Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this southron crap doing on wikipedia? Faveuncle 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Faveuncle

Faveuncle, does this imply that Law enacted in Southern states is "crap" and not politically correct for Wikipedia? Your statement implies that.Burk Hale 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the dispute and NPOV due to the article being so controversial? Probably. It may be that those who wish to suppress the information about the 1957 Georgia Memorial is looking for excusses to suppress it from Wikipedia, and this is highly likely to be the case.Burk Hale 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith and see my comments below. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup, POV 2 TAMPERING & EDITING OUT CITATIONS / ABUSE!!! 3 Sources 4 Operative text 5 Enigmatic language removed 6 Links removed 7 Note on what the resolution says 8 ORIGINAL EDITOR COMMENTS 9 Grasping at straws - Spurious deletion attempts & NPOV claims 10 Rfc 10.1 Discussion 11 Simplification of citation 12 Rewrite of list of contentions in the Georgia Memorial 13 The 1957 resolution and the Georgia Code Annotated 14 Acts of Georgia 15 Third Party Verification 16 Blatantly false, unverifiable material 17 VANDALISM AND ABUSE OF THIS ARTICLE 18 "Subversive" 19 Footnote 4

Cleanup, POV

This article could perhaps be turned into something interesting. Right now, however, portions of it are written from a non-neutral point of view (the article spends a whole section attempting to "justify" the enactment, which is entirely inappropriate), portions are sourced to unreliable sources, and the article needs to be cleaned up for text formatting and wikificaiton. It needs a *lot* of work. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence supporting the spurious claims of the article being "non-neutral" NPOV? What sources are unreliable? The claims against this article are vague at best and need a *lot* of work.Burk Hale 03:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you agree that having an entire subsection several subsections (nearly the entire article) devoted to proving that the GA enactment was/is supported by "legal evidence" etc. is not neutral? At the very least, it is unpermitted original research. The existence of the subsections is non-neutral (as any such subsection attempting to justify the subject matter of an article would be), but the substance of the subsections is original research. Doubly inappropriate. Again, please assume good faith, and interact civilly with fellow editors. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources, rangeguide.net and the sources cited at the end of the article (including mindcontrol.com or whatever it's called) are almost definitely not up to the standards found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Should a section called "Controversy" be placed below the preview? Are actual documents at rangeguide.net such as the editorial from the Chattanooga Free Press, and clear evidence from other sources below Wikipedia standards? Please be specific.Burk Hale 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple, an encyclopedia article that is supposed to be neutral should not spend 9/10 of it's length attempting to justify the subject matter of the article. Actually, it should not spend any of its text on that. The subject matter of this article is interesting, and I would like this article to be edited to conform to policy so that it can avoid deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to interact several times with fellow editors, and each time I post a comment, it gets erased due to new activity on the talk section.Burk Hale 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm now getting messages from Jersyko that I will be blocked from editing if I do not interact, even though I have made several attempts to do so.Burk Hale 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You will be blocked if you don't interact civilly. Let's kept focus on the operative word, "civilly", instead of "interact", please. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to interact civilly. Where am I going wrong? Please explain?Burk Hale 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Example 1, example 2. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been completely re-edited to remove supportive evidence.Burk Hale 03:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article still contained point of view problems. Subsequent edits by a different editor fixed that. Please do not revert to the POV version again. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TAMPERING & EDITING OUT CITATIONS / ABUSE!!!

Someone keeps editing out the citations, so I have to keep editing them back in. It seems as if there is pointed effort to suppress the validity of the '57 Georgia Memorial.Burk Hale 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to replace the citations several times, even again just now.Burk Hale 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this (seems like this sort of thing pops up after I edit, without notice:

he article still contained point of view problems. Subsequent edits by a different editor fixed that. Please do not revert to the POV version again. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the POV version, the one with the citations?Burk Hale

