Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives[edit]

B class, POV/partisan style, refs need improvement[edit]

Fairly extensive information, but largely written in a POV/partisan manner. Many claims lack citations, or link to URLs that fail to support the specific claims made. Possible copyvio issue with included images, but text itself seems clear of those concerns. --- Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (14 Mar 06)

References and Images Taken by Federal Law Enforcement Added[edit]

Remaining POV content and issues removed and cited. Images added which were taken by Federal Law Enforcement. Waya sahoni 07:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-adding in the POV tag...for phrases like "illegally evicted" and " illegal security force" and "Joe Byrd's Civil War" etc. Very POV. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can tone that done pretty easily. You know, that photo of a woman (the prosecutor) being beaten by Joe Byrd's goons speaks for itself, and will convey the message correctly. I'll tone down the text. Waya sahoni 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any other areas that seem POV to you? Please don't respond with "general tone" is POV, be specific. Some subject matter by its very nature evokes strong impressions, and this is about as extreme as it gets in American Politics in modern times. Please advise. Waya sahoni 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just the "illegal" and "civil war" comments. I'll take a deeper look when I've had more sleep. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images still not documented as to source[edit]

Despite trimming and uploading the cropped versions, we still haven't seen any evidence provided for the source of the images... just the discussion of the issue moved to /Archive 3. I'll probably not get around to tagging them for copyvio until tomorrow... but if another editor wants to, that's desirable. Of course, if documentation of the alleged BIA source is provided, all is groovy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What documentation would be acceptable? Waya sahoni 08:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the photos is source 9 on the main article, they were filed as exhibits in the civil rights lawsuit filed by Cherokee Nation citizens and law enforcement over the incidents. They were also printed in several election circulars mailed out to Cherokee Citizens and the press. Good enough? Waya sahoni 08:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which exhibit are these images alleged to be? The only one I can see that seems even possible is Exhibit B (newspaper clippings). The rest are all treaties, memoranda, affidavits, etc. I'm not clear if copyrighted images being used as exhibits in a public lawsuit thereby enter the public domain. But you should describe this source on each image page. I know you think I'm a PITA, Waya sahoni... but if I don't tag the issue, someone else completely uninvolved with the page will, just looking through new image uploads. If you could somehow intimidate me against raising the question on the image pages, that might buy them an extra week before some other editor got around to image review... but ultimately, the question will still be raised. So it's best to document the source up front. Moreover, given that they certainly appear to be identical to the captioned images whose copyright release was previously undocumented, it raises extra suspicion about the new claim that they were exhibits in the suit. Still... if they are such, I very much want to have them in the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will obtain pdf's of the public lawsuit filings and all the exhibits and post them for you. This should close the issue. Waya sahoni 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This will take some time. I will get back to you. Waya sahoni 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We know:
"I have to dig it out. I think its up at the office, so I'll run up there and get it. Please be patient, it might be later this evening when I post it. Waya sahoni 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)"
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath. -- talks_to_birds 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 3 Sources Integrated as NOTES[edit]

Already integrated as notes in the notes section. Waya sahoni 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the court case cited relate to the article's subject?[edit]

Aside from the emotionally-charged quotation:

Paragraphs 62 and 63 of the Verified Complaint and the Statement of Edwin Lewis Romero attached to the lead Complaint as Appendix “A”, Exhibit “K” alleged that Plaintiff on August 5, 1997 was taken into the Courthouse by Byrd security personnel and he “took a gun out, pointed the gun at the juvenile Plaintiff” and would “blow his f____ head off.” Juvenile Plaintiff then was taken by City of Tahlequah Police and detained at the city jail for several hours. These allegations are not refuted.

