Talk:Schapelle Corby/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Malicous Comments regarding Ron Bakir

Hi,

I believe the statement "company titled Schapelle Corby Pty Ltd,[15] and made statements to Corby's family that they owed him several hundred thousand dollars." There is no reference to any proof he made those statements. I believe this is defamation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindzy 10 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that such comments are technically "defamation" as such - but if they are not properly sourced they need to be removed as per WP policies on such matters. Afterwriting (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased and sourced the matter, so that it is clear we are not saying he said it, merely that the media so reported.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of Australian English spelling

This article on an Australian criminal, written mainly by Australians from Australian sources, should use Australian English spellings. The best authority on this is the Macquarie Dictionary or the Australian Oxford Dictionary. The Macquarie gives, for instance, "offence" and "defence" as the correct Australian spellings, and labels 'offense' and 'defense' as US usage. Spellcheckers such as that in Microsoft Word should be set to Australian English, though this is still not completely reliable. I deleted the following comment from the 'to do' list at the top: "the correct spelling of "offence" and "defence" is offense and defense try using spell check next time you write an article", as it is both ignorant and offensive to the majority of readers of and contributors to this article. Strayan (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Article

There seems to be a double-up of information. The information below is in the Introduction and also under the "Alleged Involvement of Baggage Handlers" section. I think it makes sense to leave this info under the "Alleged Involvement of Baggage Handlers" section. It seems like it has been randomly placed in the intro:
In June 2008 in Australia, the Nine Network broadcast a two-part documentary which included an interview with Corby's former lawyer, Robin Tampoe, who said that the story of the drugs being planted in her bag was a fabrication. The lawyer later apologised to Australian baggage handlers.[3] 122.108.170.232 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL NOTE - their is a "citation needed" comment regarding clemency, yet the current citation 29 explains that adequately - ??yes /? no /? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_corby#cite_note-appealdekay-28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.107.203 (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Information in the Media

There are some aspects of the Corby case that have conflicting information. One is that the AFP claimed the Defence Team refused to have them test the drugs. At the same time, Australian Foreign Affairs minister claimed that the Indonesian police refused the Australian government's request to have the AFP test the drugs. I think to be fair and balanced, both sets of information should be on the page. However, my edit was deleted even though I included a reference. Icequeen8 (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you are new here. Welcome. If you are the IP editor who edited two days ago, the problem was your use of "claim". First, that's a word to be avoided here on WP because it carries disbelief with it. Better to use "alleged" or even "stated". Second, you changed the information attributed to an existing ref to what you said. So, if someone went to that ref, they'd expect to find the word "claim" and a skeptical news article. This is a controversial article and it is easy to use words to display one's views on the Corby case. However, there are longtime editors on this article who keep an eye on it, and an edit that slants things is likely to be changed or reverted. If there is information not in the article that you wish to insert, please feel free to insert it, with a reference, in a neutral and dispassionate way. If you err, don't worry, someone else will tidy up or be happy to talk to you about it. Give it a shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Her ridiculous sentence should not be compared to heroin dealer's

The outrageus treatment of Schapelle being sentenced to 20 years for marijuana, a harmless popular plant worldwide, should not be compared to the case of the heroin dealer. And obviously it just shows Indonesia's complete ignorance about marijuana (which Singapore also demonstrated, in the barbaric case of Shanmugam Murugesu who is also in wikipedia). What a shame, since many people who enjoy Indonesia's places like Bali and the beaches also enjoy a good smoke:

"The extreme media coverage and popular interest has been criticised by several sources, especially in light of the more severe (death) penalty received by fellow Australian Nguyen Tuong Van around the same time (20 March 2004), which received far less attention. Many have attributed this disproportionate response to Corby's attractiveness, race, and gender; Nguyen is male and of Vietnamese heritage.[45][46][47][48][49]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Article discussion pages (ie, such as page) are strictly and specifically for discussing improvements to the article. It is not a general discussion board about the subject or a place to express or discuss our opinion on the subject. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I AM discussing the article. Someone compared a heroin dealer to Schapelle. Try to understand there are huge differences between marijuana and heroin. I was tempted to remove it but will let it go for now, thanks.Ykral (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The word heroin does not appear in the article. Please cease to discuss your opinion. Please feel free to improve the article by adding sources or sourced material.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You apparently don't bother to read the cited material. I do. The compared case involved a HEROIN dealer. Try again.Ykral (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think the information is correct or incorrect. What matters is whether it is (a) from a reliable source and (b) that the information is notable. THe info meets both these criteria. --Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see now the article is technically correct that the case comparisons were made. Therefore I just made a minor change in it to clarify. Regardless, in my opinion you people in Indonesia and Singapore really need to 'lighten up' about marijuana smoking. Thanks! Ykral (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As an editor on wikipedia your opinion on a subject means squat and should not be incorporated into the article - see WP:POV if you haven't already. Also, you should "lighten up" with your blind assumptions about other editors, lest they be proven wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS - I've just read your change. INdeed, you have editorialised and added your commentary which is not in line with WP:NPOV. YOu've also added it immediately before the existing reference which is another wiki-sin as the addition now looks like it's within the reference. While I've included your mention of heroine, I've modified the whole section to be less POV.

I entirely agree with Merbabu and support the changes he made. –Moondyne 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have looked through the sources for the edit "The extreme media coverage and popular interest has been criticised by several sources, especially in light of the more severe (death) penalty received by fellow Australian Nguyen Tuong Van around the same time (20 March 2004), which received far less attention. Many have attributed this disproportionate response to Corby's attractiveness, race, and gender; Nguyen is male and of Vietnamese heritage." Two of these are opinion pieces, one is a collection of news reports that makes no mention of Nguyen, and the others are an advocacy site and a blog. As such, the only way to include the comparison might be with a quote and inline citation to the one of the opinion pieces. However, I am worried, as the two events took place in different countries and involved different contraband, that even doing that might constitute original research. We should be careful, it would be different if we had reliable sources, such as a news report to the effect that "many people have attributed this disproportionate response...". RomaC (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing violates WP:WEASEL and I think we should slice it out entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking it all out is not a problem in my view. Fits perfectly with the obvious: that heroin and marijuana have nothing to do with each other! Ykral (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not touching that one, but I've taken out that material, plus some other unsourced matters that have been put in by both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Video of the Schapelle Corby verdict and sentencing

Does anybody know where I can access a video of the verdict and sentencing in the Schapelle Corby trial. It seems from the article that it was broadcast live in Australia, but Google and YouTube have failed me in my search. There are plenty of videos that include still images from the court, but I cannot find the actual footage. Thanks in advance for any help. Platinum Pete (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

from the criticism of the prosecution's case:

1. In an interview, the prosecutor explained how the size of the bag containing the cannabis was similar to the boogie board bag.[33]

How is this a criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.245.62 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I've changed back to text in the lede from "Schapelle Leigh Corby (born 10 July 1977) is an Australian drug smuggler" to "Schapelle Leigh Corby (born 10 July 1977) is an Australian woman convicted and imprisoned in Indonesia for drug smuggling.". Originally I had felt that the second wording had greater clarity: the statement that she is convicted is important, as it is possible to be a drug smuggler but not be convicted, and the statement that it was a conviction for smuggling in Indonesia seems significant. The IP subsequently highlighted that "convicted of drug smuggling" is more ambiguous that "drug smuggler", the latter presuming guilt while the former doesn't. This may also be true. However, as she continues to claim her innocence, the ambiguity seems to be more in line with NPOV. - Bilby (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is typical of the semantic subtlety that drives new editors away from Wikipedia. Either form is fine for the lead, but since one version was there first, don't change it if it ain't broke! If she was convicted of drug smuggling, then she is a drug smuggler. It's that simple. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The original, in that case, was the longer form. - Bilby (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We should say she was convicted of drug smuggling. Not that she is a drug smuggler. It is only the opinion of the Indonesian court, and apparently the majority of Indonesians (who know of her) and Australians (including me) that she is "guilty". But they are still all opinions. We must only state known and verified facts. --Merbabu (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

With Merabu on this, there is demonstrative controversy surrounding the case, so specify what specifically happened regarding court decisions. RomaC (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Mentioning the bankruptcy has the effect of discrediting Bakir. Whether that discrediting is intentional, or whether it complies with policies on neutrality and relevance is also a question. --Merbabu (talk) 12:17, 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)

