for a pro-bono UK barrister. A copy was passed to the family sometime after the Chiba trial."

Sparkzilla: "...mainly comes from JFNB site."

Really? Where?

Claim Metropolis magazine article #2:

"The Embassy even translated the original court documents into English (at no cost to the family). It is now clear that Iris Baker had the translated documents all along, but refused to release them."

Cite a respected non-self published third-party confirmation of this.

So, you see that the majority of the material does indeed appear in the two Metropolis self-published articles. It is an outright falsehood to say "that NOTHING in this section comes from Mr Devlin's publications". You must furthermore show Devlin and Holloway's bona-fides as well-known professional journalists published in respected third-party publications to use self published articles - why do you refuse to do so?

Please...can you at least show ONE third-party respected publication outside of Devlin's own self-published magazine in support of his claims?

It is not for me to seek mediation. In cases of potentially libelous material on BLP's we should err on the side of caution until the material meets Wikipedia verifiability policy.

David Lyons 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a question about the reliability of self published sources on the talk:Reliable_sources#Primary_Sources_hosted_on_POV_sites and I thought I would take a look at this article. I only half assed read the talk section above, but I read the Swindon article and I don't see how the spat between Mrs. Baker and Devlin fits into the article as it is now written. I suggest cleaning up the article and see what you make of it with "regular" sources. The article needs a lot of grunt work before spending time discussing how this other stuff can fit. Is cart before the horse the right analogy? --Gbleem 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The spat fits in because it is about inconsistencies in Baker's story Sparkzilla 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I took this discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources:_three_questions. The result was that 1. WP:RS is a guideline (not policy), 2. Denial of self-published sources is not a trump card and that 3. the self-published sources can ALL be used.

From the discussion...

The three questions again:

1.When a prominent supporter of a cause reverses position, do you think notablility trumps self-published source? And do you think their (self-published) reasons should be allowed onto the page?

2. Should an article that has important claims about the case be used as a source even though the publisher is a critic of the case?

3. Are clarification statements (and their supporting claims) made on a personal website usable as sources? Sparkzilla 00:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes.

As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes

Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the controversy section with citations/sources, and supporting links. Sparkzilla 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Have edited "Criticism of Baker and the Support group" section. Have removed material, including dates and sources, that is not presented in referenced material. "Learned" implies correct info - but no source for that info is presented, so change to "came to believe". Removed broken link [2]. SmithBlue 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. The link seems fine to me, can you check again? Sparkzilla 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla: Amazing you had all that info at you fingertips!!!

Supporters.

Recent editing history of the article shows that only I have removed the contentious material. Please do not assume that because I have asked you to provide reliable sources for negative content in a BLP that I am therefore by necessity a "supporter" or am trying to "suppress" material. I think you are unnecessarily drawing imaginary battle-lines onto a battle-field which doesn't even exist. This is all the more surprising as you wrote yourself at the top of your User Page: "Too many Wikipedians treat each page as a battleground to prove they are right". One of the major tenets of Wikipedia is "assume good faith". I'm sure that we would both like to see a fair and accurate article which keeps within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy.

Please. Your posting history is 99% on this article. You have consistently tried to remove any information that is critical of Baker. You (or other supporters) have also removed information on the Justice for Nick Baker site to minimise primary sources for the article (notably that Baker had been to Japan just two months before his arrest). In addition you have stalked me on the Metropolis (Japanese magazine) page, on the Omotesando Hills page. You are now seeking to discredit Metropolis circulation figures as part of your campaign to discredit the magazine.

So it's pretty clear you are a Nick Baker supporter, and that you are acting in bad faith. Sparkzilla 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never made any assumptions about your identity or leanings - please don't make any about mine. As for your claim of "stalking", I don't believe I have ever edited Metropolis, as you claim and a quick look at your user contributions shows you have edited nearly 30 separate articles - I have edited this one and one other. A total a two. Your claims are ridiculous and paranoid. David Lyons 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Devlin as a prominent supporter

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notability

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)

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)

Metropolis You yourself have introduced a description of Mr. Devlin's magazine for, as you say, "some perspective". Since it is quite important in this case to establish Metropolis' standing, I'm going to spend a little extra time here:

You state that the publication is "Japan's largest distribution English-language magazine". The Japan Audit Bureau of Circulations (JABC) web-site breaks publications down into quite small sections - and we find Metropolis under "free-papers" in the Kanto region along with 18 other publications. As far as I can see, Metropolis is in fact the ONLY English-language free paper - which would by default also make it the largest.