You are not merely adding citations, you are editing the text of the article to say things like "the document reveals that the de facto government existing since these unlawful and illegal acts appears to be a subversive organization in contradistinction to the claim that the U.S. government is an example of representative government in the world". That is not a neutral statement. Please begin to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This statement: "the document reveals that the de facto government existing since these unlawful and illegal acts appears to be a subversive organization in contradistinction to the claim that the U.S. government is an example of representative government in the world", is what the document reveals. That is not an un-neutral statement. The document itself is NOT a neutral document. Is that the problem?Burk Hale 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Reveals" is a non-neutral term because it assumes that what is stated in the document is true. "Asserts" or "says" are more neutral terms because they do not assume anything about the document. -Will Beback · † · 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the resolution does not, by itself, declare the amendments to be null and void. Rather, it calls on the U.S. Congress to make that declaration. Further, please don't delete categories and internal links. -Will Beback · † · 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Will: Your are picking at straws and appear to be looking for any reason to change what I've said. Please study up on petition and the other words noted below in "links removed".Burk Hale 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These aren't "straws". They are essential parts of the document and essential policies of Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

0

Dear Will: Let me clarify. I'm not talking about the policies of Wikipedia, as they are reasonable. I'm talking about the memorial.Burk Hale 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The plain text of the "memorial" does not declare the amendments "null and void". It calls on the Congress to do so. -Will Beback · † · 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Why are we linking to original copies of acts the legislature of Colorado? Why are we linking to a video from the 1980s about the "secret government"? What do these have to do with the 1957 Georgia resolution? -Will Beback · † · 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Operative text

Dear readers: for what it's worth, here is a portion of the text of the purported Resolution, as reprinted at one of the web sites linked in the article:

The Congress of the United States is hereby memorialized and respectfully urged to declare that the exclusions of the Southern Senators and Representatives from the 39th, 40th and 41st Congresses were malignant acts of arbitrary power and rendered those Congresses invalidly constituted; that the forms of law with which those invalid Congresses attempted to clothe the submission of the 14th and 15th amendments and to cloth [sic; probably should read "clothe"] the subsequent acts to compel unwilling States to ratify these invalidly proposed amendments, imparted no validity to these acts and amendments; and that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect. [ . . . ]

Approved March 8, 1957.

Source: Ga. Laws 1957, pp. 348-351.[1]

Copyright is claimed by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government of The University of Georgia. However, if this Resolution is indeed a government document, then I would assume no copyright exists as to the quoted text. In any case, the material is excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine. Yours, Famspear 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Enigmatic language removed

I removed the following language:

[ . . . ] and resulted in a default on behalf of the federal government which is commonly known as an admission by default [ . . . ]

This language in context is legally nonsensical. Where a state legislature passes a resolution asking for the U.S. Congress to do something, there is no such thing as a "default" and no such thing as an "admission by default."

By the way, I know of no procedure under the U.S. legal system whereby the Congress can simply declare previously ratified constituional amendments to be void merely because a state legislature asks the Congress to do such a thing. Yours, Famspear 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: for what it's worth, the resolution was passed and approved on March 8, 1957. It is listed in the Georgia Code Annotated. When a resolution passes both houses and is signed by the governor (or president if a federal resolution), it becomes law. This particular resolution is a memorial, a form of petition. The federal government defaulted by not responding to the petition by taking action to declare the fraudulent amendments void or by responding to the government of Georgia. This will have continued for 50 years on March 8th of this year. When a memorial/petition/action remains unchallenged for decades, especially for 50 years, its import is sealed in stone, as it were, and even more force is applied to the action. FACT: The amendments were not ratified, and that is proven by the article. And, by the way, I know of no lawful procedure for a president to declare an un-ratified amendment as ratified. All the information noting this was on the previous version of the article and clearly explained it all, but I was forced to remove the verifying information. When a person or an entity fails to respond to an action, it called a default and is commonly accepted that such a default is the same as an admission. Maxims of Law clearly substantiate this.

