Kimpatriciabax (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
::I removed it, and I also removed a similarly inappropriate opinion in the same section that was an unattributed opinion saying she would be convicted in most countries based on the evidence. Both of these snippets are [[POV]] problems. Let's just stick to the facts, rather than the media's commentary on it. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
::I removed it, and I also removed a similarly inappropriate opinion in the same section that was an unattributed opinion saying she would be convicted in most countries based on the evidence. Both of these snippets are [[POV]] problems. Let's just stick to the facts, rather than the media's commentary on it. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::There is a lot uncited material in the article, or flimsily sourced. I intend to clean it up ASAP. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 09:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
::There is a lot uncited material in the article, or flimsily sourced. I intend to clean it up ASAP. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 09:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
I've replaced some original lines, thus: |
|||
"The weight of Schapelle's bag was crucial evidence at this point. If it weighed more in Bali than it did when it was checked in at Brisbane, that fact would have supported Schapelle's claims, but the Bali police and customs failed to collect this vital data." |
|||
. . . because, obviously, if the bag weighed more in Bali, than it did in Australia, the fact of Schapelle's innocence was nailed immediately. That fact cannot be overemphasised. I've also replaced the reference to the Bali 9, thus: |
|||
"in contrast to the arrest of the Bali 9" |
|||
Because it's a clear fact that's also pointedly referenced in the Channel 9 programme. Now guys, unlike you, I don't get paid to sit around on a computer all day - and I'll make this point perfectly clear to you now, which is that I am not replacing these edits again, however, I AM screen capturing them. So you allowing this perfectly valid information on Wikipedia is great, but it's also great if you don't - because, from now on, I will be doing quite a bit of work on this page, and while minor semantics are no quibble, removing (so to speak), the guts from information IS a problem. I'll also be recording the time interval of each removal, thus clearly demonstrating the intense scrutiny this page is under, from people who refuse to reveal their agenda or background, but who have also been heavily involved in editing the information on John Howard's page. I've also created a separate information file on my computer, to collate, collect and time all these screen captures - and when the proverbial hits the fan, reaching far wider audience than this page ever will, all the evidence will be clearly available. Either way, it's no skin off my nose. In effect, you either allow this historically referenced material to remain, and retain the guts of its meaning - or my file will be getting bigger each day, thus rendering this page useless as any kind "Trusted" source once the major publicity that's in the pipeline hits the streets. It will also have the effect of undermining Wikipedia as a whole (due to the high profile nature of Schapelle's issues, which will be getting than Ben Hur, trust me on that one), and very probably spark rather intense journalistic probes into exactly who you characters are. Because by then, it won't just be me on your tail, there will be sh*t loads of people asking the same questions.[[User:Kimpatriciabax|Kimpatriciabax]] ([[User talk:Kimpatriciabax|talk]]) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Inconsistency With Michael Corby Death == |
== Inconsistency With Michael Corby Death == |
Revision as of 14:18, 3 January 2011
![]() | Biography B‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Australia: Crime B‑class Mid‑importance ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Ron Bakir
Hi. It seems that an IP has taken issue with "Ron Bakir, a Gold Coast entrepreneur and discharged bankrupt ..." and wants to remove the bankruptcy claim. There have been no edit summaries, and it is well sourced, so I can understand the reverts. However, thinking about it, I'm not sure why it is included. It seems relevant to Ron Bakir's bio, but not to Corby's, given that the bankruptcy seems to have nothing to do with Corby's case. Am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is relevant, in that two Bakir companies had collapsed but Bakir was seeking to establish Schapelle Corby Pty Ltd and fund Corby's defence. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Clemency conditions
The lead says "she may petition for clemency from Indonesia's president, but would have to admit guilt to do so," but according to this report, Corby's lawyer has recently petitioned for clemency without his client admitting guilt: "The judges have different opinions but of course I still submitted this clemency request, stating that Schapelle's innocent." Should we add "usually" to the lead, i.e., "she may petition for clemency from Indonesia's president, but convicts usually have to admit guilt to do so."? Or what? RomaC TALK 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Boogie Board?
Should be changed to Body Board. 61.69.206.68 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Problems with "facts"
So, you two (WWGB and the IP editor) probably saw that I made a small edit a few days ago (removing "alleged" from the article); I've been watching the edits since, but thought things were going okay, until I saw the report pop up on WP:ANI today. Let me first state by saying I do not believe it is wrong to say that she is "an Australian convicted drug smuggler". Having said that, I have to as WWGB--do you actually think it's "wrong" do say that she is "an Australian convicted of drug smuggling"? In other words, my question is, even if "drug smuggler" is okay, do you think "drug smuggling" does not match the facts of the situation? If that's the only concern remaining, then I would personally argue that we should leave the lead sentence as it is now, as I believe it's still correct at "of drug smuggling."