Metropolis' Wikipedia entry claims a circulation of 30,000 copies per week. Unfortunately, I can't find any supporting figures on the JABC web-site. Can you point me to them? I only ask because it seems that "Tokyo Classified", Mr Devlin's first incarnation, which was later renamed Metropolis, had some most unusual circulation figures:

Within six weeks of starting it was claiming 60,000 copies. This was then quoted as 45,000 copies on the companies own data sheet, this was reduced again on 17th December 1999 in a letter to a disquieted client, by Mr Devlin to under 40,000, and now Metropolis claims 30,000. A most surprising turn of events for a magazine that is supposed to be growing!

I have in front of me, the two issues containing the contentious articles relating the this case. Issue number 545 dated September 3rd 2004, and issue number 608 dated November 15th 2005.

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)

What we find here are two 64-page issues. A quick calculation shows that approximately 30% is advertising, including several glossy adverts for what might euphemistic be described as, "gentleman's entertainment" clubs, and escort services, and bars advertising "wet-t-shirt" competitions. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, and I'm sure strip-joint advertising commands premium advertising revenue, but it's not exactly the Sunday Times Colour Supplement, is it?

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)

One might imagine that the feature article (on Baker - the magazine's largest at 3 pages) might be entrusted to a seasoned journalist, unfortunately an empirical google search for "Authors Name" does not show up ANY entries at all outside of the magazine itself (let alone in reliable 3rd-party sources). Neither does Mr Devlin register on the journalistic excellence scale - he doesn't even describe himself as a journalist!

What I am getting at here is the overall quality of Mr Devlin's publication. Does it have editorial control, a history of fact-checking, reliable journalists? Sparkzilla, you have mis-represented this self-published source on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources talk page to receive the answers you got.

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)

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)

Anyhows, this case has gone to the mediaton cabel. David Lyons 05:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice: this article needs to abide by WP:BLP

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)

Citations

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

The Japanese Justice System and the 99.97% Conviction rate

I think this essay could be it's own article. --ElectricEye (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I think there is also an issue of undue weight here. Out of the many, many articles on TV, radio, newspapers and news web-sites, and I would point here to the many links on the Baker web-site, we can only find two critical articles - those which appear in Mr. Devlin's magazine. To create and maintain a whole Criticism section (and BTW the largest of the whole article!) based on these two articles alone shows at best a penchant for self-aggrandizement, or at worst, a very heavy undue weight bias. David Lyons 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the article gives undue weight to Baker's innocence. The fact that the support group withheld information that points to Baker's guilt is the most serious point of the article (which is why you want it removed so badly). Let me put it another way, the article is about a disputed conviction, therefore information that informs more about the actual circumstances of Baker's arrest is necessary, even if it is negative to Baker. This article is not an extension of Baker's support page. Sparkzilla 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my attempt at mediation failed, I will repeat here what I posted on the medcab page. One editor has already suggested condensing the criticism section and an admin (Jossi) has expressed concerns about whether the opinion of the person (in the criticism section) is significant enough to warrant so much space (at the last count word for word the largest section) in the article.

I have also alerted the NPOV discussion page so any authoritative editors there may offer guidance.

Since it has now been established that the op-ed and feature piece in Metropolis are reliable sources in this case, what we have to do now is access the weight to be given both them and also the spat between Devlin and Iris Baker.

It is a difficult task to access the weight that should be given to the "Criticism by Metropolis" section and the Devlin-Baker spat contained therein. Perhaps the most sensible approach would be to look at the op-ed piece and the feature articles separately (as they fall under different criteria as sources) and then deal with the Devlin-Baker spat. If anyone thinks this methodology flawed, please feel free to make alternative suggestions.

