Talk:Schapelle Corby/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

answer: What else should the article be about then about the wrong conviction of Schappelle? One cannot split up facts and her defence. Fact is that the price for drugs is way lower in Indonesia so smuggling to this country equals losing money, and when caught you can receive the death penalty. Its a fact and part of her defence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.104.55 (talk) 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The article can report the arguments her lawyers made in her defence, and the verifiable fact that she's become a cause celebre in Australia. But it's not a place to retry the case or present our own analysis of why she's innocent or guilty. --GenericBob (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2012 (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 bogan moronic 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)

Agree about the media driven, anti-Indonesian sentiment at the time. Not sure if it helps, but around that time the ABC show MediaWatch dedicated a whole episode to the outwardly racist and vilifying coverage of the case, with talkback radio hosts calling Indonesian magistrates "monkeys" and the sickening newspaper articles denigrating a whole nation. Could be worth a brief email to the broadcaster so that the comment can be appropriately referenced - I don't think it's poorly worded at all, for the record. It's concise, yet precise, and possibly still painful for some.JR76 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 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 to did 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)

This article is good - it has a "brief" towards the end. --Merbabu (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very clearheaded. However, still, some account of the prosecution's case should be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Convenience sub-heading)...

This is another example of the problem here: the desperation to hide the reality of this case. It is appalling.

Got her drug conviction wrong? She didn't even have a trial. In case you have been in a cave for seven years: they refused to test the drugs for country of origin, they refused to allow her to cross examine, they refused to seize CCTV footage from the local airport, they burned the evidence, and so much more. How many do you want? Are these not core to the case?

Of course they are. They are facts, and they are an absolute disgrace, but some twisted creatures seem to want to hide them.

For years this has gone on, and now we even have the politically motivated seeking to re-group and make this farce of an article even more propagandistic against her. There are some very sick people around.

Wikipedia needs to wake up and launch the investigation into the abuse of this article by those with pro-government anti-Schapelle-Corby agenda. Some of whom have been engaged in a wider mission since John Howard's office was caught red handed managing articles just like this one. 86.157.75.69 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new, inexperienced and unregistered users here. I strongly recommend that they take a day off from this article and spend it looking at the rest of Wikipedia to see how it works. The insults and assumptions are flying thick and fast about anyone who disagrees with them. That's not how to create a good article, and is more likely to get them banned. That is not an attack on anyone as a person, but advice about how to get things done here. We cannot use the approach used in tabloid newspapers and current affairs TV shows. Probably one of the best places to start would be to look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. And in that vein, welcome aboard. Wikipedia needs fresh editors. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good start for you HiLo48 is to actually learn something about this case.

How about the Human Rights Abuses at the show trial? These - http://www.schapelle.net/report.html. Funny, isn't it, that they are NOT mentioned in the article at all. Why do you think that is?

How about researching some of the background, such as this - http://www.schapelle.net/report.html. Not covered again.

It goes on and on. You either have no idea about the case, or you have an agenda. In either scenario, you are unqualified to lecture anyone on it.

Schapelle Corby is a political prisoner. She was subjected to horrific human rights abuses via a sham trial, in which she was refused the right to even submit key evidence. The judge had never acquitted anyone in 500 cases. She has been routinely abused since.

This is why so many people are affronted and sickened. Yet it is brushed over on Wikipedia. Why? The answer is because the article has been managed. I posted these earlier - http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443430.php and http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2014471.htm. Do you think they suddenly stopped when they were caught? They didn't. They just became more sophisticated.

THIS is a prime article for their attention, because of its political sensitivity. But you don't want to hear that, do you?

So back to my earlier comment:

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, hostile to Schapelle Corby. 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. But 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) 22:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You've now pasted the above into this page about 4 times. It's clear we are not providing the response you want and you may need to re-assess your strategy. You could seek advice from a wider group of editors here. There are some wise heads there, mostly who haven't been involved with the Corby article.--Merbabu (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is rather obvious why I reposted it. 1) Because it is repeatedly hidden and thus censored via 'collapsing' the areas it is posted in. 2) Because Wikipedia is hiding from the ugly truth which it states. As for "we are not providing", I seek a response from those who have not been involved in corrupting this article against Schapelle Corby, not from those who have been engaged in it. It requires a detailed investigation into all those who have repeatedly edited over a prolonged period. 86.157.75.69 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