That said, are there any other parts of the article that you two are currently disagreeing about? I am happy to help provide more opinions and/or mediate more of a dispute. I think there are other sections of the article that can be improved, but I'm more interested in hearing where the two of you stand right not. Please note you don't have to accept my offer of help, nor do I have any special qualifications to do so. But since I already made one edit...as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I too thought things were OK until the bizarre complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WWGB_-_attack_page? (and the attack page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WWGB). I strongly believe in WP:STATUSQUO - you don't make changes unless they are for the betterment of the article. The changes made by a new IP, with no previous edit history, were based on "she has always maintained her innocence" whereas in fact she was declared guilty by a court of law and hence IS a drug smuggler. The article was totally correct before the IP's edit, so I prosecuted its retention. As the matter was heading towards Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars I just walked away. Then Special:Contributions/Reporter99 rode in on his steed ..... WWGB (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the harm is in stating that "she was found guilt of drug smuggling" rather than saying "she is a convicted drug smuggler". The only thing we really know for sure is what the court found - we don't know that she did or didn't do it. For the record, I personally think Corby is more than likely "guilty". And, while I understand his point - and I am even leaning to agree with him - User:Reporter99 has gone completely over the top in making his point. Perhaps he can be forgiven this time as he appears to be new, but using WP:ANI before an article talk page is not the way to go (and is clearly stated).--Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ideally, I'd like to see the judgment of the Indonesian authorities treated no differently than the judgment of any other court. However, this tends to lead to rather boring edit wars and personally I am fine with "Australian convicted of drug smuggling".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- That made me think it might help (although not be definitive) to look to other cases, including US cases, where the verdict is widely disputed. The only first I thought of was Mumia Abu-Jamal, and his page uses the phrasing similar to the IPs ("s an American convicted and sentenced to death for the December 9, 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner"). The only other I could think of was Aung San Suu Kyi; her lead only mentions her as being under house arrest without any mention of her alleged crimes. Now, I don't mean to compare Corby to Suu Kyi in terms of the obviousness of the charges being false, but I'm at a loss for other examples. Can anyone think of other people convicted but held (by some) to be innocent that we could use for comparison? Possibly Pete Bethune, whose page also uses the "convicted of crime x" formula.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although, mind you, if everyone else is content with "smuggling," then we needn't even go to any effort.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about Lori Berenson? Very similar language.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Although, mind you, if everyone else is content with "smuggling," then we needn't even go to any effort.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- That made me think it might help (although not be definitive) to look to other cases, including US cases, where the verdict is widely disputed. The only first I thought of was Mumia Abu-Jamal, and his page uses the phrasing similar to the IPs ("s an American convicted and sentenced to death for the December 9, 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner"). The only other I could think of was Aung San Suu Kyi; her lead only mentions her as being under house arrest without any mention of her alleged crimes. Now, I don't mean to compare Corby to Suu Kyi in terms of the obviousness of the charges being false, but I'm at a loss for other examples. Can anyone think of other people convicted but held (by some) to be innocent that we could use for comparison? Possibly Pete Bethune, whose page also uses the "convicted of crime x" formula.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ideally, I'd like to see the judgment of the Indonesian authorities treated no differently than the judgment of any other court. However, this tends to lead to rather boring edit wars and personally I am fine with "Australian convicted of drug smuggling".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
January 2011 discussion
There's no section on the alleged insider corruption at the time Schapelle flew, as clearly referenced by the Sydney Morning Herald, quoting Ray Cooper, former Chief of Internal Investigations for the Australian Federal Police: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afp-involved-in-drug-smuggling-exdetective/2005/05/08/1115491036872.html
Plus referenced again in this Sydney Morning Herald article, quoting The Australian Federal Police:
"Federal police say "it is a recognised criminal activity" for drug dealers to use innocent travellers as unsuspecting "mules". They have arrested baggage handlers at Sydney Airport for the offence. Drugs are inserted in luggage at one airport and a photograph of the target bag and its tag are emailed to the destination airport, where baggage handlers recover the drugs before the passenger collects the bag." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/04/1109700677359.html
Considering these are mainstream news reports, quoting impeccable sources, is there anyone here willing to dance around on the head of a pin (again), trying to explain to the World why they should not be included. I await responses with some amusement . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And in the "Arrest" section, shouldn't it be clearly described that the Bali customs officers failed to weigh Schapelle's bags, to compare that to the Brisbane check-in weight? That Sydney Morning Herald article, "Weighing the Evidence," (above), also clearly references and describes those events. Anyone here want to "Object" to that? I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Further, that Sydney Morning Herald article, "Weighing the Evidence," also extensively cites the fact all the physical evidence was burnt by the Indonesians, without forensic testing - as does this ABC Australia article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1594624.htm
So folks, as that seems to be another omission here, where do you think it should be included? Do you think it needs a new section? I mean, there's huge gaps in this Wikipedia entry . . . and every single point is thoroughly referenced in mainstream news reports . . .
