Talk:Joe Byrd (Cherokee Nation Principal Chief)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References

Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it -- Lulu -- Disputed Tag removed. Waya sahoni 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Note first page of content article. Author granted rights to the public domain for the materials. Waya sahoni 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Waya sahoni. I placed this reference article is info box to arrange the information in a less cluttered manner. Wado for the information. --Bookofsecrets 13:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up and removed.

• The photo's on the article page have not been proven to be in copyright violation. Only place the violation tag after it has been proven please. I've cleaned up the article page as far as the photo's are concerened and on the talkpage as well. I'd suggest that those who are against this article get a life. Those against this article leaves me wondering who in pulling your strings. --Bookofsecrets 14:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The burden on images is to prove that they are properly released, not to prove they are in violation. The only way to prove a violation is for the copyright holder to successfully sue Wikimedia over them... which is the whole issue the policy exists to avoid. Prima facie, there is a stated copyright and no obvious release of it. The statement on the image pages that they are PD because US government works seems almost certainly false, since there is no evidence whatsoever that they are produced by the US government. It's possible, but not obvious or explicit, that they were produced by the Cherokee Nation government; but I honestly do not know the copyright status of such works. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nasal Challenges

Waya sahoni. There are incidents where certain individuals have extreme nasal challenges because they do not know how to mind their own business. --Bookofsecrets 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard

• I see double standards unfolding as I figured they would. I will not report this to the wikipedia folks. Double standards are unacceptable. --Bookofsecrets 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you please clarify this comment? Johntex\^talk 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Some wikipedians, it seems, can do no wrong and some can do no right. --Bookofsecrets 12:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the conflict here?

It appears as though there's some question as to the copyright status of something on this page, but I can't figure out exactly what's going on. Could someone (or, as I suspect will be necessary, a few people) explain why this article is half warnings and disputes and copyvio boxes? Let's get this fixed. JDoorjam Talk 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this talk page gets archived extremely frequently for some reason. I think a lot of the dispute is in Archive #2. Other than that, I have no idea. --BWD ^(talk) 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A book by Wm R Wayland was cited by this article's main editor as primary source for most of the content. Several editors challenged the editor to produce an ISBN for the book to see if it met WP:V and WP:RS. No ISBN was stated, but page scans of a number of pages of the book were uploaded and placed on the article and on this talk page. The book appears to be a private publication without an ISBN. The image pages themselves claim that the work is PD because it is a US government work. However, the notices on the scans themselves seem to state pretty clearly that it is not a US government work. It may or may not be a work of the Cherokee Nation who seems to have distributed it; but that claim is not specifically made on the image pages. I am not clear what copyright status a Cherokee Nation work would have, in any event. Specifically, the scan says that permission to distribute these excerpts was given by the author, but the context seems to be for a particular bulk mailing; there is no more general release statement in the scans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Would those images fit under fair use since it's a scan of a book? --BWD ^(talk) 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is generally allowed only in the context of discussion of the book/work itself, and only in minimal quantities required for such discussion (e.g. a book review). Use of a work to discuss the same topic addressed by the work is not generally under fair use; however, there is a normal fair use when presenting a particular author's "take" on a topic. E.g. About Foo, Smith writes "Foo is groovy"; Jones, by contrast, writes "Foo sucks." OK, my example is silly: but those uses are still essentially discussion of Smith and Jones inasmuch as it's not simply Foo that is being discussed, but "Smith's opinion of Foo". In any case, it's hard to see how scans of many whole pages could fall within fair use, even if this were a book review of Wayland: a few words, sure; or even an image or two if the work was visual in nature; but not whole page scans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that the author, William R. Wayland, would like a many folks as possible to know what transpired. So I'd say there is not copyright infringement here. But this is just my take on the situation. --Bookofsecrets 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can produce concrete evidence that Mr. Wayland has released his book as PD or GFDL, the use is allowed. But just imputing motives (however plausible) to Wayland is not the same thing as a specific copyright release. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Point well taken. In the event I can muster up concrete evidence that Mr. Wayland has released this information I will acknowledge it here tootie-sweet. --Bookofsecrets 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I got clarification of this issue from #wikipedia. This is indeed a copyvio. You can only scan a part of a page to make a point. Plus, this book isn't published yet, so scans of a page would not fall under fair use. --BWD ^(talk) 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's start over.

