Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief): Difference between revisions
images retagged as fair use |
Waya sahoni (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
: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. — '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font></sup> 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
: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. — '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font></sup> 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
: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. [[User:Waya sahoni|Waya sahoni]] 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:14, 17 March 2006
Indigenous peoples of North America Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Archives
- /Archive 1
- /Archive 2
- /Archive 3: Many possible citation sources indicated here
References and Images Taken by Federal Law Enforcement Added
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Images still not documented as to source
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)
- What documentation would be acceptable? Waya sahoni 08:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This will take some time. I will get back to you. Waya sahoni 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. We know:
- Excuse me if I don't hold my breath. -- talks_to_birds 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Archive 3 Sources Integrated as NOTES
Already integrated as notes in the notes section. Waya sahoni 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
How does the court case cited relate to the article's subject?
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)
- 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)
Tagging of Images and Continued disruption
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)
- 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)
- 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)