User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive4

Jeff, you are now unblocked. Thank you for your patience.

Just to finish what we were saying when your battery went dead, I will endeavour to keep the trolls off you, we can ask the relevant Wikiproject, and perhaps Phaedriel, to help mediate the outstanding dispute re the Southern Cherokee Nation, and you are going to take a deep breath when the bad guys arrive (as they surely will), email one of The Cabal, and we will do our best to help you to function as you would like to function, which is as a contributor of knowledge to the project. I hope that's a fair summary. Feel free to join in debate, but please do try not to be too forceful. As you say, silence is a powerful weapon when used well. Have a great day, Guy (Help!) 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff! Well, of course I'll try and help the best I can with this. I am intimately familiar with your position, as you know, as well as the debate that led to this situation. Not being of Cherokee ancestry myself, however, I'll also gather the input of another editors like Aaron Walden. I'll contact Guy to offer my assistance for what it may help; please feel free to approach me at any time to discuss the subject. I'll get back to you as events unfold. Have a beautiful day,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wado. Gohi iga uwodu osdv.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome, Jeff ;)  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sure hope that the above doesn't mean "You're all a bunch of poopy-heads!" in Cherokee! :-) *Dan T.* 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * wado. (Thank You - formal and honorific form)) gohi (have for yourself) iga (1 day) uwodu osdv (that is beautiful and good) Dan, you may check your monitor settings, I think the unit may need deguassing if you read that into that other phrase -- some seriously bad snow on that screen it appears.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the translation. And, really, I too wish you the best of luck and hope you can be a productive and useful participant here.  I've had my criticisms of you, but I don't hold permanent grudges, and will do my best to react constructively and appropriately to what you do now, and not lose my cool, make personal attacks, or rehash old grievances. *Dan T.* 00:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Wado! (Thanks). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