Ok. If this all went down like the article currently says it did, there have to be enough resources out there that we can get an indisputably non copy-vio article together, which, in the long run, is going to be easier than sorting through the copyright issues of the current text. There are also huge NPOV issues that are extremely difficult to overcome when the base content of the article is straight from one source. It seems to me it would be better to put together even a working stub, swap that in for this, and build the article from the ground up. (Commence throwing objects at me.) JDoorjam Talk 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of Copyvio issues

Please refer to the main page of the source article and note there is a postage mailing stamp. This document is a public flyer mailed out to all Cherokee Citizens and passed out at political rallies during the last general election. The photos were taken by the Cherokee Marshall's service during the Joe Byrd indcident and are therefore the work of a US Government Agency, Bureau of Indian affairs Law Enforcement Personnel. The document posted here is done so solely for the purpose of validating the content of the article. This document is also public domain, contains no copyright of the author (I know the author), and was released for public dissemination during the Cherokee Nation Elections. This places the document itself in the public domain, Whether or not the article is or is not in the public domain is not germane or relevant. It's here for reference only and can be removed. In any case its not a copyvio since the Joe Byrd article does not include it verbatim, only the information it contains. It does cite it as a reference. The other editors were demanding sources. Well, they have been provided. The source of the images has also been clarified. Given all of this, tags removed. Stop defacing the article. The reference materials can be removed from the talk page if folks want to create artifical hurdles. The photos were shot by the Cherokee Nation Marshalls's service and are in the public domain. Case closed. Waya sahoni 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on the meaning of public domain. Public dissemination of materials, even at no cost or for political purposes, does not put the material into the public domain. However, I want to be clear that my copyvio concern is not with the text of the WP article, but simply with the scans used (I have NPOV concern with the text, but that is entirely separate). I'm skeptical about the claim that the photos are, in fact, US government works, especially given Waya sahoni making the same claim in obvious error about the book/flyer pages (and his misunderstanding of the term "public domain"). But I guess I need to defer to someone more familiar with WP's determination of copyvio concerns to decide how to make that determination. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, I am a expert in intelletual property law, I don't need a lecture about this. I also have a law degree from SMU, and a Doctorate as well. I don't need a lecture from you about IP law. Waya sahoni 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am almost 100% certain that these claims of Waya sahoni holding a law degree in IP law is false. His comments show numerous very basic misunderstanding of IP issues that it's hard to imagine an attorney making. In any case, I have examined the photos a bit more carefully, and it appears unlikely that the images were all taken by the Cherokee Nation Marshall's service. Many of the images are of the Marshall's themselves, and the framing and subject is much more suggestive of photos taken by reporters or protesters than ones the Marshalls would take. Clearly, Mr. Wayland has apparently obtained permission to include these images in his book: perhaps the book itself indicates the copyright on the images in a manner that could be verified (the minimal arrangement and captioning elements would still presumably be copyright of the publisher; but the images could be trimmed only to reproduce the allegedly PD elements). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Distributing copies of a work to people does not relinquish the copyright of said work. Further, a federal government agency taking a picture of the book does not release the contents of that work into the public domain. That work must be authored by the federal government in order to be automatically released into the public domain. The scanned images bear to markings of the federal government. If the author has told you that he released his work (yet to be published?) into the public domain, then I'm sure you can provide the requisite documentation needed to prove the copyright status (from the author and publisher). Thanks. --BWD ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you. I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content. The article posted here is done so to appease those wanting to verify it. Well, its verified. The images are released and public domain. The issue is closed. I dont care if the article is removed from the talk page, but the photos are clearly public domain. Waya sahoni 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue either; I'm trying to seek documentation of the copyright status. As it stands now, upon consulting an admin in #wikipedia, this is a copyright violation. Can you provide documentation of when the author released this work to the public domain? This is always in writing. If this is a book, then the publisher would state the copyright status inside of the first page in the book, right before the publisher information. Would you mind scanning that in? Thanks. --BWD ^(talk) 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How does this [[1]] count as public domain? It appears that the author of the book authorized use of the pictures for the article. This does not appear to release them to the public domain. Vigilant 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Even if it had said, "released for use on Wikipedia," we still wouldn't allow it, because it's too restrictive. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Classic Merkey"