1. Coals to Newscastle (extensive references already provided)
2. Alleged insider corruption (references provided)
3. Weighing the evidence. (references provided)
4. No forensic testing of the evidence, and burning of the same before appeals were exhausted (references provided)
Or is there a pattern of omissions emerging here? I would like a comprehensive response on each point I've numbered, as to why they should "Not" be included please (or maybe you, whoever "You" are, agrees these points should be added) . . . though silence from the anonymous mob here will be just as eloquent (and telling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
My, everyone's gone quiet - I think those suggestions above would be a huge improvement on this Wikipedia entry - and some "Admin" here did write that he wanted to "Improve" it . . . ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just added some updated info to the entry, if someone could tidy it up by adding the citations in the correct way, that would be very much appreciated (they're all mainstream news reports). However, as I don't expect the changes I've made to "Stay" without deletion, I thought it would be useful to make them explicit for the screen capture. And for convenience, here they are (in order): http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/julia-gillard-backs-clemency-for-schapelle-corby/story-e6frewmr-1225898705646
http://www.smh.com.au/world/corby-wont-survive-bali-jail-psychiatrist-warns-20090824-ewlz.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/04/1109700677359.html
http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/default.asp
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2506/keyarticle2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has the "Accidental Drug Mule" article been deleted? This article is no longer available on line, and it's also referenced here, if anyone doubts it:
http://www.phaseloop.com/foreignprisoners/news-australia/news-aust102.html
Plus (of course), once any reader of the entry has that info, they can easily check it out, and retrieve the original article from the newspaper in question for a very small fee (like I did). Maybe you'd prefer that citation above, that I've just added? No problems with that if you do. Further, although this was not a "Domestic" shipment, it's still highly relevant, because it did involve the same baggage handling crew that dealt with Schapelle's luggage - the two planes were even on the tarmac at exactly the same time (according to FOI information that has been retrieved). Also very sincere thanks for adding most of the citations in the correct manner. Your help and interest is very much appreciated, I note it's now 12.28 pm (Monday 3rd Jan 2011), here in Queensland Australia. Let's hope the amended record is maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Also very sincere thanks ... Your help and interest is very much appreciated, " - see, it's not that hard to be nice! thanks. (By the way, please please please sign your posts on Talk pages - just add four tilda's "~" on simply click the sig button above the edit box. )--Merbabu (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was removed as a contributory copyright violation: the policy is that we can't link directly to copyright violations. You can provide the full reference, though, and it can then be accessed via a Google search or through the commercial news archives. - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "drug mule" matter is already covered in the article at Schapelle Corby#Alleged involvement of baggage handlers including a working link [2] with similar content to the dead link. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation, though now you have an "Undead" link (in the form of a screen capture of the article, with newspaper and date details added, plus of course, the other one I provided), perhaps you could amend it as appropriate? I'll leave that at your discretion. And Merbabu honey, I'm always ready to kiss and make up (said with a pleasant smile, and no hard feelings). These little spats do occur from time to time . . . Kimpatriciabax (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bilby, I'll bear that in mind Kimpatriciabax (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we could use the screen grab as a reference, however, I think the SMH article [3] is more appropriate as it mentions both Hurley and Corby directly, whereas the DT article makes no mention of Corby. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on their connection to the case, including who made the allegations, who said the points were relevant, and who's opinions we are considering. If they were key points in the trial, then certainly they can be included in principal. If they were someone's opinion, then it is less clear. Was it a just a journalist's opinion? In my books, justifications such as the recently offered "is obviously very relevant to this Wikipedia entry" or "anyone with half a brain can see the relevance", don't cut it as criteria for inclusion.--Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again guys (girls?), you’re certainly a speedy and efficient group when it comes to the techie stuff and adding citations appropriately. Very much appreciated. I’ve just added these words in the “Prima facie case” section, maybe you could work your magic again?:
“However, Article 66 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Codes (KUHAP) states: “The onus of proof is NOT on the Defendant" ("On trial: Australian media for undermining Schappelle" Civil Liberties Australia, July 10 2008). Roger Anthony Smith, an Australian trained lawyer with many years of experience in Indonesia ("Equality over-balanced is discrimination in reverse" Civil Liberties Australia, May 14 2008), said "Given that no one has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either her guilt or her innocence, then she must be freed. This is a fundamental principle of any legal system." ("On trial: Australian media for undermining Schappelle" Civil Liberties Australia, July 10 2008).”
Here are the links associated with the references I’ve used (from Civil Liberties Australia), scroll down to the bottom of the second link to access the bio info of Roger Anthony Smith:
http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/opinion/2008/on-trial-australian-media-for-underminin
http://www.cla.asn.au/0805/index.php/articles/2008/equality-over-balanced-is-discrimination-1
Kimpatriciabax (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've wikified the Smith response to The Australian, however, I don't agree with the Smith article which is basically a blog/personal opinion and appeared only to be used to justify his qualifications, which are clearly evident anyway. WWGB (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it, and I also removed a similarly inappropriate opinion in the same section that was an unattributed opinion saying she would be convicted in most countries based on the evidence. Both of these snippets are POV problems. Let's just stick to the facts, rather than the media's commentary on it. --Merbabu (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a lot uncited material in the article, or flimsily sourced. I intend to clean it up ASAP. --Merbabu (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced some original lines, thus:
"The weight of Schapelle's bag was crucial evidence at this point. If it weighed more in Bali than it did when it was checked in at Brisbane, that fact would have supported Schapelle's claims, but the Bali police and customs failed to collect this vital data."