To access the op-ed piece we should look at the importance of the publisher's opinion and his relevant expertise pertaining to the case. To access the feature article we should look at the magazine's overall standing and also it's relative importance pertaining to the Baker case as a whole.

First I shall address the op-ed piece:

NPOV#Undue_weight policy states, and I have quoted only that which I believe relevant (please feel feel to quote further policy):

"...that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

and:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In it's strictest interpretation, it could be said that, as the opinion of only one person, Mr Devlin's viewpoint falls into the extremely small minority and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However, considering the questions of significance and prominence, it might be fair to include Mr Devlin's opinion.

Sparkzilla suggests that:

(paraphrased) the "opinion of the publisher of Japan's largest English-language magazine (with over 600 issues in a 12 year history), and the publisher of Japan's largest English news and current events discussion site...It is fair to assume that the publisher is:

1) "An expert on Japan-related issues."

2) "An expert on the Nick Baker case (Iris Baker confirms that he wrote a 30-page report on the case)."

3) "A reliable source when giving his opinion that a support group that he worked with has misled him."

1. I think there is a illogical leap of faith here. An analogy might be: My job: For example, I service passenger aircraft engines. I have been doing it a long time. I am an expert - does it mean I am also an expert on aero-dynamics? No. People might assume so, but you'd be surprised how very few engineers actually know anything about flying at all. What I am getting at here is that Mr Devlin is undoubtedly an expert on publishing a free-magazine in Japan, but I'd be happier to see some examples of Mr Devlin's work on Japan-related issues, before I can, in all faith, accept this claim.

2. Writing a 30-page report on a topic does not in and of itself makes one an expert on it. Indeed, the only reference we have to this unpublished, non peer-reviewed report is Iris Baker, who said it offered "Devlin's wild theories about Nick's case and support network.". Mr Devlin has not spoken to to Iris Baker, nor the main character, Nick Baker, nor his lawyer, he even turned-down an [| offer from Iris Baker] to meet and try to bridge the issues they were having. My understanding is that Mr Devlin, out of the many court hearings, attended the High-Court verdict and one other hearing (but left after 20 mins). I'm bound to say that I view this claim with skepticism and would characterise the report as OR.

3. Naturally, Mr Devlin is a reliable source for his own opinion! The issue here however is whether the opinion is significant and prominent enough to be included. I believe it is borderline and woould seek the opinion of others.

Next, I shall deal with Metropolis' general importance and also it's relative importance pertaining to the Baker case:

Metropolis is the largest certified-distribution English language free magazine in Japan with a history going back 12 years and a current circulation of 30,000 copies per week. The magazine comprises four sections: feature articles and interviews relevant to expatriate life in Japan; an extensive Tokyo events guide; bar and restaurant listings; and over 1000 classified ads each week. It features interviews with Japanese and foreign celebrities, and has included interviews with Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, footballer Nakata Hidetoshi and Peruvian ex-President Alberto Fujimori.

This Wikipedia article is about Mr Baker's arrest in Japan, his subsequent detention, trials and conviction. Also, his mother's "campaign for justice", human rights, translation/interpretation, the Japanese judicial and penal systems and other "issues" surrounding the case (which could perhaps include the "Criticism by Metropolis magazine" section). Metropolis published 2 features on Baker - one pro and one anti, for want of a better brief description, and one critical op-ed piece. The articles were published in 2004 and 2006 respectively.

Baker was arrested in 2002 and the campaign (still ongoing) started in 2003. The case is nearly 5 years old. It attracted considerable exposure in the UK mainstream-media (Baker is British) and exposure in Japan's English-language media (Links are on the main page). The campaign garnered the positive support of The Baroness Sarah Ludford (Member of the European Parliament), 6 Euro MP's, 2 British Members of Parliament, Stephen Jakobi O.B.E., the Registered Charity Fair Trials Abroad, the foreign Prisoner support service, a more than 5000 signature petition, Japanese members of the "Melbourne 5" and Professor Makiko Mizuno, linguists expert at Osaka's Senrikinran University. It also featured in an International Bar Association report on International Bar Association [| report]

Excepting the Metropolis article and a description of Mr Devlin's position in the Swindon advertiser, both the UK and Japanese reporting was either neutral or positive to Baker in tone (again see the external links section on the main page). Despite the fact that Metropolis is the only negative article, given the position of the magazine, I believe that it may have some merit and aspects of it can rightly be included in Wikipedia. Anyone want to weed-out the most salient points?