At the risk of seeming to introduce tangents into the discussion, I would like to state that what we are witnessing here are classic Jeff Merkey/"Waya sahoni" tactics and behavior.

"I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content."

"Waya sahoni" was originally challenged to support WP:POV for the pejorative and libelous statements written about Joe Byrd. These statements appear to be supported by the inline links still found at this moment in the article itself. If one is to follow the links, one will find that the articles linked to do not support the pejorative language in the least.

Next "Waya sahoni" attempted to state that his source was a "book". He was challenged repeatedly by numerous editors to post the ISBN number so that the "book's" existence could be verified, and "Waya sahoni" failed to do so:

"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)".

"Waya sahoni" never did post an ISBN number because there isn't any. But that doesn't stop him. He ignores the challenge, and proceeds ahead on a new tangent.

So, now "Waya sahoni" has taken matters into his own hands and posted scans of what may be at most a political broadsheet, complete with USPS bulk postal certificate in the upper right, and the clear statement "Excerpts from an upcoming book by Wm. R. Wayland with permission of the author" on the first page. "Permission" here clearly is in the context of the publication of the broadsheet, not for "Waya sahoni's" posting of any scans to Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, to "Waya sahoni" all this freely translates into "This document is also public domain, contains no copyright of the author (I know the author), and was released for public dissemination during the Cherokee Nation Elections."

In point of fact, the former "book" appears to be, again, nothing more than a political broadsheet of indeterminate validity.

The essential point here, which "Waya sahoni" has never even begun to approach, is that irregardless of whether some text exists in printed form on some paper, what factual corroboration is to be offered for the pejorative statements made against Joe Byrd?

But with "Waya sahoni", all he needs to do is unilaterally announce "I have provided the sources, and verified the source of the content. The article posted here is done so to appease those wanting to verify it. Well, its verified. The images are released and public domain. The issue is closed." and that is the end of the matter.

This is classic Merkey/"Waya sahoni": he repeatedly fails to support his allegations or statements when challenged; he strikes out on his own; and when he's done, he announces that that is the end of the issue.

Fortunately, there are more than enough thoughtful and analytical editors on Wikipedia to realize that the issue is not closed. -- talks_to_birds 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What next?

So what is the process for removing these images from the article/talk pages? Vigilant 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd mostly not worry about it immediately. As long as the images themselves are on WP, there's no extra harm in presenting them on this talk page. The notices have been placed on the image pages, and the WP "powers that be" can go through the usual copyvio evaluation process. If Waha sahoni can obtain proper release of the broadsheet, the copyright issue is resolved. Maybe he really does know Mr. Wayland and can obtain an approriate waiver. Or maybe he really can find actual supporting evidence of usable status. Most likely not, but the the copyvio admins will remove the improper images in a reasonable time (maybe a week).