. . . because, obviously, if the bag weighed more in Bali, than it did in Australia, the fact of Schapelle's innocence was nailed immediately. That fact cannot be overemphasised. I've also replaced the reference to the Bali 9, thus:
"in contrast to the arrest of the Bali 9"
Because it's a clear fact that's also pointedly referenced in the Channel 9 programme. Now guys, unlike you, I don't get paid to sit around on a computer all day - and I'll make this point perfectly clear to you now, which is that I am not replacing these edits again, however, I AM screen capturing them. So you allowing this perfectly valid information on Wikipedia is great, but it's also great if you don't - because, from now on, I will be doing quite a bit of work on this page, and while minor semantics are no quibble, removing (so to speak), the guts from information IS a problem. I'll also be recording the time interval of each removal, thus clearly demonstrating the intense scrutiny this page is under, from people who refuse to reveal their agenda or background, but who have also been heavily involved in editing the information on John Howard's page. I've also created a separate information file on my computer, to collate, collect and time all these screen captures - and when the proverbial hits the fan, reaching far wider audience than this page ever will, all the evidence will be clearly available. Either way, it's no skin off my nose. In effect, you either allow this historically referenced material to remain, and retain the guts of its meaning - or my file will be getting bigger each day, thus rendering this page useless as any kind "Trusted" source once the major publicity that's in the pipeline hits the streets. It will also have the effect of undermining Wikipedia as a whole (due to the high profile nature of Schapelle's issues, which will be getting than Ben Hur, trust me on that one), and very probably spark rather intense journalistic probes into exactly who you characters are. Because by then, it won't just be me on your tail, there will be sh*t loads of people asking the same questions.Kimpatriciabax (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Inconsistency With Michael Corby Death
In the Michael Corby section of the article, it states,
"Michael Corby died of bowel cancer on 18 January 2008.[70]
In July 2008, the Lateline program reported allegations that Corby's father had been involved in transporting drugs to Bali three weeks before her arrest. Michael Corby denied ever being a drug dealer.[71][72][73] In September, 2008, Lateline aired an apology for the allegations.[74]"
The statements in bold contradict each other when it comes to event dates. How can Michael deny anything in July if he's was deceased in January? Can someone look up to the proper dates for these events please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.190.233 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Exposing the censorship on Wikipedia . . .
Collapsing excessive soapboxing
|
---|
http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com/2010/12/schapelle-corby-wikipedia-censorship.html span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.82.161 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Is there anyone on this page prepared to offer a logical explanation, as to why a crucial United Nations Report, relevant to to year Schapelle flew, which clearly shows that (at that time), Marijuana sold in Bali for 39 cents a gram (Australian), and in Australia for $A40 a gram, has been continuously deleted? Further, there is no evidence, admissible in any court of law, which shows "Australian" marijuana sold in Bali for more than $A40 a gram. No formal organisation (anywhere in the World), documents this alleged "Trade," and no person, other than Schapelle, has been convicted of taking a commercial amount of marijuana FROM Australia, TO Bali. This shows that either every border cop in Bali and Australia is blind and stupid, and every security measure completely ineffective (given the bulk and pungency of the drug), or the trade just not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.82.161 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about WWGB? If you have any problems with those figures, I suggest you look up pages 233 and 234 of the United Nations 2007 World Drug Report, coupled with a quick check of the exchange rate at the time (US to Australian dollars). The rate was around $A1.30 to $US1.00 then So I guess no-one has ever accused you of being that bright either . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Why are have these further comments of mine been deleted? http://img574.imageshack.us/img574/7285/wikidiscussionjpeg.jpg Because I will continue to add them, as often necessary, until someone here responds to my question about why very relevant United Nations reports are being censored from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.82.161 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, someone seems to have locked additions to this Wikipedia entry, so as soon as "They," who ever "They" are, unlock it, I will politely add details of this 2007 United Nations Report, in the most appropriate section (which one do you suggest?): http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/wdr07/WDR_2007.pdf . . . which quite clearly states the price of marijuana in Indonesia, in 2005 (on page 233): http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5152/extractunindojpeg.jpg As well as the price of marijuana in Australia, that same year (page 234): http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8899/extractunjpeg.jpg And as for Matthew Moore's article about "Aussie Gold," it should be noted that he claims it sold in Bali for $A600 an ounce, which translates to $A21 a gram, still $A19 a gram less than marijuana was selling in Australia at that time. Further, Matthew Moore's article contains not a single verifiable or named source - and I have also corresponded with Moore's immediate boss, Peter Kerr (by telephone & email), asking him to correct that, and provide some verifiable and/or official sources for that article. He has refused to do so. So pointing out the $A600 an ounce anomaly in that article, plus the indisputable fact there is not a single verifiable source in it, is not "Pro" or "Against" anything, it's simply the truth - or does anyone here wish to argue with the United Nations?