No. it has always been described as a boogie board. [1] WWGB (talk) 12:08, 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)

I prefer "convicted of drug smuggling", as per the earlier discussion. As an aside, the wording was changed on the 15th, so if we're going with what has been there the longest, previously we'd gone with drug smuggling. - Bilby (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2010 (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) No-one has ever accused the Corbys of being good at arithmetic. I guess your post proves it ... WWGB (talk) 11:14, 31 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) (edit conflict)The information you added was removed because it was not stylistically appropriate for the lead section of the article. The lead section of an article should provide an overview of its contents, without going into too much detail about specific topics (as your edit did). Furthermore, there may be neutrality concerns with the way it is worded, as it is quite obviously written from a pro-Corby point of view. If you would like to to see the "Coal to Newcastle" argument covered in this article, then the best way to do so is to make a proposal on this page, and try to form a consensus on the way it should be included. I will point out, though, that you should avoid disruptive editing practices, such as edit warring, accusing others of censorship, and threatening editors with exposure on off-wiki blogs. On Wikipedia, disputes such as this are solved by discussion and consensus, and it is important that you remain civil, and assume others are contributing in good faith.  -- Lear's Fool 13:46, 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? I suggest whoever wrote the UN Report come to Australia. An ounce of "bushies" can cost between $A50 and $A150, whilst an ounce of "hydros" between A$200 and A$350 - a nice profit if you can allegedly sell it in Bali for twice the price. The figure of A$40 a gram is ridiculous. A "fiddy" (ie. A$50) contains 3 grams. Also, the prices quoted for Bali are probably for locals. A friend of mine regularly (and stupidly) partakes in illicit substances both in Bali and Thailand and she assures me, that even with her contacts, she pays a similar price to Australia; so a dumb and drunk foreigner with no contacts is probably prepared to pay a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JR76 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC) This page is as bent as a nine bob note. Any change that risks exposing the truth is zapped quickly. Anything which dares to expose the show trial, the Australian government's complicity, the corruption at the airport or in the AFP, is deleted. It is this sort of article which diminishes Wikipedia, because vested interests and those whose opinions are fed by mainstream media control it. They make sure that the facts remain hidden. The hierarchy of Wikipedia seem unable to grasp the politics of the situation. They allow the article to be manipulated as a political tool, rather than reflect the facts. Of all the false articles on Wikipedia, this one is perhaps the most appalling and disturbing, given that the subject matter is an innocent woman being tortured to death. It is a constituent part of a propaganda campaign. 217.42.156.123 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC) 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. Not all "impeccably cited" information belongs in the article. In particular, original research does not belong here. Neither does synthesis of multiple bits of information to create a new fact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, and screen grabs are a waste of time. See the History link at the top of the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC) No, SarekOfVulcan, but what clearly does belong here is politically fuelled bias of the most appalling nature. It belongs here because people like you protect it. The above editor isn't the first to encounter this. It has been going on for years. Media fuelled smears are presented as fact here, and then ruthlessly protected. Anyone who comes along and spots this is immediately chastised. All edits which seek to present the truth and the facts are reversed. I have seen this sort of approach too frequently on Wikipedia, but this article is by far the worst, both in terms of the disturbing opinion it presents, and how ferociously it is protected. Shocking. It should come with a health warning, because it is clear propaganda. Most disgusting of all, the victim is an innocent, now mentally ill, dying woman. Congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.156.123 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Innocent? Mentally ill? Dying? All just your personal opinion, unsubstantiated by independent facts. Please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote a personal crusade. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, innocent, which she is unless proven guilty. Your foul comment, WWGB, suggests you think that a show trial with evidence burned, cross examination prevented, and a judge who had never acquitted in 500 cases... you think that qualifies. Disgusting. "unless proven guilty"? ... GUILTY: CORBY JAILED FOR 20 YEARS, but you already know this. WWGB (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Your foul agenda is betrayed by your failure to even read my words. The whole point here is that this was a show trial. I listed features of it above, which you just ignored. The outcome of a show trial does NOT mean guilty, even though you clearly want it to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR_lFMGo6H0 Mentally ill, dying? Why not check your facts before opening your mouth. This is the diagnosis by Australia's top psychiatrist. Oh, I see. You have access to "expert" diagnoses such as this one. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Why put 'expert' in inverted commas, as though this is something which is doubted. It is called defamation. Dr Jonathan Phillips is former president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Do you wish to carry his expertise intop question? If so, do it under your own name and address. This was a couple of years ago - http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_smartphone_story_skin/2941347 Where is it in Wikipedia? Wher eis her current condition, which is dire? Why are people like WWGB allowed ot edit out the facts? She is mentally ill and in a serious condition. Not that you will read about this on Wikipedia, because of the likes of you. Stop using Wikipedia to promote maintain the status quo agenda WWGB. Stop preventing facts and truth from prevailing. So, the Australian and Indonesian governments, QANTAS, Federal Police, ABC etc are all out to get Corby. But you know better, right? Oh, puh-lease! WWGB (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Why don't you actually do come research, instead of pouring out bile? Stare here - http://www.schapelle.net/propositions/hiddentruth.pdf, which is naturally missing from Wikipedia, and then ask someone to explain politics to you. This is a political case. Schapelle Corby is a political prisoner, as anyone who isn't poisoned can see. UN article = synthethis Mention 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) But it proves how ridiculous the idea that anyone would import marijuana to Indonesia actually is. It is another factor that illustrates that Schapelle Corby is a political prisoner, and that politics are in play. Hence, of course, why there are gatekeepers active on this article, preventing the real facts from being published. Did you understand anything I said above? So, now she's a political prisoner and wikipedia is part of the conspiracy? What can you tell us about her politics? Maybe talk to Amnesty International. Seriously, go find something better to do with your time. --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 31 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) Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion: in terms of Wikipedia, synthesis is using claims from disparate sources to lead readers to a conclusion not stated in either one. In this case, you are using information from the UN report to lead readers to the conclusion that Schapelle Corby could not have intended to sell the drugs for profit, even though the UN report makes no such claim. Thus adding that information runs afoul of the policy. Furthermore, there are some additional concerns with adding that information: The UN report refers to 2005 prices. Schapelle Corby was arrested in 2004, and therefore only 2004 prices should be relevant. The correct comparison would be between wholesale prices in Australia and street prices in Indonesia, not street prices in the two countries. A comparison of street prices in Australia and Indonesia at best suggests that more profit is to be made by selling on one country than the other, not that no profit could be made. There are no wholesale prices shown for Indonesia in the report. I do not know why this might be the case, but the lack of this data raises possibilities that a more detailed study would need to address. The question of specific markets is unaddressed. It might be possible that the methodology used in the survey didn't examine how much was paid for cannabis in particular markets, such as by ex-pats. This article does not claim that the intent was to make a profit. The addition you have added does, and then argues that this is impossible. This is a straw man argument. There are other reasons why the drugs might have been smuggled into Indoneasia. This is not to say that there isn't a case to be made along the lines of what you're presenting, but it is intended to show why the connection between prices paid for drugs and Schapelle Corby's guilt or innocence is not quite so simple to draw. Wikipedia's role is to summarise and collate what is covered in reliable sources, and we need to be careful when doing so that we don't try to create a different picture than what those sources say. This article could do with improvement, but adding new defenses of Schapelle Corby that haven't been covered elsewhere isn't an approach that can be used here. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (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) I guess the short version is that when the UN report you mention is covered in a reliable source about Schapelle Corby, I will be one of those supporting its inclusion. And it may well be that this will happen. In the meantime, it remains synthesis, as it seems that you have not been able to show a reliable source making the connection between the two, and unfortunately I can't support adding it to the article. That said. I think the "coals to Newcastle" argument deserves coverage, and I think we can do it without having to rely on the UN report. It was discussed in reliable sources, so a paragraph or two should be viable. Perhaps: Given the apparent ease of purchasing cannabis in Bali, one line of defence has been to argue that smuggling cannabis into Bali is akin to trying to import "coal to Newcastle" (MATP) – cannabis in Bali cost only a third of the price of the drug in Australia (Wilson), it was readily available to those interested