Let's focus now on cleaning up the POV issues, and providing more accurate citations for information in the article. It would actually be a good thing to have images of the demonstrations, boarded-up courthouse, and whatnot, if we could have them properly cleared. Actually, even nicer to have would be better quality scans of the images. They appear to have maybe been reproduced from low quality newpaper images, then further degraded through JPG compression. Not sure exactly who did what, but crisp pictures would be cool to have. But the article doesn't live or die on a few supporting images. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Followup to myself. I spoke too soon about the hiatus in dirty tactics by Waya sahonni. It turns out he's vandalizing the image pages themselves to remove the copyvio notices... with his usual declaration that "he's resolved it" (i.e. in his own mind). If editors can be so kind as to help me restoring any future improper removals of the notice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal is with claiming that it is or isn't a "book," as that's not really what we're dealing with here. If it's a campaign flyer, a circular, a newsletter, or anything or the like, it's copyrighted. In the U.S., once an idea has been made into some kind of material form, it's automatically protected under copyright. Officially registering copyright, for example, allows you to seek statutory damages and attorney fees as opposed to just actual damages and lost profits; in any case, the text we have here is copyrighted.

The text scans definitely have to go. Permission has not been secured by anyone for use on Wikipedia, and it is undoubtedly copyrighted. The clause at the beginning of the work only releases the text for use in that particular Cherokee Nation circular — not for use elsewhere. Remember that works, evne if they allowed for use on Wikipedia or for non-commercial use, is something we don't allow, as it's too restrictive.

Let's go back to the images. If the images were produced by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as Waya Sahoni claims, then they are public domain as a work of the Department of the Interior, part of the federal government. However, it is up to the burden of the editor producing the content to validate that claim; in other words, Wikipedia requires Waya Sahoni to prove to everyone else that he's correct. If it's by the Cherokee Nation or a journalist, it is not public domain. If it's by the Cherokee Nation or a journalist, and licensed for use by the federal government, it's still not public domain.

If Waya Sahoni is unable to provide solid evidence that these images are free, we must fall back on fair use. It will likely work for some of the images here. If Waya Sahoni is able to cite the sources of the images, he can then find a fair use rationale for use of that image by using a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag. Remember — the image must illustrate the object in question and there must be no free equivalent that could with any ease be made to do so. For example, we could probably find a fair use rationale for the image of the boarding up of the courthouse, as it illustrates something that's never going to happen again, but we don't really have a rationale for a photo of the the courthouse itself under normal conditions, as anyone could take a shot of it.

In short, what needs to happen: Waya Sahoni needs to find evidence that the photos are in the public domain, or select a few of the pictures to use under a good fair use rationale. The text scans and the rest will then need to go. When he finishes doing that, I'll get around to dealing with the rest of the images, as I have plenty of experience with the whole image tagging/fair use thing here on Wikipedia.

If we want to keep the scans of the images for purposes of verfiability, remember that we want sources "published by a reputable publisher." In addition, remember that images without tags usually have 7 days between getting nominated for deletion and actually being deleted. Before you think I'm attacking the Cherokee Nation or its ability to remain unbiased, hear me out. As far as we know, the book hasn't been published yet; therefore, it hasn't been subject to peer review like more reliable sources have been. Also, remember that Waya Sahoni himself made the source dubious by calling it content displayed as part of an "election circular." I suggest that we try to find more neutral sources, if possible, but I'd also ask that the other side not too vehemently blank content while verification is being done. Remember that we have "citation needed" templates, both to place at the top of the article and inline with the text.

In the meantime, I think everyone on both sides needs to take a breath, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is very good advice. Waya sahoni left me a very nice message on my talk page. Based upon what he has told me, if the photos were taken by the BIA, then it seems we could use the photos only as a Work of the United States Government. Showing whole page scans of the flyers does not seem OK to me. Here is the full reply I left for Waya sahoni with my step-by-step interpretation if you are interested: [2] (It is similar to others already given here so I'm not reposting the whole thing). Johntex\^talk 16:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The almost single sourcing of the article seems quite problematic. However, it seems some of it is backed up by this from cnn: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/25/cherokee.election.01/

Looks like a fascinating story, but so far, I have not been able to find too much verification with the customary googling. --Vryl 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Info

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:C2STc94_72UJ:www.cherokee.org/TribalGovernment/e99edition/PC_byrd.html+%22Joe+Byrd%22+cherokee&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en%7Clang_fr%7Clang_de%7Clang_it%7Clang_es --Vryl 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on bio statement as illustration