From my own (very extensive), research I must agree with the above poster. The overall quality of this Wikipedia entry is appalling. There is a huge amount of verifiable and extremely well referenced material that is just not included here. Here's my own efforts, and every single point has a verifiable citation: http://www.womenforschapelle.org/womenforschapelle/evidencefile.html In future, I think anyone adding info on this page should take a screen grab, and maintain that record as living history (for future publication), of the manipulation that appears to be going on - and I say "Appears" for a very good reason, e.g. the glaring disparity between my own, very well referenced material, and the information available at this Wikipedia entry. They're just World's apart - and from the level of very well informed support Schapelle has, I know beyond any reasonable doubt people would have tried to add that information here. But if their experience was anything like mine, deletion without explanation or discussion (within seconds each time), then I'm not surprised they gave up and went away. So, will all other contributors please note, when adding info or comments to this page, at all times, I will take a screen grab - and I will (at all times), provide impeccable citations and research.
UN article = synthethisMention of the UN document has no place in this article on Corby. No doubt it is a fine document and well researched and written - but, it doesn't mention the Corby case (at least as far as I can tell). It's inclusion would therefore be pure synthesis which is original research. Ie, the use of an unrelated text would be creating our own arguments, which while possibly well-intentioned, is not objectivity or neutrality - this is original research and thus against one of the most basic of wikipedia principals. It doesn't matter what part of the article it appears in. If you don't like this, then wikipedia is not the place for you. --Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I have re-amended the link that was posted at the top of this section: http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com/2010/12/schapelle-corby-wikipedia-censorship.html . . . as somebody had vandalised it by making it read "Lesbians for Lifers." Firstly, is that acceptable on Wikipedia? And secondly, why was that not deleted (until I did it), when United Nations reports are being routinely deleted here (within minutes)? That's my first point. My second point is that I have responded to Merbabu within that blog post, where his/her comments have also been reproduced, so I won't repeat myself again. Just read the link. Thirdly, it's a matter of public record, via news reports on the BBC, that political manipulation of Wikipedia exists. Now, I have absolutely no problem making my real name public, plus my profession, and employer. My name is Kim Bax, I'm a Registered Nurse, and I work for Queensland Health. I'm also one of the founding member of Women of Schapelle. Would anyone else here, involved in deleting comments and banning users from posting, like to be so transparent? The point I'm making is that no-one here can claim to be neutral, or without a point of view. The crux of the matter is a willingness to be open about affiliations, because for all I (or anyone else knows), the people deleting and banning people here have backgrounds which make them far from "Impartial" (as the BBC article in that blog post makes very clear). So this is an invitation to come out into the open, but I won't hold my breath waiting. Some people prefer to hide in the dark. So of course I have a "Point of view" (same as anybody else, as much as they like to deny it), but I'm also willing to act within the guidelines here - and if "Original" research is not allowed, so be it. And if it's not acceptable for anyone to make pointed comments, connecting two relevant citations (thus "Synthesising" them), then that's fine too. So mentioning the newspaper articles (about the alleged price of marijuana in Bali at the time of Schapelle flew), is obviously very relevant to this Wikipedia entry - as is the United Nations document which gives absolute confirmation of it. Absolutely, I won't "Synthesise," or make any personal comments connecting the two - however, anyone with half a brain can draw their own conclusions - because I certainly don't need to do it for them by "Synthesising." PS - I've also screened grabbed these comments, and added the link (at that blog post, scroll to the bottom). As for Schapelle's mental state, which someone has referred to above, she has been diagnosed as psychotically depressed by Dr. Jonathan Philips, a past president of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, plus the the former chief of South Australia's mental health services. A simple Google search using that information will confirm it, via multiple reliable references. As a psychiatric nurse myself (RN), qualified since 1978, and currently still working in the area, I can tell you a psychotic depression is hugely different to just being a "Bit blue," but again, anyone wishing to explore and/or confirm this can just do a simple Google search on "psychotic depression." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Bilby, for sake of brevity on this page (and clarity), I've reproduced your comments, and clearly replied to them all (in detail), at this link - my "Reply" is in red: http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/8182/myreplyjpeg.jpg I've also added this ongoing discussion to my blog post (scroll down to the bottom paragraph, and see the links): http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com/2010/12/schapelle-corby-wikipedia-censorship.html Further, it's rather entertaining to witness the anonymous (and previously unaccountable), censors here squirming around for any old "Argument" they can get their hands on, to defend the indefensible. I'm reminded of priests, debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I note (again), not a single person here, except me, is willing to be upfront about who they are, and who pays their wages. What's that saying, "He who pays the piper, calls the tune." While this situation stands, as far as any serious political issues are concerned, Wikipedia is a complete joke - useful for discussion of (for instance), the life cycle of the fruit fly, and similar, but not much else. While the likes of Murdoch et al might be trashy and biased, at least you know who you're dealing with. Bottom line is Bilby, I think I've thoroughly addressed every single one of your "Concerns," and the wider community, who are not involved in your rather bizarre contortions, will grasp my points immediately. And the other bottom line (now I've reasonably and thoroughly responded to your "Objections"), is that I will be adding a "Coals to Newcastle" section to the Wikipedia article, as soon as I'm able, and as described and suggested on my blog post. I don't for one moment think it's going to stay there without deletion, but then (of course), that blatant censorship will eventually be evident to a far wider audience than this rather dank and unaccountable corner of the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) PS "Bilby," the anonymous - as for your "Ex-pat marijuana trade" theory, it's already been thoroughly trashed via a great deal of background research, see points 1 & 2: http://www.womenforschapelle.org/womenforschapelle/evidencefile.html So, be my guest, get on the blower (or the email), to the United Nations and ask them why they haven't "Covered" it. You'll probably get very short shrift . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Article Corruption & ManagementThey used to be even more crude about managing articles like this. Read how the Howard government operated until they were caught: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443430.php http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2014471.htm Obviously they learned from that, and now use a variety of proxies and affiliates to do it. You can sniff them out quite easily - they are the sort who are always here, editing out facts which are supportive of Schapelle Corby. Just look at the article, and compare it with what we know, even her current mental state, or the human rights abuses at the who trial, or the known corruption within the AFP (drug smuggling!), and so on. Just try to start adding stuff like that and see how far you get. Reverted, usually within minutes. This article is an obscenity. A piece of cheap propaganda obscuring the facts. It brings Wikipedia into absolute disrepute. 217.42.156.123 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh AFP corruption, yes, I recall, you mean the allegations of Ray Cooper, former Chief of Internal Investigations for the Australian Federal Police. Interesting SMH article that . . . I wonder why that article's never made it into this Wikipedia entry, it explicitly mentions Schapelle, and cites a highly credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please be respectful Merbabu, it's not "Corby," it's "Ms Corby" or "Schapelle." It's also gratifying to know you've checked out the Facebook page. Further still, none of the members of "Women for Schapelle" are paid staffers, unlike the politicos. Also, personally, as this is a public resource, I've no objection to anyone adding their two cents worth - however, please be upfront about who you are, and what your background is (which you're currently refusing to do). In view of the documented manipulation of politically sensitive articles on Wikipedia, the sense of this is blindingly obvious to everyone (except, I suppose, to the manipulators). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 02:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, "Admin" who are you, and what is this mysterious group called "We"? Would you care to enlighten the World? And how does one join this elevated group of "We"? Because it seems group "We" needs a lesson in manners. While no "Disrespect" might be "Meant," you don't have to be Einstein to work out how the message is received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I am one of about 900 active administrators who by community vote have been empowered to protect and unprotect pages, block and unblock editors, grant permissions such as "rollbacker" and "reviewer" and a few other things like that. You might want to look at WP:ADMIN for more information. Go look at the Barack Obama page, no one is calling him Mr. President (or dude, for that matter). We have many tens of thousands of WP:BLP biographies of living people. Sometimes the subjects show up here. They've complained about many things, but never the lack of an honorific. Ah, "We". I am first and foremost an editor, and I spend much time building articles. So "we" is the editing community. Welcome to Wikipedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Well, "Active administrator," what's your name, who do you work for, and what's your affiliations - and how can anyone "Vote" for you without this basic information? It's vital background, as evidenced by the well documented political manipulation of Wikipedia. Further, it's bizarre to suggest I'm saying Barack Obama should be called "Mr. President." Please come back down to earth. It's normal practise, in the wider community, to either address people by their first name, or by their last name, preceded by "Mr," "Mrs," "Ms," "Dr" or whatever. Not to comply with these widely accepted conventions is perceived by most reasonable people as disrespectful. And if you need that detailed explanation, in order to comply with broad community expectations, perhaps you're in the wrong role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Merbabu (which is also the name of an Indonesian mountain), has been heavily involved in Indonesian subjects on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merbabu . . . and also states (in some discussions above), they believe Schapelle is "Guilty." It's a pity this person is not willing to be clear and open about who they are, and what their background is. It's beyond dispute that controversial political subjects on Wikipedia have (and are), subject to co-ordinated political manipulation. In that respect, one might say that while Wikipedia might be a very useful resource for (say), something like the life cycle of the fruit fly, in terms of political subjects, it stinks. None of the editors are open about who they are, and what their background is, and neither are they required to be open. At least with Murdoch's rags and outlets, you know exactly what you're dealing with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually Merbabu, and continuing in the sartorial vein instigated by yourself, the term "Wanker" more readily comes to mind . . . and it's interesting to note you treat the issue of your identity (and the anonymous/unaccountable control here), as a joke - which graphically underlines the toy town nature of the place. Anyone who places any credence on sensitive political issue referenced by Wikipedia needs a reality check, which the coming films, books and articles (on Schapelle), will do re this subject. I think I've gathered more than enough material for a few pages - coupled with a filmed screen shot of what's here (diametrically/dramatically opposed to the well referenced material that's glaringly missing), I think it will do a brilliant head-kicking number on this place. And also for inclusion, the wide ranging mainstream articles out there which reference the political manipulation of Wikipedia, with a few choice interviews thrown in. That should do it . . . . Formal Investigation Into Article Corruption & Long Term ManagementAs expected, there has been no response to the points made above. Specifically;
So I will make a formal request. Could Wikipedia formally investigate the long term malpractice and serious abuse of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.75.69 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC) First things first...You're clearly struggling here. Some tips...