Devlin-Baker spat: I concur with Gbleem, this public mud-flinging match has little relevance to the piece and really has no place in an encyclopaedic entry.

In conclusion, I propose that although the critical op-ed piece is a reliable source, that it's inclusion in this BLP is borderline. Secondly, that Metropolis feature does seem to have more merit and aspects of it might be included. The Devlin-Baker spat doesn't warrant inclusion at all. David Lyons 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Undue weight: 2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.

Viewpoint = Baker is not telling the truth

held by = probably the MAJORITY of the public : http://www.japantoday.com/jp/vote/172

Prominent Adherent=Devlin

Baker-Devlin spat is verifiable with third-party source. It's not unreasonable to follow the story. Publisher accuses mother - mother accuses publisher - publisher defends. I really don't think you will be able to remove it, however I have proposed a shortened version on the article's talk page. Sparkzilla 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the poll:

Non-independently-verifiable

Only 750 or so respondents

Only 2 question choices

Conducted on an anonymous discussion site

Demographic - a Japan-related web-site

This could not by any means be described as an accurate reflection of "probably the MAJORITY of the public". Who are the prominent adherentS (plural) and who are the significant minority? Also, if you have any compromises can we keep the discussion here please, otherwise it gets difficult to follow. Thanks. David Lyons 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are going to find it very difficult to convince people that a poll on a major Japan news site about a Japan-related issue is not a reasonable indicator of sentiment towards the case. In fact, is the only independent data that exists about public sentiment towards the case. Please remember the poll was taken BEFORE Devlin's editorial, and that, if anything, the results would be even more negative now. It is Baker's supporters who are in the minority.

Minor points: most polls are anonymous. Number of question choices is not important.

For your information, it only takes a sampling of 400 or so respondents to estimate the sentiment of large populations with low margin of error (plus or minus 5%). Polls at election time are taken from samples of around 1000 people -- for a whole country.

Try using the calculators on this page: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm For example, if you asked a sample of 750 people in a city of 250,000 people whether Baker was guilty or innocent and 55.8% said he was guilty, you can be very certain that between 59.3% and 52.3% of all the people in the city think he is guilty (confidence internval of 3.5%).

As for the revised text for the "spat" please just answer yes no or try your own version on the talk page, a more appropriate venue than here, There is simply is no need for mediation in this case. Sparkzilla 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything - it is just simply your supposition to assume that I am. A Japan-related issue you say - what about the UK? What about the more than 5,000 people who signed in support of Baker?

Demographics again. You talk about a Japan-based issue - well, the majority of Japanese don't go to English-language news sites. As Devlin says in his blog [[3]] referring to Crisscross before it was reverted back to Japan Today "50% of our readership originates from the U.S". Is this really a Japan-based poll? This is not independent data from a reputable statistical resource.

Since no poll was taken after Devlin's editorial, it is again simply your supposition to assume that a poll would be more negative now.

Regarding the number of questions - of course they are important - no well constructed poll would phrase the complexity of the issue in such simplistic terms - Basically "guilty or innocent". There wasn't even a "don't know" option!

Indeed, as you say, most polls are conducted in an anonymous manner - by professional statistical organizations. Whatever Japan Today may be, an expert statistics source it is not.

You are furthermore neglecting those who don't have internet connections, as well as those don't speak English in Japan (the MAJORITY). What about those who might be passionate about human rights, et al, but are unaware of Japan today?