in purchasing it (Wilson), and the lack of prior arrests for the importation of marijuana into Indonesia would seem to suggest that there is little profit to be made (Powell, 2 July 2005). Countering this, Colonel Sugiato, the chief of the drug squad in Bali, argued that a particular strain of cannabis, known as "Lemon Juice", sold for up to ten times more than the local varieties (Powell, 28 January 2005), and others have claimed that Australian-grown hydroponic marijuana had a higher potency than the strains grown locally, and thus fetched premium prices (Wilson, Aglionby, Devine). In addition, it has been argued that foreigners were willing to pay more in order to purchase drugs from Westerners in Bali, as it reduced the risk of detection via police informers and undercover operatives (Wilson). In response, the strong smell of hydroponically-grown marijuana was highlighted, as this would make it a poor choice for smugglers; and those willing to pay a premium price should have been able to purchase locally grown varieties that were "as good as cannabis grown anywhere in the world" (Wilson). Furthermore, although the cannabis presented to the court was described as "having buds the size of bananas" (Wilson) and "emitting a powerful smell" (Powell, 2 July 2005), it was never tested for strength or to see where or how it was grown (Wilson). Sources for the above were: * Aglionby, John (7 June 2005) "Beauty and the east" guardian.co.uk Viewed 2 January 2001 * Moore, Matthew (26 May 2005) "Why Australian marijuana is a big hit in Bali" The Age Viewed 2 January 2011 * Wilson, Terry. (27 October 2004) "Bali drug allegations just don't add up" The Gold Coast Bulletin, p23 * Powell, Sian (2 July 2005) "Pack Mentality" The Australian Magazine p20 * Powell, Sian (28 January 2005) "Protesting her innocence", The Australian, p11. * MATP, (28 May 2005), "Corby case not ours to decide", Weekend Australian, p18 * Devine, Miranda (24 April 2005) "Pot-to-Bali theory as smelly as Corby's defence strategy" The Sun-Herald Viewed 2 January 2011 I'm not sure how others will feel about the above, and I'll happily defer to consensus as to what to include, but Wilson provides a source comparing the price of cannabis in Bali to that in Australia and connecting the two to Schapelle Corby, so I don't think we need to risk original research or synthesis with the UN report. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia Article Corruption & Management They 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 . . . http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afp-involved-in-drug-smuggling-exdetective/2005/05/08/1115491036872.html 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) So, what you are saying is it's not OK for a politician or his staff edit a wikipedia page on them (for the record, I'd agree with you). However, it is OK for you as as a wikipedia WP:SPA editor and the organiser of a Corby advocacy group to drum at support on facebook and your website to edit the article? And you are surprised and throw hissy fits when wikipedia editors object? --Merbabu (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2011 (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) No. Speaking as an admin, there is no obligation on anyone's part for any article to use an honorific such as "Ms." We routinely refer to people by their last names here, no disrespect is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 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) Well, Merbabu (or any other Admin), I suggest that you go back to first principles. This article is appalling. It is a biased, propagandistic, misrepresentation of the facts. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's founding principles. Further, this state of affairs has been heavily protected for some years, by a relatively small number, sometimes acting under proxy identities. You must surely be aware of this, but if you are not, I suggest that you actually start to do some research. Begin with the long term edit patterns of some of those reversions of facts which are actually core to the case. Investigate. Look at the edits, and the consistent patterns, of individuals. In a number of cases look at their own words on the talk pages. Look at their ignorance of the case facts, the zealous nature of their editing, and their clearly hostile position with respect to Schapelle Corby. Ask if they should be anywhere near to editing this article. And yes, I am referring to those you would consider to be experienced senior editors. It's a position they hide behind to get away with this gross abuse. It is a shield, which blinds you. But you won’t do any of this will you? And neither will any other 'Admin'. It is far too easy to turn a blind eye, and pretend that the reality of this article is fantasy. But it isn’t, and it isn’t limited to this article either. This article though is particularly stark, not only because the intense management of it is relatively easy to establish, but because it is so revolting in terms of the agenda is supports. Those links posted above by the way, to the Australian government being caught red handed systematically editing and abusing Wikipedia articles - do you imagine they just simply ceased when those news reports emerged? Are you REALLY that naïve? In case you are, here is some coffee to sniff - they became more professional at it. So are you going to do your job and establish a full investigation into the edit patterns and previous editors with respect to this article? I won't hold my breath (but whilst you dodge it, you may find that downstream someone else will do it for you, to detriment of Wikipedia as a whole). 