If you can't sort the above out, it doesn't matter how many reliable sources you can produce - if you keep acting like you are, you're only making it harder for yourself to influence people (certainly your problem, and possibly the article's problem too). Indeed, you're going to get blocked for continuous breach of afore-mentioned policies. ciao for now. --Merbabu (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Merbabu (who ever you are, because you refuse to say), I am not "Struggling," I have provided you with a concise response as to why inclusion of a key United Nations report has does not breach Wikipedia rules. You have completely ignored that response. You have also completely ignored the multiple mainstream press reports of political manipulation of sensitive Wikipedia articles. Further, in relation to your accusation of "Intimidation," excuse me while I pick myself off the floor for a moment. You threatened to "Block" me, and I said I'd make that action public (which I will, if you do), and I'll also publicly expose any further deletions of that UN report, and/or any continuing "Block" on this Wikipedia entry. You pointed the metaphorical "Gun" in my direction first, however, on this occasion, the victim has a rather larger one in the form of two films, a book and multiple spin off articles. In my World (I don't know about yours), that rather trumps 146,000 "Visits" to this page a year, which does not equal 146,000 individual "People" anyway (for obvious reasons). And yes, I will continue to keep screen shots for my own records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 03:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Merbabu, I believe "semi-protection" means that I cannot edit the main article until I have had an account for 4 days, and made at least 10 edits to Wikipedia (I've fulfilled the latter). Please advise me if that's not correct. Also, I've very clearly demonstrated to the World that none of the self-appointed "Censors" are here prepared to be clear and honest about who they are, and who pays their wages. I think that's very, very significant. You just don't get it, do you? It's absolutely no skin off my nose if you block me, delete material, maintain a "Lock" on this article or allow me to publish here - either way, I win. Obviously, it's good if this clearly relevant material is published on Wikipedia (I await an outcome) - but if it's blocked, then a far wider audience will eventually see that anonymous censors are blatantly filtering out clearly relevant material. In other words, it cuts the ground from beneath your feet. Keep your little kingdom Merbabu, because by the time the World has seen the films, and read the books and articles, in terms of "Credibility," you and your buddies will be in shreds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Convenience edit breakI really don't care what your attitude on this is Merbabu, one way or the other. It's inconsequential. This issue is much. much bigger than the opinion of an anonymous user in cyber space (or a bunch of anonymous users), and I've achieved what I set out to do. I've collated more than enough material trash the credibility of this Wikipedia article on Schapelle, plus clearly demonstrate the political manipulation of this sensitive material. Here's what I've added to my blog post (last paragraph): "Well, it seems the anonymous "We" tribe has decided to censor me for good, and called me "Conspiracy theorist" for suggesting that anonymous article stalkers in cyber space, who point blank refuse to say who they are, might have an agenda on politically sensitive material. Maybe they should whinge to the BBC, because the UK's national broadcaster appears to agree with me. So there you have it folks, key United Nations reports are being blocked and censored from Wikipedia, by people who refuse any form of accountability." http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com/2010/12/schapelle-corby-wikipedia-censorship.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I'm not a kindergarten kid to be "Tasked" by some bizarre, anonymous geek, who chooses to censor both mainstream press reports relating to Schapelle, as well as crucial United Nations reports. What do you think this is? A private game of "Show & tell"? I mean, you're a joke - and this Wikipedia entry is a joke - and the only point of me posting comments here is to expose that joke. You choose to hide your identity, while making decisions on highly sensitive political entries - and Wikipedia allows it. In a nutshell, that completely exposes the "Toy town" nature of this place. As I mentioned before, Wikipedia's great on mundane subjects - but if anyone chooses to take it seriously on stuff like this, they really need to see a psychiatrist. There is zero transparency, and zero accountability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Wehalt, you're not an "Editor and administrator" in any normally accepted sense, so take a reality check will you. No "Editor and administrator" on any credible publication is anonymous - so yes, you are a joke. You're like a three year old kid in Toy Town, who thinks he's doing really serious, grown up stuff. You're not, you're just an anonymous hack in cyber space. You have none of the normal accountability, and the responsibility that implies. You've also chosen to block a section on the "Coals to Newcastle" facts of this case, despite the centrality of that strand, plus solid mainstream references and reports. So obviously, the only point of playing in the sandpit with rank amateurs like yourself is to expose this place for what it is. As I've written before, whatever you do, e.g. publish, block or delete core mainstream material, it doesn't matter, because the eventual audience for those actions will dwarf the "Visits" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The new editors here are writing too much without reading the responses. I confirm the advice offered above by other experienced editors: arguments on Wikipedia must be focused on the article, and must be based on policies (see WP:5P for an overview). Discussions must not claim deficiencies in other editors (that is, deficiences unrelated to policies). The chatter like "I'm not a kindergarten kid" is typical for the Internet, but not here (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CIVIL). If someone wants to vent, please find another website. If someone wants to improve the article, you should make a proposal and ask experienced editors what would be needed to implement that proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
My succinct response, blogged, tweeted, posted on Facebook - and eventually sent out into the World via multiple other media . . . (all assertions are backed by linked citations): http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com/2011/01/schapelle-corby-more-on-wikipedia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Actually though, while I'm here Merbabu, as you seem to be a bit of an expert on Indonesia, can you explain why the Indonesian men who beheaded three children on their way to school got a far lesser sentence than Schapelle? I thought it was a very interesting point, that should also be included in the coming documentary, book (hi-lited on the back cover) and articles . . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6473897.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
|
This has become an unbalanced article
The article is ostensibly about Schapelle Corby, but around two thirds of it now is dedicated to telling us that the Indonesians got her drug conviction wrong. Without debating the merits or otherwise of that case, that seems inappropriate. Can we maybe rename/move the article to reflect what it has now become, or create two articles, one with the unarguable facts, and the other with the case for her defence that many feel needs to be presented? HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of the problem - broadly speaking. But not sure about the solution. The "controversy" section is appalling. I'd say a lot can be chopped out, the rest put into other sections. That's a start.