I'm replacing this language:  ::[ . . . ] and resulted in a default on behalf of the federal government which is commonly known as an admission by default [ . . . ]

... as it is supported my many maxims of law. Burk Hale 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Burk Hale: I'm sorry but that information is incorrect as a matter of law. There is no procedure under the U.S. legal system whereby the State of Georgia's resolution would have any legal effect on amendments to the United States Constitution, valid, invalid or otherwise. The statement that "The federal government defaulted by not responding to the petition by taking action to declare the fraudulent amendments void or by responding to the government of Georgia" is incorrect, and has no legal foundation.

You may want to consider reviewing Wikipedia guidelines on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and especially No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 05:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deat user Famspear: No need to apologize. In the previous article, wherein I was forced to comments regarding verifiability, I clearly showed court precendent (Utah Supreme Court) that stated that only a state itself has the right to determine if it has ratified an amendment. Georgia said that it had not ratified the subject amendments and that several others could not have due to the overthrow of the government documeted in the memorial and thusfar unrefuted for nearly 50 years. I suggest you study up on the terms DEFAULT, ACQUIESE and PETITION. Your reasoning is in error and wikipedia is not the place to despute a valid enactment of Georgia.Burk Hale 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BH - We should not make determinations of these matters on our own. Rather, if we have reliable souorces that say that the U.S. government defaulted on this petition then we should report their findings. -Will Beback · † · 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, please feel free to provide evidence that the federal government responded to Georgia. An exhaustive search in Georgia has shown no evidence of a response whatsoever. You must understand that it is the LACK of any action that adversely affects the federal government, and supports Georgia's petition.Burk Hale 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute over the lack of a response by the Feds. The dispute is over the meaning and effect of that non-response. You assert that it has a meaning and effect, but you need to provide reliable sources which make that assertion. While we respect your scholarship and knowledge, none of us can base our edits on personal knowledge. We all have to have sources. So if you want to say that the non-response to this petition creates a legal situation, then please provide sources which say so. -Will Beback · † · 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale:

The Utah Supreme Court case you cited most certainly is not precedent for the argument that the Georgia Legislature, by passing a resolution in 1957, could somehow nullify amendments to the United States Constitution ratified after the Civil War. The Utah Supreme Court has never ruled any such thing. You may want to review the articles on Stare decisis and Precedent and Obiter dictum.

The statements that my "reasoning is in error" and that "wikipedia is not the place to despute [dispute] a valid enactment of Georgia" are examples of whistling past the cemetery, so to speak. Again, neither the State of Georgia nor any other state can "enact" something that legally nullifies a provision of the United States Constitution ratified many, many years before -- whether the Federal government were to "respond" to the state resolution or not.

The terms "default," "acquiesce," and "petition" all have various legal meanings in various legal contexts, none of which can be cobbled together to support your original research.

The statement that "You must understand that it is the LACK of any action that adversely affects the federal government, and supports Georgia's petition" is, for purposes of Wikipedia, both unverifiable and also prohibited original research -- aside from being blatantly incorrect from a legal standpoint. You are not going to find any reliable source of legal scholarship that asserts that the 1957 Georgia resolution and the subsequent lack of U.S. Government response have the legal effect you argue they have.

As editor Will Beback has stated, if you want to state, in a Wikipedia article, the things you want to say, you must have reliable sources that actually say those things. Wikipedia is not the place for your own original research in the form of your own conclusions about what things mean. Yours, Famspear 13:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: Regarding the statement: "When a memorial/petition/action remains unchallenged for decades, especially for 50 years, its import is sealed in stone, as it were, and even more force is applied to the action." That is incorrect. There is no legal principle under the U.S. legal system that would provide that this resolution by the Georgia legislature could affect the United States Constitution, including any amendments thereto, regardless of how many decades the Georgia resolution went unchallenged, and regardless of how many decades no Federal response was obtained.

The statement that "[t]he amendments were not ratified, and that is proven by the article" is patently incorrect.

Regarding the statement that you "know of no lawful procedure for a president to declare an un-ratified amendment as ratified", well, that is correct. Indeed, the president does not participate in the ratification of amendments to the United States Constitution.