86.157.75.69 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.75.69 (talk) 10:48, 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) That's not a particularly profound discovery (except for yourself perhaps - maybe put it on your website?). No-one's contributions are secret. They're open - you don't need to go to my user page. Here. That link is against any edit that I make. Here are yours. But really, you are now taking your conspiracy talk a little too far. And posting updates on your websites with commentary on particular editors is just nasty. --Merbabu (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC) So who are you Merbabu, and who pays your wages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC) I am a very powerful and evil person, --Merbabu (talk) 15:20, 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 Management As expected, there has been no response to the points made above. Specifically; Well, Merbabu (or any other Admin), I suggest that you go back to first principles. This article is appalling. It is a biased, propagandistic, misrepresentation of the facts. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's founding principles. Further, this state of affairs has been heavily protected for some years, by a relatively small number, sometimes acting under proxy identities. You must surely be aware of this, but if you are not, I suggest that you actually start to do some research. Begin with the long term edit patterns of some of those reversions of facts which are actually core to the case. Investigate. Look at the edits, and the consistent patterns, of individuals. In a number of cases look at their own words on the talk pages. Look at their ignorance of the case facts, the zealous nature of their editing, and their clearly hostile position with respect to Schapelle Corby. Ask if they should be anywhere near to editing this article. And yes, I am referring to those you would consider to be experienced senior editors. It's a position they hide behind to get away with this gross abuse. It is a shield, which blinds you. But you won’t do any of this will you? And neither will any other 'Admin'. It is far too easy to turn a blind eye, and pretend that the reality of this article is fantasy. But it isn’t, and it isn’t limited to this article either. This article though is particularly stark, not only because the intense management of it is relatively easy to establish, but because it is so revolting in terms of the agenda is supports. Those links posted above by the way, to the Australian government being caught red handed systematically editing and abusing Wikipedia articles - do you imagine they just simply ceased when those news reports emerged? Are you REALLY that naïve? In case you are, here is some coffee to sniff - they became more professional at it. So are you going to do your job and establish a full investigation into the edit patterns and previous editors with respect to this article? I won't hold my breath (but whilst you dodge it, you may find that downstream someone else will do it for you, to detriment of Wikipedia as a whole). 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... You need start understanding and acting in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Until them, it doesn't matter how good your arguments are. Personally, I'm going to ignore you until you stop your threats, accusing us all of conspiracies, etc, etc. Calling good faith editors is neither civil, nor does it "agf". I don't care about your blog. Rant and rave about us as much as you want - if anything, it's likely to mean you have less influence with people here (I assume you are trying to influence us?). If you are, you are failing spectacularly. It seems you actually now understand the original research and synthethis concepts which is a start, (even if it is not yet evident that you want to abide by them), so there is a chance you will also understand AGF. Revealing your (claimed) identity has no significance. What is significant is how editors go about contributing (or otherwise) to the encyclopaedia - refer to my comments above. No extra credence or moral high ground is given to anyone who reveals their identity. You basically need to calm down, stop your combative approach (here and on your little blog, but particularly here), stop making it about editors - make it about content. A few more relevant pages: WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP:SPA I'm more than happy to seek wider comment from the wikipedia community about your approach. Note that approved editors have a process to determine if one user is using multiple accounts (including IPs) abusively, and the enforced remedy is removal of all edits and indefinite blocking for the alternate accounts. see WP:SOCK. I'm not accusing you of sockpuppetry - rather, I'm just forewarning you in advance as you are new. I think I've been more than generous in my (overaly?) lengthy reply. My suggestion is to take the above on board, and re-approach the issue in a few days after you've calmed down. related to the point above - try and be more succinct. If you've got a vital point, you don't need to pad it out with reams of info - it only hides it from the people you are trying to influence. 