- An article based solely on her defence is inherently non-neutral. --Merbabu (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. I don't have any strong investment in my suggestions. I do agree that a big cleanup is needed one way or the other. As an Australian, I feel that we must get rid of uncited lines like "The Corby case generated anti-Indonesian sentiment among Australians." That reads like pure POV. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That bit's poorly worded and unreferenced, but it is true. The media and internet were full of anti-Indonesian sentiment - you can still see it in the
boganmoronic comments on the internet. I know Indonesians who copped a lot of crap during that time. I agree it can't stay like it is though. --Merbabu (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC) - PS - the article's contents need to be matched up against the citations. Out of the 3 or 4 I've checked so far, I found one (the Qantas book sale) was so misrepresented that it was bs, and another had a slanted, or at best unusual, interpretation of what was relevant (ie the baggage weighing). Even little things like this change: "The police in Bali
failed todid not weigh the baggage". It all adds up to a neutrality problem. --Merbabu (talk)- I don't expect we will ever have equal representations of +/-. The Indonesian position was always relatively simple: we caught you with ganja. Almost all of the other issues (baggage handlers, drug mules, cctv cameras, bag weights, fingerprints, mj cost in Indonesia, etc) were raised by the Corby team. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and this is where the prima facie case is. The Corby's couldn't prove it wasn't hers. I am in two minds about my removing of the Lindesay quote on this, but the last thing I'd like to see is a tit-for-tat article based on a commentary of "experts" and editors arguing who's an expert and who isn't, etc. etc. My thinking is just keep it straight up and down the line on known and undisputed facts. For example, we know the court found her guilty, but while we all might have an opinion or belief either way, none of us (except Schapelle, possibly her family, and of course Kim Bax) actually knows for sure. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be wise if there a section under "Trial" setting forth the prosecution case. I'm a bit surprised that only one side's case is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The prosecution case is something like - you had 4kg's of ganja in your bag, you've got lots of theories, but you can't prove it wasn't yours. :-P --Merbabu (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That may be true, but something should be written about the prosecution case for comprehensiveness in that section. Even if it is just what you said. Additionally, I seem to recall there were various versions about Corby's reactions at customs in Bali, no doubt something should be said about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The prosecution case is something like - you had 4kg's of ganja in your bag, you've got lots of theories, but you can't prove it wasn't yours. :-P --Merbabu (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be wise if there a section under "Trial" setting forth the prosecution case. I'm a bit surprised that only one side's case is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and this is where the prima facie case is. The Corby's couldn't prove it wasn't hers. I am in two minds about my removing of the Lindesay quote on this, but the last thing I'd like to see is a tit-for-tat article based on a commentary of "experts" and editors arguing who's an expert and who isn't, etc. etc. My thinking is just keep it straight up and down the line on known and undisputed facts. For example, we know the court found her guilty, but while we all might have an opinion or belief either way, none of us (except Schapelle, possibly her family, and of course Kim Bax) actually knows for sure. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't expect we will ever have equal representations of +/-. The Indonesian position was always relatively simple: we caught you with ganja. Almost all of the other issues (baggage handlers, drug mules, cctv cameras, bag weights, fingerprints, mj cost in Indonesia, etc) were raised by the Corby team. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That bit's poorly worded and unreferenced, but it is true. The media and internet were full of anti-Indonesian sentiment - you can still see it in the
- Cool. I don't have any strong investment in my suggestions. I do agree that a big cleanup is needed one way or the other. As an Australian, I feel that we must get rid of uncited lines like "The Corby case generated anti-Indonesian sentiment among Australians." That reads like pure POV. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)