BlueSkyMining

Welcome!

Hello, BlueSkyMining, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 03:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there BlueSkyMining! I am interested in your contributions to the Chika Honda article, if you have the chance please respond (here is ok I will watch this page). Reason is I have been asked to help with a similar article dealing with a case in Japan, and I have learned there is a connection with Ms Honda.

RomaC 13:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. What would you like to know? Would this article you're writing happen to be about Nick Baker?

BlueSkyMining 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there BlueSky and thanks for responding, sorry it took me awhile to get back to you. I have been watching/working on a number of prisoner support articles, I guess you know the list Disputed Convictions. And yes, one is Nick Baker, but that is one I have not touched yet. Do you know this case? (The Leonard Peltier article is another I am interested in.) Anyway I am trying to figure out how it might be possible to get NPOV when there are strong opinions and an article ends up in an edit war. Specifically I wonder how much space should be given to opinions and arguments, I am tending to think facts alone belong in Wikipedia but opinions tend to get included in these sort of articles. The Nick Baker article seems one of the worst in this regard. Thanks for any thoughts or help you might be able to offer as you have done fine work on this Chika Honda page.

RomaC 15:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know the Nick Baker case somewhat. In fact, I created the Nick Baker page for Wikipedia at the request of a Japanese Chika Honda supporter. I was very reluctant because there was very little information about the prosecution's case but wanted to help even if the entry was not comprehensive. There was very little chance of providing a truly neutral picture without this information. With a lack of English-language sources and being unable to read Japanese, I posted a message on Nick Baker's mother's forum asking for input and left it at that. In its present state, it looks quite a mess of styles and reasoned viewpoints disguised as independent reporting, but to some extent I think this reflects the uncertainty of Nick's guilt to a detached observer. Yet as an information piece, I still think the differing viewpoints if supported by verifiable and well-known sources and edited into a tidier and more unified form would provide quite a useful and thought provoking exposition. Only Nick Baker himself could have the information to write a truly neutral piece.

In the case of the Chika Honda article, please bear in mind a few things. The incident happened thirteen years ago and does not arouse the same passions now as a result, Chika Honda is free now, new sources of information are virtually non-existent, and with the admission by Charlie in the Japanese media, it is difficult to argue against Chika Honda's innocence. The same could not be said of Nick Baker's case at this point.

The most useful sources I found were court transcripts and an unencumbered legal expert. I was very interested in this case because I had heard a very emotionally arousing radio program interviewing Chika about it which left me with a deep sense of shock and guilt. So I took the time to read through some of the court transcripts myself (although IANAL) to see how the prosecution were thinking and initiated a conversation with Professor Paul Wilson who had been asked to prepare a pardon application for Chika Honda. Professor Wilson was not being paid for preparing Chika's pardon application and I felt he had little to gain from being biased. Criticising the Australian legal system and media could even damage his professional reputation. These sources helped immeasurably at getting my head straight about how the court could have reached its conclusions.

I think is it primarily important to start from a position of intellectual respect for those both involved in the prosecution case, and who sit in judgement of the case. I wanted to convince myself I could feasibly draw the same conclusions as they did before writing the piece. So I would suggest going beyond the usual media articles and where possible to seek out people involved and trial transcripts. I think starting off the article with potent, reliable information most people are not likely to be able to find from a simple web search would remove some of the emotiveness from less-informed, potential critics. However having a hunger for new information whether it contradicts your own view or not is overriding. I think the Nick Baker case is a continuing saga and we need to keep our minds open to new information. If you had asked my thoughts about the Chika Honda case ten years ago, I probably would have said the same thing based on the information available. Finally, bear in mind that any standard you place on new information (e.g. web-verifiability, legitimacy of sources etc) you must apply to your own.

I hope this brain dump is some small use to you and let me know if I could provide any further assistance in your efforts.

BlueSkyMining

Thanks for taking the time to respond with so much helpful information. Sorry I hadn't realized you wrote the Baker article! Anyway I am thinking of going in and working on it and the Peltier article soon so when I do I'll let you know and hopefully you can give feedback.

RomaC 05:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again BlueSky. Well, I have been making some progress on the Leonard Peltier article, but over at your Nick Baker article, a battle is raging. There was what I considered a fairly good edit done to restructure, add prosecution points, and add and other facts of the case while also cutting that inordinately long and ever-growing list of arguments and opinions from "detractors" and rebuttals from "supporters" and counter-rebuttals and counter-counter arguments and so on. But someone didn't like the new trim edit so now the article is entering what looks like a revert war.

Viewing your Chika Honda page history you've not caught much flak, you only get proofreaders here lucky you (I understand of course, as you wrote above it is a 13 year-old case and she is free now). The other disputed convictions articles (eg Schapelle Corby) seem to attract a great deal of negative energy, I wonder why. Last week I did manage to edit one article deftly enough to get both sides to agree to take down their red hand NPOV Dispute Banner, but that's another story. Anyway just letting you know what's up. RomaC 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nickbaker.jpg

You noted the image is "Reproduced with the permission of Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother." - is it GFDL licensed? -- Tawker 07:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been deleted because of invalid license. Stifle 15:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Graham Stafford.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Graham Stafford.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Chika Honda for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chika Honda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Honda until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)