Law was clearly established in 1989 that threatening to use deadly force by holding a gun to the head of a 9-year old child and threatening to pull the trigger was objectively unreasonable given the alleged absence of any danger to the police. Eliot v. Thomas, 937 F.2d 338 (7th Cir. 1991). The Defendants are charged as operating in concert and part of a conspiracy. Defendants put Byrd and his security guards in control of the courthouse and on this particular occasion, the City of Tahlequah Police took the juvenile Plaintiff to jail and detained him for several hours. In summary, the law was well-established that the actions taken on August 5, 1997 were in clear violation of the juvenile plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

how exactly does the case "CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/DISMISSAL AS TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY" relate to Joe Byrd, as he is neither a plantiff nor a defendant to the consolidated actions:

LINDA-TURNBULL LEWIS, et. al.,) Plaintiffs,)

Case No. CIV-97-689-B Lead)

DIANE BARKER-HARROLD, et. al.,) Defendants.)

and

CHADWICK SMITH, et. al.,) Plaintiffs,)

Case No. CIV-97-690-B Member)

DIANE BARKER-HARROLD, et. al.,) Defendants.)

Joe Byrd is mentioned in passing in the complaint through the recitation of a series of "Uncontested Material Facts".

But Joe Byrd is not mentioned at all in "IV. CONCLUSION".

And, finally, what was the outcome of this entire transaction? Since Joe Byrd was neither a named defendant, nor a named plaintiff, what relevance does the cited case have to an article about Joe Byrd himself?

Do we have, yet again, a "source" which only peripherally involves the actual subject of the article? -- talks_to_birds 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to be more of that. Unfortunately, all the {{fact}} annotations I had placed were removed, and substituted with "citations" which do not actually seem to support any of the purported facts requiring annotation (the links are all vaguely on the right subject, but do not speak to the specific disputed facts, as a rule). The court case seems like an example of that (though conceivably photos were entered as exhibits, that might be relevant in this different context... it remains to see evidence about that). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of Images and Continued disruption[edit]