DO read my post above again please. It was not about Schapelle Corby at all, quite deliberately. That's not because I know nothing of the case. Here at Wikipedia, my opinion of the case is irrelevant, as is yours. My post was about how you (and others) must work here on Wikipedia. Your approach and posting style just won't work. You will do much better here if you learn to follow the rules and conventions of the site. I wish you well. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kim, you want a response from someone who has "not been involved in corrupting this article against Schapelle Corby"? You got it. Maybe you aren't currently posting here as regularly as you were (such a shame). But I still wanted to chime in. Your problem (among many) is assuming bad faith by everyone and accusing them of having ulterior motives or being paid by political parties to alter the article. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps there are editors that disagree with your viewpoint? No one is necessarily removing the United Nations report because they disagree with its findings or wish to censor the information. But rather, they are removing it because it has not been mentioned by reliable sources that have covered the trial.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation here: say I'm editing the article on soft drink. It may be perfectly fine for me to add information that some varieties of soft drinks contain caffeine, with citations supporting that. But let's say someone else in the very next sentence adds information that says "caffeine has an addictiveness close to that of nicotine found in cigarettes", with a citation backing up that caffeine] is addictive. That fact may be true and the reference itself may be fine, but the construction of those facts may lead to the incidental implication that soft drinks are as addictive as cigarettes. Even if that was not explicitly written and was not the intention of the editor. This also may be true, but without a reliable source directly saying "the addictiveness of caffeine makes soft drinks dangerously close to as addictive as cigarettes", it comes off as synthesis. When a time comes that a reliable source covering the Corby trial mentions the relevance of the discrepancy in street prices, then the fact can and should be added to the article. As of now, you are presenting fact A next to fact B, and although you wish for the readers to make their own assessments, the juxtaposition of facts is unfairly bent to leading the reader to a specific conclusion.

One other point I wish to make: it is highly unnecessary for editors to reveal their identities, occupations, or other personal facts in order for their contributions to be deemed acceptable. People should be judged on the quality of their contributions and arguments alone, not on their reputation from the "real world". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (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://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afp-involved-in-drug-smuggling-exdetective/2005/05/08/1115491036872.html

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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

This is getting tiresome. I've started an AN/I thread here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Honey, it's going to get a lot more "Tiresome" for you, believe me. I'll be doing a legitimate edit or two a day from now on, and screen capturing. I'm certainly not going to get into any "Edit" wars, by continually replacing text. Once you've "Sanitised" the info and played down the message (or deleted stuff entirely, like the article from Civil Liberties Australia, one of Australia's foremost NGO's), I'll screen capture again. Once I have both images, it's a simple job to hi-lite the lines in question (yellow's always good), so it can be placed alongside the "Doctored" version, for graphic contrast. I'll then create a growing "Slide show" of said images, here's an example of what I mean (though I have various templates):

http://www.womenforschapelle.org/womenforschapelle/australiasaysfreeschapelle.html

. . . which will serve as a perfect and immediate reference for all types of future media. Kimpatriciabax (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you're going to waste your time doing this manually. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not a waste of time. Information is all about accessibility, and how it hits you graphically, and what it does to hold your attention. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be whole armies of PR people being paid large amounts of money to get it right. Now, I don't now about you, but wading through that word soup you linked to would send me to sleep in about 5 seconds flat. The last thing film makers and book authors need to do make people doze off - so a slide show of hi-lited screen shots provides a certain amount of interest and drama (in fact, I can even imagine the doco film sequence now, as I type), and I'll probably add more "In your face" elements of interest too. I assume you read my last blog post, the key point is a tidal wave of publicity is coming (and your view and/or belief in that fact is of no consequence either way), which will overwhelm anything you're playing around with here. I have every expectation information on this page will continue to get sliced (within seconds, or minute or two at the longest), and adding that dramatic pictorial evidence of censorship (especially in the light of the BBC article, and Merbabu's demonstrated activity on Howard's page), is a brilliant addition to what's already underway. Kimpatriciabax (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, it is indeed a waste of time. This page, her own blog, and some other things like this rant interview on Derryn Hinch's show reveal that Kim Bax is unable to communicate and work with people here (listen to the audio - the transcript is only the first bit). There's no telling her. She knows she's right, and thus she just needs to keep yelling without showing any sign of understanding.

While she mentions the interview on her blog, as far as I can tell she doesn't link the actual audio (as I have done here), and like her blogging on wikipedia and other topics, the interpretion she provides is completely different to what I see/hear in the original source. Worse - it might be that she's not even deliberately manipulating and misrepresenting it - her wildly off track summations are probably as she sees things - delusionally.