The statement that "[w]hen a person or an entity fails to respond to an action, it called a default and is commonly accepted that such a default is the same as an admission" is actually correct, for example, in certain legal contexts, such as in the commencement of a lawsuit. However, there is no U.S. law that requires the Congress or any other entity at the national level to respond to a Georgia resolution asking for some sort of statement regarding amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and there is no U.S. law that somehow would invalidate U.S. constitutional amendments as a result of the failure of Congress, etc., to respond to such a resolution -- a resolution adopted nearly a hundred years after the ratification of the amendments.

Think about it just from a non-technical, common sense standpoint and forget about all the legal technicality for a moment. If state legislatures could actually invalidate provisions of the U.S. Constitution, then lots of states might well be doing that very thing all the time. And, a fortiori, if state legislatures could do this, then they could also invalidate Federal statutes, Federal treaties, Federal administrative regulations and other stuff that a particular state doesn't like -- and the states would probably be doing that all the time as well.

The validity of amendments to the United States Constitution is governed in part by a legal doctrine called the political question doctrine. Once an amendment has been declared by applicable authority to have been ratified by the requisite number of states (and ratification itself is done by the states, not by the Congress or the President), then under our legal system that's basically it. For some general background, you may want to refer to the United States Supreme Court decisions in cases like Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S. Ct. 217 (1922), and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939). For more background, see other court decisions like United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986) and United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986). (By the way, the declaring officer used to be the U.S. Secretary of State. Under current law, it's the Archivist of the United States.) Yours, Famspear 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: Oh, and at the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse, let's look at the following language: "When a resolution passes both houses and is signed by the governor (or president if a federal resolution), it becomes law." Weeelllll, sometimes.

At the Federal level if both houses of Congress pass what is called a joint resolution that is intended to be a statute, and the President signs the joint resolution as prescribed in the Constitution, then it becomes a statute in the same way that a "bill" passed by Congress becomes a statute in that manner. There are other kinds of resolutions, however. There are also concurrent resolutions and simple resolutions. These generally are not sent to the President, and do not in and of themselves "make" laws.

As I recall, concurrent resolutions may be used, for example, to correct the text of a bill or joint resolution before the text is finalized and sent to the President. And simple resolutions are basically non-statutory resolutions passed by just one chamber (either House or Senate).

Regarding "resolutions" by the Georgia legislature, I suspect (without having researched this) that you have a somewhat similar situation: some types of resolutions may be intended to enact statutes, while others (like the one that is the subject of this article) are simply there to express a sense of the legislature, or to request action from the Federal government, and so on. By the way, I'm curious. You say that this particular resolution is found in the Georgia Code annotated. Can you provide the specific citation to the Georgia Code annotated? Is the citation in one of the links that was formerly in the article? (If so, can you tell me which link?) Yours, Famspear 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

More dead horse beating. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Links removed

Whew! I removed tons of links that were only tangentially and tenuously related to the statements in the article. Videos and other materials that are only tangentially related to the subject matter of the article should not be appended to specific statements in the text unless the materials actually support the specific statement. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be dumping grounds for these kinds of links. It is not necessary or appropriate, for example, to provide five or ten citations to the statement that "50 years" have passed since the resolution was promulgated. Most people can count from 1957 to 2007 and come up with the number of intervening years without recourse to all these citations. Yours, Famspear 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All links that you removed should be discussed for the relevance before removed. What is it about the links that you feel were "tangentially and tenuously related"?Burk Hale 05:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale:

Well, this may take a while to explain. There were ten links at the end of the first paragraph and ten links at the end of the second paragraph. We will have to take them one at a time, and it's pretty late where I am (just after midnight) so that will have to wait. Without regard to Wikipedia rules, you wouldn't normally need so many links or footnotes at the end of one paragraph, even if every link did directly relate to the material in the paragraph. If you want, let's look at this in more detail in the next few nights.

What we are trying to do here is to save this article from being deleted. In its original form it was in violation of so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that it had to have a major pruning, which I see other Wikipedia editors took care of.