It's interesting that Joe Byrd's candidacy statement in 1999 carried the tribal seal, just as did the mailed pamphlet under copyvio discussion. But Byrd's statement also notes "© Cherokee Nation - All Rights Reserved". This would certainly seem to suggest that the Cherokee Nation publishes material that is not thereby released into the public domain. It seems likely that Cherokee Nation law differs from US Federal law in relation to the copyright on works of its employees. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember that only items released by the US federal government are in the public domain, as per US copyright law. Therefore, if it was taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for example, it would be in the public domain, because the BIA is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior. Other governmental bodies vary; something by the state of Texas, for example, would not be in the public domain, while something by the state of North Carolina would be, per NC General Statute § 132-1. Cherokee Nation items are not in the public domain — but we must make the distinction from those by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it was distributed (or 'released') by. Distribution of this copyrighted work by a federal government agency does not put the work in question in the public domain. That only applies to authored works by the federal government. If we assume good faith and take User:Waya_sahoni at his word, then the author of this copyrighted work gave permission to the BIA to distribute his work in a limited setting. That does not change the copyright status of his work. Without written documentation to the contrary, this is a copyright violation. --BWD ^(talk) 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was reading Waya sahoni's claim in more generous light of purporting that the material was actually commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation (and hence an official work). However, that apparently still would not constitute a release. There is also a claim floated that the photos were taken by BIA employees, which would constitute a release; but that claim seems ad hoc, and has been poorly supported by Waya sahoni as yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If one assumes that it was commissioned for creation by the Cherokee Nation, then it still doesn't constitute a public domain release. Further, if that was the case, then the author would not need to put a disclaimer on the paper granting permission to use the image/scan/page. Now, as to who took the photo of the work: we need documentation for that. The burden of proof is on User:Waya_sahoni to provide that information. In that abscence of that, the default action is to delete it after one week. --BWD ^(talk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the photos I'm refering to aren't the scan of the book pages per se, but the photos of the demonstrations, etc. which were reproduced in Wayland's book. If—and this is a big if so far—Wayland included PD photos in his book, Waya sahoni or someone else obtaining those photos by way of Wayland's book wouldn't change that PD status (though it might degrade image quality in the multiple steps, as it seems to have). Of course, I entirely agree with you, BWD, that merely stating it is conceivable that the photos are PD falls far short of allowing their use. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah. I absolve myself from trying to help resolve this because I'm named as a party to Waya_sahoni's arbitration request, and as such, I don't think I can be neutral in helping resolve it. But good luck to you guys in finding a solution to it. But as a side note: I was told in #wikipedia by an admin that full book scans (particularly several pages worth) is a copyright violation, particularly if it is of a yet to be released book. --BWD ^(talk) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know...wow, I really need to choose my words more carefully. ;) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Charges against Joe Byrd

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:JAgNDcsNfJkJ:www.olememories.net/cherokeeobserver/etc/charges.html+%22Joe+Byrd%22+cherokee&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=9
--Vryl 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Byrd and Wiretapping

Includes lots of interesting stuff, payment to byrds lawyer brother and more.
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/Former%20Cherokee%20Chief%20Joe%20Byrd.htm
http://www.snapshield.com/www_problems/United_States/FBI_Eyes.htm
--Vryl 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Byrd and Interior Ministry agreement

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N36/shorts2.36w.html
http://www.doi.gov/news/archives/indchset.html --Vryl 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More stuff on the Courthouse occupation

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410312

Anyone wanna do anything with this stuff? I think that at least the biographical stuff should go in... --Vryl 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

This article needs information about Joe Byrd's early life. When and where was he born? Where did he go to school? Did he have a profession? This article makes it seem like he materialized in 1995. We'll have to work on that. Johntex\^talk 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See above "biographical information". --Vryl 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it about Joe Byrd or Cherokee History?

Hrrrmmmm. Should all this info be here, or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then where? Do the events mentioned here deserve their own article? Poll anyone? --Vryl 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)