Now that she's been blocked, the irony is that she has no right of reply here now - which is exactly the case on her blog for the rest of us and everyone else she's dissed. She can crap on and defame, yet provides no means of reply. And she talks about us being secretive(!?!). At least she was given ample opportunity to state her case here. Shame for her she couldn't understand the responses.

However, it seems that she has been blocked for her bullying and intimidation attempts, which should have been done earlier. And, that cannot be excused. In my books, that shows someone very nasty. As for the movie and books - I think we're all happy to call her bluff on that one. With all her linking, she's never actually provided any evidence of said books and movies. --Merbabu (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly abusive, in fact very abusive. Is it ok to be abusive, as long as the abuse is from Merbabu, or someone with similar agenda? Why is Merbabu allowed to abuse without sanction? Ditto some of the others. Can I join the club which permits this? 86.157.75.69 (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Whether or not Kimpatriciabax (talk · contribs) is blocked, she's still a Wikipedia editor and subject to the provisions of WP:No personal attacks. Accusations of delusion or paranoia, etc. have no place here, ok? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose semi-protection

I propose that we semi-protect this talk page for a month, and establish an unprotected page, say Talk:Schapelle Corby/IP concerns where the various IPs can leave comments without causing disruption here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

External links Further reading

I suggest going through the shorter newspaper articles in the external links section and incorporating any important/relevant info into the article, and using their links as in-line citations. These news articles can then be removed from external links. --Merbabu (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the section's title "Further reading". However, my initial point above still stands. And, it's always struck me that "Further Reading" sections are like the "wikipedia-approved reading list" and thus inherently non-neutral. Indeed, I was requested to remove one for this reason during the Indonesia featured article review. --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never thought much about it, but I really don't see the point myself, except perhaps as a consolation prize for a source or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an appropriate place to list books on the subject, such as Schapelle: The facts, the evidence, the truth and perhaps Hotel Kerobokan: The Shocking Inside Story of Bali's Most Notorious Jail, and academic papers such Sentencing Schapelle. Listing a book is not an endorsement, it's just steering the interested reader towards further information on the subject. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A comparison between Schapelle Corby sentence and the crimes committed by Indonesian.

A comparison should be made between Schapelle Corby's sentence, and sentence given out to an Indonesian for the same crime. If Indonesian routinely gives similar sentences to Indonesians guilty of similar crime, then although harsh by western standards, at least she was not treated any different because she was a foreign.

However, she received longer sentences than Indonesians guilty of the brutal beheading of village girls, some who received only 14 year sentences, shows that the bigotry of the Indonesian prosecutors and people - see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Indonesian_beheadings_of_Christian_girls . This does indicate bias against non Indonesians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk • contribs)

Do we have any statistics on sentences of non-Indonesians in Indonesian convicted of beheading Christian girls? Seems to me you would need that for any comparison though it would still be OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said, that info would undeniably be WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless we have a reliable source which itself explicitly makes the comparison between Corby's sentence and that of Indonesians who committed similar crimes, then we definitely can't include it. 02:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess some heads are worth more than others! WWGB (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a pot head? My botany is not what it once was ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Give up on the soap-boxing and racism. The article is called Schapelle Corby. It's not called Those evil, nasty Indonesians. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shrink-wrapped bags

I've removed a quote added. The original source reads:

"Public belief in her innocence is evident on the baggage carousel at Bali's Denpasar airport. Almost all the bags are locked, or bound with straps, some even shrink-wrapped in plastic." [3]