I'm goin' to bed. Hope to see you here tomorrow night. Famspear 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Famspear:

I pruned 90% of the article myself, removing all the comments the clearly explained everything for verafiability. I was forced to leave citations alone, without explanation. See where it got me? I saw it coming, and still could not avoid all this argument. I've spent 17 years lecturing about this document. You'd think I knew something about it. I'm exahusted to, and need to go visit my mother in the hospital tomorrow. I never imagined that I would get so much abuse here at Wikipedia, and that telling the truth on Wikipedia would require such gymnastics and hoop-jumping. Now I know, and it may be hopeless to share the truth on Wikipedia about this issue. Nevertheless, the truth remains on FIGJA's webpages sponsored by rangeguide.net, and it cannot be removed from there.Burk Hale 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BH - I raised the same issues above (#Sources). I don't see why we're linking to the Colorado legislature, or to a video on the CIA. -Will Beback · † · 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Will: Is Wikipedia limited to posting by those that fail to see the relevance of things, or those that do? Your failure to see the relevance of the Colorado legislation evidencing a pre-existing amendment that has been removed by the federal government, AND which verifies the facts of the memorial, AND a documentary on subversive activities of the federal government by a nationaly known commentator on PBS is not our problem. Please do your homework before you chastise someone that has? Burk Hale 06:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BH - We need to support each assertion, and to avoid making logical leaps. If the Colorado legislature or the Moyers video don't menton the Memorial then there's little reason to include them. This article is not about subversive activities of the U.S. government, it's about one resolution passed by the state of Georgia. -Will Beback · † · 06:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BH - please stop reverting to older version of the article - your account will be blocked if you continue to do so. You've been warned alreaady on your talk page. -Will Beback · † · 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: The beneficial, desperately needed pruning to which I am referring was, I believe, the work begun by Wikipedia editor Zantastic, here: [2]. Regarding tangential links, by the way, I want to point out that I and the other Wikipedia editors do not have a burden of proof to persuade you that the links do not belong in the article. The burden to support any particular text or link in a Wikipedia article is on the editor inserting that text or link. So your statement that "[a]ll links that you removed should be discussed for the relevance before [being] removed" is not correct. What I want to do, however, as time permits, is to work with you on improving the article. Yours, Famspear 15:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on what the resolution says

The resolution claims that the 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified in such a way that the Southern states, including Georgia were not properly represented in the process. The resolution claims that this lack of representation violated the U.S. Constitution, thus the amendments were never properly ratified. The resolution calls on Congress to declare the amendments null because of the purported Constitutional violation (one wonders, however, why GA wouldn't have said the same about the 13th Amendment, though that's neither here nor there). This can all be found in and gleaned from the source text itself.[3] Nowhere does the text say that ratification of the Amendments constitutes an overthrow of the federal and confederate governments. Nowhere does the text say that the U.S. Government that has existed since the ratification of the amendments is a "subversive organization" or is no longer a representative government (rather, that at the time of the adoption of the amendments it was not representative; the text actually notes that the government today is a "champion of Constitutional governments"). Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ORIGINAL EDITOR COMMENTS

First, this experience with Wikipidea editors has been enlightening and revealing, enlightening in the fact that I have learned more about where some Americans stand on jurisprudence, where they fail to grasp its finer nuances when subtrafuge was not so popular in earlier Ameriacn Jurisprudence, and how political correctness plays such a powerful role in recording history. I settle for the good of this experience and remain amazed that the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress managed to remain on Wikipedia at all.

