Talk:Nicholas John Baker/Archive 1

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."