&#x13A3;&#x13CF;&#x13F2;! (Hello!) Uncle uncle uncle 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dohitsu. nisdvdv? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
WP:COI recommends that when you have an actual or apparent conflict of interest that you edit the talk page of that article rather than the article itself. It is generally good advice. Please discuss this with Phaedriel and JzG. I am trying to keep my promise to you and interact with you as little as possible, but I thought this reminder might be helpful to you. WAS 4.250 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This may in fact be accurate if the Foundation Non-Discrimination Policy does not apply here. Can we get a read on whether racial or other factors are a consideration with WP:COI.  I would think not, but I could be wrong.  Please let me know.   Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your race/sex/religion/occupation/nationality can not be used against you to disallow you to edit an article. Nor can they be used for you to negate WP:COI and other policies and guidelines. Please read WP:COI. The issue is your emotional/financial/motivational involvement with an article's topic/subject. The very articles you feel most strongly about are the articles that it is wisest to stick to their talk pages on. Please understand that everyone we have a COI problem with thinks they can edit neutrally; so be aware of the fact that all humans decieve themselves to some degree and let others (trusted wikipedians, not drive-by trolls - damn them) be the judge of the degree to which you can neutrally edit any specific article. Trusted wikipedians will judge you by their perception of your editing behavior. Make suggestions on talk pages. If others like your suggestions, they will eventually invite you to edit the article to save them the bother of implementing your suggestions. Good luck! WAS 4.250 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me sleep on this and do some soul searching. I try to pride myself on my own neutrality.  I do not feel I have emotional/financial/motivational issues regarding my race or my identity, my language, or my family.  I will consider your views.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have considered this and I wonder if African Americans are not allowed to edit articles about these issues. I also have to wonder about other articles.  Is it a good idea to prevent a mathmetician to edit an article about calculus?  If it is good idea to prevent an automobile mechanic from editing an article about automobile engines? Or do we want the highest possible quality.  What you are suggesting is that Wikipedia wants knowledge without bias.  Since all human beings are biased, I guess the tradeoff comes when you require knowledge and by best route rely upon experts in those areas vs. any bias they may have.  I do not believe that verifiable information is subjected to bias, but the presentation can certainly be.  That's why Wikipedia has other editors and projects which vet these materials under this criteria.  It's not all on my shoulders or anyone else's the ultimate quality of any article, and I know this.  The paradox you suggest of Non-Discrimination vs. Potential Editing Bias could relegate all of Wikipedia's articles to mediocrity.   I will sleep on this, but I do not feel any bias to anything other than verifiable materials.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The conflict between WP:COI and "expert retention" is well known, bitterly contested, and the cause of loss of both experts we should have treated better and biased cases that refuse to obey the rules that we are well rid of. Trusted wikipedians judge who acts like an unbiased expert and who acts otherwise. Sometimes they get it wrong, but such is life. WAS 4.250 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I am starting to agree. What is required here is a team of folks working together and the talk page suggestion does seem to address this, and appears to be based upon real world experience.  I am leaning towards agreeing with you on this, bit I need to sleep on it. I do not feel that Cherokee articles are a concern, only my involvement in specific events (but its a small Native American community here in Utah -- I don't know what else to say) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, from my limited reading the Cherokee are good at patience, yes? Playing the long game, with calm debate, works surprisingly well here.  It can get derailed, of course, but with good moderators it can also stay focused and result in tight and good content.  Much of our coverage of the Israel-Palestine content is like this; occasional flare-ups, but overall we tell both sides of the story and leave the reader to judge.  Simplistic, of course, in this specific case, but I think you get the idea. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact, unless everyone was in agreement in Cherokee culture, nothing happened. People who disagreed with the majority usually left and started a new township.  I have had little problems working with people since the trolls have been outsted.  smmurphy and I seem to get along great.  Anytime I am getting to far to the line on any issues, let me know.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Native American Tribes
Hi, Jeff. I noticed you added some material just now to Native American Tribes, which of course is a rejected policy. Did you mean to be editing that page? Cheers, alanyst /talk/ 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was adding some footnotes in the notes section. Did you read through the materials?  I would be interested in your opinions of the materials. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you to ask my opinion. To be frank, I have some questions and concerns, though your new approach and measured tone are commendable.  First of all, I'm a bit startled to see further work being done on the Native American Tribes policy; do you mean to try to advance it again?  Nothing personal, but I still feel like it's bad policy, and since existing WP policy suffices, in my opinion, I fear that any further efforts you spend on WP:NATIVE might prove to be wasted, if others in the community still share my opinion of it.  Secondly, am I correct in recalling that in real life you have had personal or legal interaction with James Mooney (adversarial or otherwise)?  If so, I think you'd be prudent to steer clear of any editing or contributions related to him; it seems like that would be a compelling conflict of interest.  (Tangent: In contrast, your tribal membership itself doesn't raise any WP:COI concerns in my mind, despite the concerns that others have voiced about it.)  Plus, it seems like he's being singled out where his case really just drew local attention, and doesn't seem to have been on the national radar much if at all.  Is Mooney's case significant enough to be featured so prominently in a global encyclopedia?  Is it a well-known case to people familiar with Native American issues across the nation?  These are some of the questions your edits have raised in my mind.  Cheers, alanyst /talk/ 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mooney's case has received nationwide publicity and broad coverage (and outrage from hundreds of tribes), numerous articles on http://www.indianz.com and MSNBC. No, I am not trying to advance this proposal, just adding the notes.  From what I understand, policy proposals are typically things that editors are doing already.   My edits of this case simply refer to public articles and published court documents, as the citiations demonstrate.  Mooney's case was a significant event in Native American Law.  My involvement was very limited and peripheral, just like the vast majority of Native Americans here in Utah.  I was not involved or named in the prosecution of the State Case that involved any of the issues for which he was arrested or prosecuted for by the United State nor am I a member of his group.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, could you characterize any involvement you did have in Mooney's cases (state and federal), or any personal relationship you have had with Mooney? I do not mean to press unduly, but if you were anything more than a disinterested observer of either case then it might be appropriate for you to refrain from contributing anything about them.  (If your comments above are stating that you had no involvement whatsoever in any of Mooney's legal proceedings and have had no personal relationship with him, then I humbly apologize for having missed it.) alanyst /talk/ 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the materials about Mooney and left the Federal Case Law precedents and citations. I think this resolves any claims of WP:COI.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am leaving the materials in the archived copy of WP:NATIVE since I do not believe that internal community documents are subject to censorship of references. The community must have access to all available reference materials and information in order to assess the associated issues and make informed decisions.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend removing it from that page too. If there is indeed a conflict of interest in your contributing material about Mooney, then having that material in project space is just as problematic as having it in article space, in my opinion.  Again, just my two cents. alanyst /talk/ 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain to me why the community should not have access to those materials in an internal document and WP:COI applies to an internal proposal open for debate and review by community members? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is all just my opinion, but (a) the debate's over so adding material to the page seems to do nothing to advance the encyclopedia, and (b) it's not an internal document since anyone can access Wikipedia and see the page, or get to it by googling Mooney's name. Even if you mean well, it looks bad for you to be publicizing negative things about Mooney via Wikipedia, well after the cases were resolved, if you indeed were involved in them. alanyst /talk/ 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On that basis, I agree completely with you assertions. I had no idea that internal Wikipedia namespace pages are open to being scraped by Google.  I will of course immediately remove these materials. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. alanyst /talk/ 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability
"Verifiability." I get the sense that you use "verifiable" to mean a claim that you believe to be demonstratively true, as in and. Please be mindful that that usage is different from WP:Verifiability, which states: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." It also states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." A claim can be false and still verifiable as WP defines it. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to adopt the claim as true, but rather the truth that the claim has been made by the cited source. What's to keep WP articles from becoming chock-full of crackpot theories cited to crackpot sources? WP:Reliable sources and WP:Undue weight help here. So, to take the example of the notion that the earth is flat, it's entirely proper for Wikipedia to describe the claim and cite the relevant source, provided that the explanation is put in context with the contrary viewpoints so as not to give it undue weight. Because of the dependence on the context, what's appropriate to cite for one article might not be appropriate for another, and a claim might deserve detailed treatment in one article ("Flat earth hypotheses") but barely a mention in another ("Earth").

In a similar vein, "original research" applies only to WP editors, who sometimes are tempted to supply their own syntheses and interpretations of the world instead of citing external sources. An external source can be regarded as unreliable, but if it's really an external source and not just some WP editor's own invention, then it cannot be accurately described as "original research" as WP uses the term.

I offer this explanation to you with the intention of helping you avoid using terms like "verifiability" and "original research" in ways that other WP editors might find confusing or that they might mistake for willful distortion of policy. If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to carefully read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to get a sense of how those policies work together to foster the encyclopedic value of WP articles. Hope this is useful, alanyst /talk/ 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * None of these very concise and well thought out arguments can allow us to enshrine materials in any article that cannot be verified, no matter how many people believe such materials. The Mormon Churches agenda is patently transparent in its attempts to legitimize Joseph Smith's writings, almost rabid in some respects.  They have many websites and forums where they can do this.  Wikipedia is not one of them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)