I could spend days providing citations supporting everything I've said. But much of it would have to be uploaded to a server and most likely by me, but it would then have me associated with it and thus not permissable on Wikipedia. Now I realize that internationally recognized Bill Moyers of the Public Broadcast System is just that, an internationally recognized reporter of the Public Broadcast System, but he clearly video documented subversive activities conducted by the U.S. government that were current with the period in which the memorial was enacted. Regarding other "filtered-out" citations, the Colorado citations that I provided, that showed photocopied evidence of the original 13th Amendment as a Constitutional Amendment in the Colorado code (there were other supportive documents verifying the original 13th Amendment found in the British Archives and other places that were overlooked in the antebellum and postbellum damage control conducted by the subversives in America), clearly shows that not only was there antebellum and postbellum subversion by those supporting federal control of ALL the several states (subverting states rights), it evidences the fact that the second so-called 13th Amendment was actually the 14th Amendment. This was not known by the Georgia Legislature at the time of the memorial, as it had been well hidden and suppressed by war and later by the terrorization of the Reconstruction Era, otherwise it may have been included in the memorial. Nevertheless, it supports the articles mention of subversion as it directly relates to subversion mentioned in the memorial. One only needs to look at the various reasons stated for the memorial by the Georgia Legislature and see that there was a concern for subverion of states rights again during a period of aggressive Marxist movement in America that played the race card in every hand.

For those that fail to see what I have said, having come from many years of research, you are welcome to attend my lectures, as I simply do not have time to devote to Wikipedia by arguing with editors forever and ever.

I'll leave you with these little tid-bits:

Georgian's were very clever with their memorial/petition. They knew that the federal government would arrogantly ignore the memorial/petition and that it caught the de facto "Congress" in a severe catch 22 situation. They knew that they would default on the petition. They knew that the de facto "Congress" could do nothing to "un-ratify" the purportedly "ratified" amendments that failed to get ratification from a representative government in each of required number among the several states. They knew that ratificaion was declared by Executive Order, and not because it was ratified in accordance with the Constitution. They knew that if the memorial/petition was properly addressed that a big can of worms would be opened.

And as expected, the federal government ignored it, and trusted in their overwhelming "bayonets", the fear they had worked so hard to instill for almost a century and the continual dumbing down of Americans by telling a false history fabricated by the victors again and again over time. But they gave Georgians a document that would endure for all time, a document that would grow more forceful with age (yes, there is such a thing as an "aged document", but do not expect modern "14th Amendment due process jural experts" to give it just due because it serves to indict them later).

However, they did not just send it to "Congress" (as certain biased editors here would have us believe). They also sent it to their own Congressional Representatives and Senators, AND The Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief Justice (and supreme Court [not mispelled]) could have ruled the Executive Orders as an abuse of Executive Powers. But be aware that it was properly sent to all parties, and all of them have no excuse to be ignorant of the facts the memorial stated once their ignorance was at a end. Their ignorance came to an end (maxim in parte), and from that point forward they were, and are, liable for any subversive acts, or any other acts, based on the fraudulent amendments. The present 140 year-old voting franchise is also a sham and a fraud, and thus all subsequent acts since the so-called "14th Amendment" are also a sham and a fraud without standing.

Also, when Congressmen and state legislators are unduly removed from their offices at bayonet point, that is subversion, and their is not squirming out of that fact. Anyone that tells you otherwise is biased. The memorial clearly shows that the People's representatives were subverted, and thus the People's government. The memorial shows that the U.S. government is not an example of representative government, and clearly states that fact.

Being that the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress was a petition in the form of a memorial, the facts stated in the memorial were not only for the benefit of those that it was addressed to, but a clear statement of Georgia's position on the matter. When it comes to ratification by a state, the ultimate authority in deciding the validity of the ratification is the state that does (or rejects) the ratification. I endeavored to cite this as well, but it was also "filtered-out".

Here is part of the original article's validation that I was forced to remove:

Judge A.H. Ellett, of the Utah Supreme Court, in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968], concluded:

... the States have the "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issues" to determine the validity of the ratification votes cast on an Amendment", and ..."The authority to determine the validity of the votes cast in ratification of an Amendment are with the States..."

Reference: Judge A.H. Ellett (Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968]):

Source: http://www.rangeguide.net/illegal14thamendment.htm

So, you see? Even the Utah Supreme Court "had a clue".

Georgia was declaring that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments were invalidly enacted in accord with their commitments to the People, and their own conscience. Who, in 1957, was going to burn them at the stake like Cathars in the Inquisition? They dared the U.S. government to show their despotic hand or respond to the memorial.