My concern is that it sounds somewhat sensationalist. I can't see why you would assume that locked bags mean that people believe in her innocence, or that they weren't locking or shrink-wrapping bags prior to Corby being arrested. I can imagine people locking their bags irrespective of whether or not the belie in Corby's innocence, simply because it seems safer. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sensible removal. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying that sourced content should be removed because you think it's illogical to take further security precautions because one woman may have faced a death sentence and did receive a long prison sentence, possibly because she didn't take such precautions? Just because you feel people's reactions may have been illogical doesn't mean your opinion overrides the sources. Nevard (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're using a Miranda Devine opinion piece as a source. News from the SMH is usually a reliable source, but this is one rabble rouser's opinion. (Not a criticism of her. It's her paid job to be sensational.) If you attributed the quote to her it would be more honest, but that would show it's obviously not a reliable, objective source. We don't know if the Corby case has led to the claimed added security on baggage. We don't actually know if it is an increase. And we cannot possibly know why people are doing it, so I'm not suggesting their behaviour is illogical. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Having unattributed opinion stated as fact is a violation of NPOV. Even attributing it is no good either as HiLo explains. Good removal. There's more that needs to come out of that section, such as the primary source quotation from Andrew Bolt. Has no place in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really very clever to remove pieces by former Young Journalist of the Year winners. Do you have a problem with writing that hasn't been distributed through press agencies and still has a byline? Nevard (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks a lot more reasonable. The previous edit implied that it was fact that the public as a whole believed her innocent. --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, i remember travelling to Bali at the height of the courtroom controversy and yes, there were people shrink wrapping their luggage, but they were a small minority of Australian travellers. Hardly proof of "public belief in her innocence." --Merbabu (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So.. you're saying that this was your personal experience. That's darling, but do you have a reliable source? Nevard (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

John, don't forget your manners please. If one's argument is weak, sarcasm doesn't make it any stronger. --Merbabu (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Release from prison

Corby was on May 22, 2012, reportedly granted clemency. She had been serving a 20-year sentence (from which she had earlier received approximately 19 months' remission) for the importation of 4.2 kg (9.3 lb) of cannabis into Bali, Indonesia. Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on May 22, 2012, that a letter of clemency was being delivered to Korobokan Jail that day. The letter reportedly said the Indonesian government had approved the slashing of five years off her sentence. The Telegraph reported that if the five-year cut was added to previous remissions she could be freed by August. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.69.2.2 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something is happening, but she is still in prison. Don't rush so much. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Family

Why does this article have so much crap about the family? It needs to go. The article is not about them after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

At least some it it seems reasonable, such as who she was travelling with. Can you be more explicit about what content you believe should be removed? HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

All the stuff about her father to begin with. I have not looked it all over yet, but the stuff about the father seems it should not be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the credible theories that she was carrying drugs for her father? That should be there. --Merbabu (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

not all the family should be i agree but considering her fathers previous criminal history with drugs was a key feature of her trial and eventual conviction it seems it should stay there. to better provide a full picture and to try and make it less like we are villianifing (hope thats a word) ms Corby we should include some of her family to give a bigger picutre. for instance her sister and mother being key deffenders and regular visitors at the jail shows her side but also is well documented in the media.152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

all should be there for further reading. its like having the kelly brothers in ned kelly's article. they may not all be guilty of the same crimes but are still part of the criminal story.203.219.85.18 (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Horribly Hostile Article

This article is horrendous. It represents so much crude hostility against Schapelle Corby and her family that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Even her mental illness. This was Australia's most eminent psychiatrist. He had his flight funded by New Idea. He sent his report to both governments. What does the article do? It makes it sound like this was all about money, doesn't even mention the submissions to the governments and implies he is just some psychiatrist. Former President of the College of Psychiatrists of Australia and NZ for God's sake!

That's just one example. What about all those government documents published by The Expendable Project? What about the false AFP allegation in the article that she didn't want testing, when her formal request has been published?

The Jodie Power sections tries to make it sound like this wasn't clear defamation. They money paid to Mercedes Corby - fantasy and smear. Then all the space damning her brothers: the home invasion was because he was told there was evidence to help his sister, by the way.

It is appalling. It needs re-writing, and not by those who have media fuelled prejudice against this family. 172.29.194.193 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make constructive improvements to the article where appropriate, making sure that you cite everything to reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you just ignore the final nine words of my post? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, The Expendable Project does not meet the standard of reliable sourcing required for wikipedia. It does not prove anything that it's followers suggest it does, it alleges an implausible coordinated conspiracy and coverup between numerous politicians past and present, government agencies, and media organisations in three countries (come on - you really want us to believe that organisations as diverse as the CIA and The Chaser are all in it together???). I've read bits of it, and everything I read is extraordinarily stupid. Just because you have fallen for it does not mean wikipedia should or will. Just saying before you waste any more of your time. --Merbabu (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've just looked at the site for the Expendable Project for the first time. I won't be looking at it much more. The bright white and red text on the grey background is just a little too much for my ageing eyes. But I know it's all entirely true. It tells me so in the third line. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, their Facebook (another RS?) supporters even spell the Truth in upper case, so it must be the Truth. --Merbabu (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why this article is so twisted. The Expendable Project website is a database. That is all. If you even bothered to look properly you would see hundreds of government cables and correspondence on there, which actually prove what happened. But no, you don't look at those do you. Instead, you cast general allegations at the database itself.