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, firstly, the political manipulation of Wikipedia is clearly documented within multiple mainstream news references. Secondly, if anyone wishes to check my identity, which I have been more than upfront about, they can easily check the publicly available information (re nurse registrations), on the site of the national body that maintains that record - and I am also listed in white pages, so there is nothing "Claimed" about my identity. I'm instantly verifiable. You, however, choose to remain anonymous. That speak volumes. You might not think it's "Significant," but methinks the World will beg to differ. I am also happy to abide by the guidelines here, and I do understand them - however, I have clearly, and very concisely, explained why quoting a key United Nations report (without adding my own personal comments, linking it to other material), does not breach any guidelines here. You have chosen to ignore that careful explanation. That also speaks volumes. You have also failed to explained why abuse like "Lesbians for Lifers" was left in place, while you're twisting yourself in knots (and totally misinterpreting the rules), in order to exclude crucial United Nations material. And also be aware that from now on (as per your threats), if you, or anyone else here "Blocks" anyone, it will be captured, and very widely published - and (eventually), reach a far wider audience than this corner of the net. Further still, re your comments about "Sock puppetry," I can assure you my id is kimpatriciabax, it was womenforschapelle, but I changed it because "Sarek of Vulcan" felt that user name breached the guidelines here, and summarily "Blocked" me. The irony of "Sarek of Vulcan" doing that was not lost on me (took me a minute or so to stop laughing actually). As for the other comments posted here, I can assure you they're certainly not mine. And thanks for the tip about "Succinctness," but I prefer to take advice from people who are upfront about who they are, and what their background is. Further still, when this Wikipedia article article is unblocked from further additions (as it currently is), please be aware that I will be adding a section about the the relative price of marijuana (as per the suggestion on my blog), and it will be screen captured - and maintenance of the current "Block" on this article will also be documented. Go right ahead and delete that addition within minutes, and/or "Block" me (as is the normal practise here), and prove my point beautifully - very soon published and broadcast to millions. There are currently two films and a book in development, and I'm in touch with all the producers/authors. And then (of course), there are all the spin-off feature articles to consider. Have a great new year Merbabu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimpatriciabax (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC) As I said, you are struggling here - you've said so yourself. I was only trying to make it easier for you. But, I can see you don't need my suggestions/assistance and you have the whole world all worked out, and I don't need to spend anymore time helping you out. There's no need to screen shot everything - all editors actions and comments are permanently kept for all to see. You just need to link our evil conspiratorial actions. As for your attempts at intimidation, they show a nastiness, but are nonetheless ineffective and deluded. WP is the world's 5th most viewed website, and to answer your previous question, the page view statistics show that in the last few months, around 400 people per day have viewed the Corby page. --Merbabu (talk) 03:15, 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) You've stated you will insert info that is against consensus. An editor has said that the article will thus remain semi-protected until such time as you retract that promise. Here. As for me, I suggested that you change your combative approach and your (failed) intimidation attempts. As you have not, as promised I am disengaging from discussion with you for now. ciao. --Merbabu (talk) 12:59, 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) I'm quaking in my boots. --Merbabu (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Convenience edit break I 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) If you would like to help with the article, it could certainly use images. Note that our image policy requires a suitable license, most often Creative Commons, which must be granted by the copyright holder, usually the photographer. Photos of Shapelle Corby or other persons involved in this controversy would be great.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 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) As an editor and administrator, I am committed to improving the project. I am suggesting ways you can do so. Instead, you are saying that you are here "to expose that joke". Presumably, you are racking up edits on articles like Thyme so you will be autoconfirmed and will be better able to expose that joke.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 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) Kim, say what you want about me, but Bilby and Wehwalt have been extremely patient and measured in their answers. They have taken a fair bit of their time, and put a fair bit of thought into their answers. Of course, that doesn't mean that you have to like or agree with their answers, but it does mean that according to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that you return that respect provided you, rather than hurl abuse and name call. Calling people who have taken the time to help "a joke" only reflects poorly on you. I could go on and on, but that would be a waste of time as nothing anyone has explained to you seems to have sunken through - you just seemed to have ratcheted up the rhetoric. You haven't even managed to to sign you posts after a few dozens entries here. Given that you mention