Granted, the heat was on regarding regarding racial issues of the day, but it remains that when unlawful enactments are clearly declared invalid (or void due to unconstitutionality) that one must return to the previous Lawful enactments (maxim). And at this time of history, the subversive groups rooted in the federal government were ready to play the race card again, to their own agenda, while pretending to be taking a stand for a people claiming to be disenfranchised. Georgia simply noted that they had been previously disenfranchised and a NEW ORDER was franchised under the most dispicable circumstances, circumstances that pivoted directly on the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments purportedly enactmented and the coverup of the original 13th Amendment. The "de jure" train was derailed and never ever got back on track.

The main focus of the 14th Amendment was to subvert state governments across the board and create a new form of citizenship for those "under the jurisdiction" they created, most of which attaches on the contractual side of the Constitution that Ben Franklin warned about (Pandora's Box was opened). I wonder if any editor here "gets a clue" by considering why the subversives felt such need to go as far as they did to force the provisions of the so-called 14th Amendment. This editor found out why, and traced all the relating subversive activities over a 17 year period. The evidence is a severe indictment against the U.S. government and all those that knowingly and willingly support the despotism of U.S., Incorporated, an agent of the British Crown (which is a puppet government as well).

In closing, I may never find any evidence suitable for the modern "jurisprudence" that some of the editors here adhere to, despite the fact that the courts today are the epitome of injustice (a tragic joke) and are actually legislative tribunals and courts martial proceeding under color of law against civilians, a pretence of justice that began over 145 years ago with the so-called "Civil War" (what a misnomer).

So I am at a disadvantage here on Wikipedia, and I'm noting a sense of futility in ever seeing the full import of the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress being allowed to be documented in the article.Burk Hale 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, including this talk page, is not a soapbox. You're still making arguments, trying to prove points. Wikipedia is not designed for that, as our no original research policy makes clear (carefully consider the subsection regarding synthesis). That said, an article on this subject exists on Wikipedia now, and I believe that the encyclopedia is better for it. For that, I thank you (I think, anyway, as the article was originally written by a different editor, but you seem to claim that you wrote it above). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my points.Burk Hale 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited my original article, replaced certain citations (to meet Wikipedia verifiability requirements) and specifically focused on what the 1957 Georgia memorial makes notable, listing the specific points it makes (since its actual text is not allowed to be posted). The new edit totally leaves out any potential Wikipedia violations. The citations are verifiable and reputable citations from notable news reporting sources, congressional records and codified law, with the addition of certain written reference citations that are not on the internet for your own verification in your local legal or public library or contacting the respective news sources for copies at your own expense. I have already provided a great deal of imformation at my own expense regarding this this article initiated be me.