This was not a poll conducted in a professional statisitcal manner. It is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Finally, don't try to force my hand in a snap decision, insisting I give a yes/no answer to your compromise. As I originally said after giving my original opinion, I will canvas others input on the "spat". David Lyons 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby's case is rather close to Baker's. A poll [4], conducted by the marketing firm ACNeilsen, factored the following into their poll of 1401 people (of course the questions don't relate exactly to Baker's case, but you get the idea):

A range of questions:

(Trial)

• Very fair
• Fair
• Unfair
• Very unfair
• No opinion/neutral

(Innocence/guilt)

• "Probably" Innocent
• Probably or definitely guilty
• No opinion/neutral

(Further classification)

• Women/Men
• Young/old
• Political leaning
• Likely-hood of future travel to Bali
• Government assistance

Anyway, I don't feel further discussion of the JT poll is merited.David Lyons 04:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

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)

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)

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)

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) As to the three questions... 1) Sometimes. 2) Usually. 3) Sometimes. As they relate to the specific article in question... 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes Blueboar 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Detention section

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)

Reactions to trials

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)

Sources

In order to ascertain the validity of sources used, pleae change all URLs to the cite web format. This will result in a much easier way to see what are the sources used.

Example:

<ref> {{cite web |url= http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/608/feature.asp |title= Trial and error |accessdate=2007-01-12 |publisher= [[Metropolis (Japanese magazine)]] |date= date unknown }} </ref>

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure how to do that, thanks for the heads up. Sparkzilla 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed most of the inline citations to the web format citations, but I am not sure what to do when the same source is referenced twice in the same article. For example, originally at the end of the the criticism section there were three links to the Metropolis article, but that looked like too much in the references section, so I changed it to a single reference. Is that the correct way to do it?

Also, what happens when the source is used in two different sections of the article page? Sparkzilla 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

click the "edit this page" tab to see an example This is at the edge of my skill level - no promises - try one first SmithBlue 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

In the first instance of the footnote, you add: name=xxxxx like this:

• <ref name=xxxxx>{{cite web}}</ref>

For all other instances you simply use <ref name=xxxxx /> (</ref> is only used on the first instance). See WP:CITE#HOW. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will try to finish the citations over the next few days. Sparkzilla 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

External links section

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)

Rename page to Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jossi#Nick_Baker_.28chef.29 Sparkzilla 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

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)

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)

Everything should go to the references section. You can follow the examples in the page. Sparkzilla 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some of the section, so now only need citations for here:

The defense also argued that the "Belgian Evidence" and Baker's tax returns should have been admitted in the lower court. [citation needed] 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.

Sparkzilla 06:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Radley College

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)

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)

Baker-Devlin Spat Proposal

Before

In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site.[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)

Could you move this over to medcab, where there is a space for compromise suggestions, please? David Lyons 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in mediation. Please respond here. Sparkzilla 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why have you responded several times on the mediation page and also tried to accuse me of bad faith on the NPOV talk page? David Lyons 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of pages from Internet Archive

Before contemplating the removal of sources from the Internet Archive (notably the appeal defence pdf), it should be considered that the only person authorised to remove pages from the Internet archive is the site owner who, according to the whois record, is Iris Baker [5]

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)

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)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Medcab requires both parties to agree to mediation. Since Sparkzilla refuses, as far as I am concerned, it is closed. David Lyons 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You want me to post on the talk page where there already is a consensus against the whole Metropolis section? When you yourself even refuse to participate in a mediation about that topic? Heatedissuepuppet 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed user talk page discussion

Removed a CoI discussion originally held on my talk page and wholesale copy & pasted here by Sparkzilla. It gave the impression it was originally discussed here, was out of context and further, contains material not compatible with an article talk page. Removed material. I have added a further explanation to Sparkzilla's talk page. David Lyons 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This information does not belong to you, and you cannot remove it. It is germane to the discussion of your CoI regarding Nick Baker, and to the discussion of Baker in general. Just keep reminding yourself - is this really what I want to be doing with your time? Sparkzilla 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you want to hide this information so much. You deleted it both from your own talk page, and are trying to delete it here. The truth is that you are down to arguing about ONE sentence in this article, but you simply can't stop fighting because your life is so sad that you can't stop. Sparkzilla 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"...but you simply can't stop fighting because your life is so sad that you can't stop" is an example of what shouldn't appear on this talk page. Originally, at the beginning of this section, few lines above here, I put a link to the material - that doesn't seem like the action of someone trying to hide information. I will add here what I put on Sparkzilla's talk page as further explanation:

The assertion "This information does not belong to you, and you cannot remove it." is disingenuous. User Sparkzilla has removed text placed here in WP that was released by copyright holders asserting that the text inclusion here at WP violated copyright laws. The text USER:Sparkzilla removed certainly did not belong to User:Sparkzilla and that user removed it with false--demonstrably false--accusations of copyright violation. User:Sparkzill has a long history of running roughshod over WP guidelines and making false accusations. --Malangthon 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, In future, if you wish to ref whole discussions - link to them, that way it is clear to all where and in which context it was held. For example, in this case the original discussion started under the title "You requested mediation" on my user talk page and ended up as "Conflict of Interest"on Nick Baker's page. Please also bear in mind that material that might appear on a user talk page may contain material incompatible with an article talk page. As a reminder:

• The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

• Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

• No personal attacks. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.

Bearing that in mind, please feel free to join in for some constructive discussion. Thank you.

Thanks. David Lyons 06:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So here you are arguing about arguing - kind of proves my point don't you think. You obviously have NOTHING better to do in your life than come here and try to get some attention from me. You remind me of that quote by Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. The sad thing is that you still think that somehow there's a way you can win. You can't. You lost a long, long time ago. It's over -- get a life. Sparkzilla 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping copies of this specific user's correspondence, Sparkzilla. He/she/it makes quite a few claims alleging abuse by other users here on WP and obviously is of the opinion that he/it/she is immune to the same rules of civility. The great thing is, eventually this person will lead WP into a libel suit because he/she/it is occasionally accusing others of breaking real laws--made through real treaties by real legislative bodies--that are subject to real penalties. WP has been informed of this recklessness and that records are being kept. And I am making a record of it all. Malangthon 14:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question re notability

I wouldn't go so far as to question the notability of the subject, but the phrase " Baker's story was reported on to some extent by western media, but almost completely ignored by Japanese-language media" does lead one to query this. Also, wouldn't a better title be "Nick Baker (Japanese prisoner)"? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 11:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should judge the subject of an article's notability by the intro, but by what the rest of the article reports. One of the "notable" facets of this subject is that, although Baker's story has been reported on by several major media outlets in the west, the Japanese press has ignored it. This in and of itself is notable because it begs the question of why this would be so, and if it is part of a larger pattern. Cla68 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have a problem with the current title "prisoner in Japan". It is not very future proof, since he is presumably not going to be a prisoner forever. "Japanese prisoner" is equally problematic as it suggests Baker's nationality could be Japanese. How about Nick Baker (convicted in Japan) or, Nick Baker (imprisoned in Japan)? David Lyons 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have tried several revisions of the title in the past and "prisoner in Japan" seems the most simple and basic description that disambiguates this Baker from others and points to his notability. "Japanese prisoner" doesn't work because he's not Japanese.

Regarding future-proofness: When he is released he will still be notable as having been a prisoner in Japan, unless he makes some bigger news in some way. Even if Michael Jackson retired, he would still have been known as an entertainer. Even then he would be Michael Jackson (entertainer) compared with Michael Jackson (English actor). See Michael Jackson (disambiguation).

"Convicted in Japan" and "imprisoned in Japan" are also problematic for disambiguation. If we write "Nick Baker (imprisoned in Japan) it might lead people to think that it applied to a time when the other Nick Baker was imprisoned Japan. "Prisoner in Japan" relates to Baker himself, not to actions that have been taken against him. It begs the question of who imprisoned him, who convicted him, which could be seen as NPOV. It's better, and probably policy, to use passive voice in titles. Perhaps someone could find the relevant guideline and ask to ask there...Sparkzilla 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Sparkzilla makes sense with his reasoning for the current title. "Nick Baker (convicted drug smuggler)" is probably a little too POV. Cla68 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or just (prisoner)?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Why don't we move the other Nick Baker article to: "Nick Baker (naturalist)" and make this one the straight "Nick Baker" article? Cla68 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)