Anyone really wanting this article to be objective would see that. They would actually go to the ministerial correspondence (yes, ministerial correspondence from FOI) and refer to that. But no. So easy to damn an entire website, rather than actually view the exhibits it presents. You know what exhibits are? They are bona fide pieces of evidence which prove an event. Exactly what many of the media articles you take as gospel are lacking.

The article is a joke. It is basically a smear. It is full of 100% false statements. It is deliberately skewed; just look at the Professor Phillips stuff for a great example of that. Never mind that he submitted this to the governments, and is basically the top psychiatrist in Australia, It is presented as all about money, with made up figures. It almost defames him. Just one example of how ugly this article is.

But you will carry on controlling it, minds perverted by media smears, prejudiced in the most ugly way, reverting any change which dares to illuminate with some truth. You have little idea how you actually look, how your censorship is going to look when the materials you desperate ignore break.

Worse still, Wikipedia seems oblivious to this, trusting its structure to prevent this sort of abuse occurring, even when people like me try to flag it. Appalled. 37.77.81.174 (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Who are you and why do you care so much? Why pursue this particular conspiracy theory? Do you have a conflict of interest, a member of the Corby clan? WWGB (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they were made with no sourcing at all. Such a reversion is not censorship. If you can provide reliable sources, you may add content. Otherwise, you cannot. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

...and, the Expendable Project is not a reliable source. --Merbabu (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Read this response to the Expendable Cult --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to report here that this material is now also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A Formal Report on Schappelle Corby and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schapelle Corby. A brand new editor, Dr.J.Hedley, has appeared on the scene, promoting the Expendable Project, and describing it as "in fact a reliable source". He is pointing readers at this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there was a request by Anonymous Brisbane a couple of days ago for people to edit this article. They also offered to make sure that the changes stick, but I can't see how that would be managed - except, presumably, by careful editing and sourcing per guidelines. :) At any rate, I certainly welcome any material that can be use to improve the article, noting per above that the problem lamented by those supporting the Expendable Project - that the alleged collusion by the Australian government in regard to Corby has been ignored by mainstream media - means that there isn't much we can do, as we need those mainstream sources to be able to provide coverage here. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I looked this over after seeing the post at WP:AN. Speaking as someone who until today was completely unfamiliar with this case I do not see the bias others suggest is obvious. The article needs work,it is repetitive and needs copyediting in some places, but does not seem unduly biased against the subject. In fact it seems to go to great pains to point out possible flaws in the prosecution. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with you entirely. I also haven't edited here and find it difficult to see the bias claimed. Part of the problem may lie in the lack of understanding/interest by complainants in WPs guidelines about reliable sources.Nickm57 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

When hundreds of government items of correspondence and cables are continually edited out of Wikipedia as though they don't exist, the stench of corruption is obvious. Those protecting the smears and direct fabrications on this page clearly have a position and an agenda. The visible scrampling around, citing ad hoc excuses like the background color of the pages, is absolutely pathetic.

A report was produced on the control and management of this page not to long ago: http://issuu.com/wikiabuse/docs/schapellecorby That identifies a number of the many false statements, which are vigorously protected. The abuse is absolutely clear, as is the identity of the abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.185.100 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Gerry Georgatos has also written about the abuse:

I decided to test Wikipedia with a heavily referenced couple of paragraphs of this vital information. I am not only a well credentialed journalist with various awards but also a seasoned university researcher and my ability to reference with due propriety is seasoned.

This is what I included:

The Expendable Project

During the last two years a team of investigators and researchers who have called themselves the Expendable Project - [22] - compiled a dossier of evidence arguing Schapelle Corby’s innocence. They submitted the evidence to the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Government. A documentary – Expendable, the political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby - [23] - was produced by the team of researchers. They have relied on an admission by a former criminal William Moss, that he was to collect the cannabis from a corrupt airport baggage handler from Sydney Domestic Airport. He claimed that cannabis, and other illicit drugs, are moved around the country through airport services, planted in passengers’ luggage at one airport by luggage handlers and removed at other airports. The Expendable researchers allege the cannabis was not removed at Sydney Domestic after being planted in Corby’s luggage at Brisbane Airport because the NSW Crime Commmission was coordinating Operation Mocha - [24] - at Sydney Domestic on October 8, 2004, surveillance on customs officers and baggage handlers, and they were too frightened to retrieve the cannabis, which went on to Bali. The head of Operation Mocha is now disgraced and jailed former senior drugs investigator and former Associate Director of the NSW Crimes Commission, Mark Standen. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2012 for drug trafficking. [25] and [26] The researchers have testimonies from William Moss - [27], but also from a former senior customs investigator, Allan Kessing - [28] - who reviewed airport services prior to Corby’s arrest and reported high levels of corruption that allowed for passengers to be used as unwitting drug mules.