Lulu, I am not uploading the images again if they are deleted. User:Johntex has already verified that this usage is acceptable. You have also reverted and tagged the article again. This appears to be disruptive editing merely to reduce the quality of the article. I am happy to discuss with you, but bulldozering over other editors for your "one upmanship" battles is not improving the encyclopedia. I am going to correct the article again. I expect the tags removed from the images or the article will simply do without them from now on. The next disruptive edit I see which I feel is disrupting progress on any of these article I have written will result in me requesting a 1) Block of your account or 2) ARBCOM filing for a ban to stop you from following me around the site solely to disrupt articles. I appreciate your comments and advice, but when several editors agree, you don't go back and tag the images over and over again. If you have issues, place them here or on my talk page and discuss them without defacing the article. Thanks. Waya sahoni 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please lay off the empty threats and attempts at intimidation, OK? My account ain't gonna be blocked; and as much fun as your last RfAr silliness was, ultimately it's a waste of all of our times (I guess your last try at a complaint may yet wind up in a formal ruling against you, but I'm not sure yet; still I'm confident Arbcom will be sparing in only restricting you from editing the one WP:AUTO page rather than a general block).
I have seen nothing to indicate that Johntex has "verified the usage". He has suggested certain conditions that could be met to indicate the release of the images; those conditions have not yet been met. I'm sure that he, like me, would be very happy if proper authorization for use of the image is verified/provided. The place to give that information is on the corresponding image pages. The information on image source you provide must be verifiable by the copyvio team; Wikipedia has gotten much stricter about copyvio concerns in the last few months, particularly on images. I have entirely sincere doubts that the images are permissible to use, but would be entirely happy to have these questions put to rest.
As to the general disputed tag; that remains until we can get the article less POV, and better factually verified. It has definitely moved in a positive direction, but it still has a good ways to go before the disputed tag can be removed. Just moving the dispute discussion to archives doesn't erase the fact that there is a dispute. But I expect that once some more editors have become involved, and done some rewording and found some citations, those concerns will be addressed. As much as you'd like to imagine it so, the tag aint' about you, it's about the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The images are fine now, if we decide to use them under a fair use rationale. Remember that the problem with the election circular was neutrality as a, well, "election" circular. It, however, is a copyrighted publication, and we and cite it as a source for fair use of the images.
Lulu, however, remains correct in the fact that this article isn't entirely neutral. If you'll look a Byrd's corporate J.C. Watts biography here (yes, I know, half of you just laughed), you'll see that it paints quite a different portrait. I'm 100% sure that it's been sanitized and completely unreliable for the whole truth, but just its existence shows how much of a difference there can be.
I admittedly don't know enough about the content to really jump in the dispute here, though. However, look in archive #3 — there are some good sources for us to flesh out Byrd pre- and post-scandal. I recall Johntex asking earlier about more biographical information. That is a good step to take for comprehensiveness, which will make the article look much less one-sided. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They say a picture paints a thousand words. Those photos tell the story well about Joe Byrd. As for the text, even if its toned done to tepid ice water status, I think the message will still be conveyed by those photos. Any help with POV toning down is appreciated. Waya sahoni 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should have no problems with most of the images anymore – I've gone ahead and retagged them with a source and under a fair use tag. I'm afraid that your claim that these photos were taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs isn't solid enough, but it shouldn't matter anymore for the purposes of including the photos within this article. The only image currently in the article I did not tag was Image:JoeByrdCNCourthouse.gif, simply because it seems to generic (i.e., easy for us to go and take another of the same photo) for me to really see a pressing and understandable fair use rationale. I will go through your images and tag those unused in this article correctly. Let me know if you have any more concerns. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you doing this. I need to review how you did this so in the future, if the issue comes up again. I am still learning about the WP procedures involving images, so I appreciate your patience and assitance. Waya sahoni 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Fair use. It's useful not only in Wikipedia, but it generally follows U.S. copyright law as well, so you'll be able to use the concept elsewhere. By the way, if you see me leave image deletion notices on your page, just ignore them; I won't be touching the photos currently on the page, and the rest is just a procedure I have to follow on Wikipedia. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, here is a link to my prior post about using the images if they are BIA photos: [Here is my exact post: [1]. Rebelguys2 seems to have an elegant solution that sidesteps having to discuss about whether they are BIA photos or not. Johntex\talk 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johntext, and thank Rebelguys2 for his approach. Not worrying about showing whether the photos really are US gov works, but using them under a fair use condition seems reasonable. I am slightly concerned that using quite so many such images from a single source still raises concern. Determining fair use depends in part on the proportion of the work used, and this seems to be every single image that was excerpted for the Cherokee Nation pamphlet. There may be more images in the Wayland book itself, but I cannot know this at this time. I would still recommend reducing the selection of images, especially where the point illustrated is somewhat duplicative between images. Using half of them, for example, puts us on better ground than using them all, and I think that would still be fine for article purposes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I wasn't sure which photos we wanted to keep or not at the time, so I tagged them all as fair use. When content editors decide which ones to throw out, it will be easy to slap an "orphaned fair use" tag on the image at that time. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have a 125 year old Gourd Dance fan made of Red Tail Hawk Wing feathers for Gourd Dance. I will photograph and upload it tonight. Thanks for your help with the article. Also, your talk page may have a nice item left on it in a few minutes. Waya sahoni 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I posted this tag only as someone who came here after reading up on the recent Cherokee Nation ruling dismissing the slave descendents from tribal membership. I have no knowledge nor bias one way or the other in regards to Joe Byrd. However, in reading the Events of 1997 section, the bias of the article was clear to me. Weasal words are used throughout, slang is used as official reports ("The FBI reported his claims as 'Bull.'") and abbreviations (such as 'IRT') have made the article appear to be written as someone personally involved and writing a personal history of the events. I say all this, not as someone who has any intent to clean it up, but as evidence that a neutral reader can see the bias built into that section. --LeyteWolfer 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that Wikipedia only wants to show half truths about Chief Byrd?[edit]

I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and do a lot of research and have time and again run upon your page of Chief Byrd. Since you claim to be an encylopedia you should say the whole truth not just the part that you like. This page seems to have been put together by a person(s) with a personal axe to grind.

Are you referring to the removal of the "Ex-chief innocent" article from the "Aftermath" section? Because if you are, then you need to realize that it is not appopriate to simply cut and paste news articles into a Wiki article. You need to paraphrase the information and work it into the article, with citations. It was probably removed for those reasons, not neccessarily because someone has an agenda to push. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with three tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Asarelah 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*B-Class. The article has a lot of information on this apparently controversial character within the tribe's recent history, but the POV and colloquialisms are rempant throughout. Fixing the bias, the slang and the 'building tension' within the Events of 1997 section will go a long way to establishing the article as A-Class. --LeyteWolfer 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Byrd_(Cherokee_Nation_Principal_Chief)&oldid=1206498474"