it every time, no wikipedia editor, including yourself, is obliged to reveal their identity. Indeed, you will notice that only a small minority edit under their actual name. While it seems important to you, it doesn't hold any additional cache here. Indeed, I'd rather deal with the 1000s of civil and constructive editors on wikipedia such Bilby and Wehwalt (as I have done for over 4 years), than an abusive editor who does reveal their name but has no apparent control over her impulses. If you do not understand what is wrong with a post "What is your name? Who pays you? What are your affiliations?" (you made similar demands of bilby and I), then there is probably little hope for an editing future here on wikipedia. I see you make no attempt, let alone succeed, in actually engaging people here - even when the highly patient bilby and wehwalt give you the time of day, and try to be constructive, you turn the abuse right up. Indeed, I read one of your blog pages and it shows a similar pattern of disrespect and constant complaint in your (fruitless) interactions with government officials and politicians. Wikipedia editors are not paid or in official positions. The 1000s of editors just do it because we want to. We are volunteers and the diversity of topic areas attest to our lack of WP:SPA. Yet you have some self-righteous and supposedly infallible campaign to "expose us", post our comments on the web, etc. We're just doing our bit. Mostly we edit on biology, architecture, pop culture, etc, etc. So please pull your rude head in, return the respect that's been afforded you and try to engage rather than combat us. Sure, disagree with us if appropriate, but do so civilly and constructively. Seriously, do ever actually listen and consider anyone else's view? Or is just about you ranting against the world? It also occurs to me, that you might be revelling in actually finding an almost instantly responsive audience in wikipedia. Your blog suggests that unti now, you've only dealt with low level politician/bureaucrat staffers and received generic form letters 1 month later. You don't have to answer any of this - maybe just make your self a cuppa and re-read and dwell on what's been said.--Merbabu (talk) 20:31, 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) Articles such as Tactical ignoring are often helpful at times like this. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Like tactically ignoring the requests for a full investigation into the abusive management of this article, by WWGB amongst others. It is systemic and it is long term, by individuals assigned to the propagandistic task. This is exactly why Wikipedia falls into disrepute as a credible information source with any kind of validity. It is engineered for political agenda, in this case against Schapelle Corby, whilst the hierarchy of Wikipedia turn the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.75.69 (talk) 13:08, 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) So why no Wikipedia investigation into the long term corruption of this article, and those who have been engaging in it? I suggest that you go back to first principles. This article is appalling. It is a biased, propagandistic, misrepresentation of the facts. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's founding principles. Further, this state of affairs has been heavily protected for some years, by a relatively small number, sometimes acting under proxy identities. You must surely be aware of this, but if you are not, I suggest that you actually start to do some research. Begin with the long term edit patterns of some of those reversions of facts which are actually core to the case. Investigate. Look at the edits, and the consistent patterns, of individuals. In a number of cases look at their own words on the talk pages. Look at their ignorance of the case facts, the zealous nature of their editing, and their clearly hostile position with respect to Schapelle Corby. Ask if they should be anywhere near to editing this article. And yes, I am referring to those you would consider to be experienced senior editors. It's a position they hide behind to get away with this gross abuse. It is a shield, which blinds you. But you won’t do any of this will you? And neither will any other 'Admin'. It is far too easy to turn a blind eye, and pretend that the reality of this article is fantasy. But it isn’t, and it isn’t limited to this article either. This article though is particularly stark, not only because the intense management of it is relatively easy to establish, but because it is so revolting in terms of the agenda is supports. Those links posted above by the way, to the Australian government being caught red handed systematically editing and abusing Wikipedia articles - do you imagine they just simply ceased when those news reports emerged? Are you REALLY that naïve? In case you are, here is some coffee to sniff - they became more professional at it. So are you going to do your job and establish a full investigation into the edit patterns and previous editors with respect to this article? I won't hold my breath (but whilst you dodge it, you may find that downstream someone else will do it for you, to detriment of Wikipedia as a whole). Why is Wikipedia not interested in preventing the political abuse of this article, when it is already 100% established that Australian government officials and affiliates have engaged in this for years? Please confront the corruption and those engaging in it (and at least one has posted on this page), rather than run away from it. 86.157.75.69 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)