In May 2012, academic and human rights campaigner Gerry Georgatos went public – on the ABC 7:30 Report - [29] - that the Australian Government was trying to do a deal with Indonesia, an effective people swap deal, that they would release the Indonesian minors in Australian adult prisons for either a sentence reduction or the release preferably of Schapelle Corby. Georgatos had played a huge role in discovering Indonesian minors in Australian adult prisons and in campaigning for their release - [30] and [31] and [32] - Georgatos said that DFAT was pushing for this, because there were those within who knew that Schapelle Corby was innocent and that indeed corrupt baggage handlers had been responsible for the cannabis. Georgatos recently retraced the Expendable Project’s work and along with his own other information has come out supporting the Expendable Project’s allegations that Schapelle Corby is innocent. He has written a suite of articles and is calling not only for Corby’s release, but also for restitution of reputation and compensation from the Government and for a royal commission into the Australian Government’s handling of her predicament - [33] and [34] and [35] and [36] and [37] and [38]

Gerry Georgatos also referred to a WikiLeaks cable released last year from a cache of emails from the global analytic agency Stratfor which found corruption at Australian airports, that passengers are used as unwitting drug mules. The Stratfor cable referred to Schapelle Corby as innocent. [39]

What you have just read above, was posted on January 9 but lasted only 7 hours and 20 minutes before being removed by a person hiding behind the nom de plum HiLo48 who described the above as “a horribly hostile article”.

He won't be the last. Wikipedia should not only correct the terrible character assassination which this article compises, but investigate, name, and remove the abusing editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.185.100 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Expendable Project is not a reliable source. We are unable to use anything directly based on their work. We are also restricted from relying on primary sources, such as Government correspondence, or rely on original research (which is considered to be outside of Wikipedia's scope). Other issues are always open for discussion, and can readily be discussed here, but I should note that editors should not be adding material where they have a conflict of interest, as is the case when an editor is including material about his or her own work.

The difficulty for the Wikipedia community is that we need to develop articles in collaboration. What seems to happen more often here is that people attempt large-scale changes, as above, without really understanding the policies, or make confrontational claims without trying to build consensus. Improving every article is a goal on Wikipedia, and this article certainly warrants improvement. But for that to work it needs to be a collaborative process, based on engagement and discussion rather than confrontation. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bilby has explained my actions well. Also, as the "person hiding behind the nom de plum HiLo48", I should point out that as registered Wikipedia users we (almost) all use "nom de plumes". It's how things work here. I would encourage you to register too. You can use your real name if you want, but it's generally discouraged.

Oh, and I didn't describe the article as “a horribly hostile article”. That was an editor at the IP address 172.29.194.193, whose post I first responded to. HiLo48 (talk)

Notability?

"Australian drug smuggler", does this now qualify for having a Wikipedia page? Yurivict (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That alone wouldn't. But over a decade of ongoing media coverage, including being the subject of multiple books and a docudrama, provide notability. For whatever reason (and many have been put forward), her case has caught the media's interest. - Bilby (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

From one of Australia's most notable newspapers, the title itself of an article published just this morning, should be a clue: "How a convicted drug smuggler obsessed a nation" --20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of us wish she wasn't part of Australia's international image. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Prison or jail?

The place is called Kerobokan Prison. The article contains a lot of mentions of her being in jail. In some places there is a significant difference. I think we should get it right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't prison vs jail an American vs Australian English (not necessarily in that order) question? Speling's not my forte sorry. ;) --Merbabu (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the gaol vs jail spelling issue, one on which I won't personally surrender. (It's gaol in Australia!) But on which I know others younger than I have no idea. I am just going by the formal name here. Where Corby was held is called Kerobokan Prison, but our article refers to it as a jail many times. That doesn't gel with me. There has been so much sloppy material added to this article over the years that it's important that we are constantly vigilant for more slop. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)