But what is more important, since there has been a recent motion to delete the article for lack of notable value, is the focus on all the extremely controversial and notable points that makes the memorial unlike any legislation ever enacted by a state addressing the subversion of the federal government in defense of the Constitution and States Rights. Deletion of any of the new edited article gives rise to bias against the articles notable contribution to Wikipedia.Burk Hale 02:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits may no longer have verifiability or sourcing problems, and I think they still might (the "Constitution Society" looks to be of dubious reliability, and referencing articles that are unavailable to the general public is generally discouraged, such as the lexis articles). Your edits, however, still do not adhere to neutral point of view. As a brief example, you changed the introductory paragraph from "due to purported violations of the United States Constitution during the process of ratification" to "due to violations of the Constution [sic] of the united [sic] States of America during their purported enactments." The enactment violations are what are purported; the violations are not objectively true and must be qualified by the modifier. Another example: you changed the first sentence to state that the resolution is an "act" instead of a "resolution". The terms are distinct from a legal standpoint; I can refer you to numerous legal texts on point if you like. These point of view problems persist throughout your edit. The version of the article before before your edit was neutral, thus I am reverting. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jersey - I'll examine this and make the appropriate corrections. The US NEWS & World Report article posted by the Constitution Society is available to the general public, and so is the cite from the Chattanooga Free Press, which is photocopied. If NPOV applies here, then it must apply to all citations by the SPLC and other similar non-neutral organizations used on Wikipedia IN GOOD FAITH. But, they do "appear" to be views similar to the memorial itself.. Both news sources are verifiable. I'll add the word purported to the introductory paragraph. The resolution is published in the Acts of Georgia, and is an "act" not merely a resolution. All resolutions that are approved become acts. I wish to note that you deleted a significant amount of my re-edited article that was in compliance.Burk Hale 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jersey - The articles do "appear" to be NPOV as much as the memorial itself, but since an issue of NON_NOTABILITY has been raised about the memorial and the article in regards to deletion of the article, it would stand to reason that its notability be verified by news reporting that adds credit to the notable aspects of the article that has been questioned. I'd like to note the the very first comment on this discussion was purely biased and argument. Thanks for the perspective and editorial observations.Burk Hale 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not the POV of the sources but the POV of the text you added. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jersey - You said "These point of view problems persist throughout your edit." You stand corrected. This is a broad brush that leads me to believe that you meant all that I re-edited (especially since you deleted everything I wrote). Further, POV of the memorial itself is not editorial POV, but the facts about what the memorial is addressing, and my editing points out the facts about the memorial and what it is saying. You also said, regarding the sources, "referencing articles that are unavailable to the general public is generally discouraged, such as the lexis articles), but they still do not adhere to neutral point of view." You stand corrected again when you state, "The issue is not the POV of the sources..". Your comments are not a little confusing and misleading.Burk Hale 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note what is contained in parentheses and what is not. I trust that will clear up my original statement. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jersey - I assume you now wish to be specific, now, about the lexis source, which is not an article as you claimed, but publicly accessible Internet source for the actual Georgia Code Annotated regarding the Subversive Activities Act.Burk Hale 04:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But there's no way for anyone without a lexis account to know what it is because it's password protected. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the POV problems, which I still contend are contained in the edit, the edit introduced a large amount of poor writing and wording into the article and uses an improper referencing style. Unlike before the edit, the article now needs a major cleanup. Tagging as such. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Grasping at straws - Spurious deletion attempts & NPOV claims

I just saw the latest NPOV banner on the article. What's that about? There are no biased POV comments in the article, just a clear and concise article on what the memorial says, with no biased opinions and non-verifiable citations. The NPOV claim has no standing. It appears that the non-neutral content of the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress itself, and the article's unbiased reporting on the memorial, with verifiable citations (without quoting the actual text of the document), is causing the NPOV banner to be placed on the article? Is that correct? Did I miss a straw someone is grasping for? I also notice that the delete banner is still on the article as well. Pray tell, is this article doomed to censorship no matter how well it complies with Wikipedia?Burk Hale 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV issues specified. Removing NPOV.Burk Hale 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You posted this message at nearly midnight my time and expected a response within 4 minutes? I raised specific NPOV problems above and noted that there were also others. I take your removal of the POV tag to be in bad faith. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what time it is where you live (irrelevant). I'm not aware of any expectations of you. You may be taking this discussion personal (there are other editors). The only NPOV issue you raised was the lexis link to the Georgia Code, and it was removed, thus resolving any specified NPOV concerns. Unspecified purported NPOV contentions are not grounds for continued NPOV tagging, and the contentions should be specified so that editors can address them properly. Allowing a NPOV tag to remain on an article without specific reference to NPOV(s) is speculative at best and only serves to distort the neutrality of the article for the readers. This article, as noted above, has been severely scrutinized with spurious claimes of non-notability for deletion purposes and NPOV tagging (since its recently updated edits taking great pains to remove any remote NPOV language), and this may be viewed as bad faith. At points, large sections of the article were removed that were non-POV text and valid, relevant citations, which further adds to the view of bad faith by other editors.Burk Hale 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously still not recognizing or ignoring my message above about parentheses. I will revise my comment in the above section to make this more clear. My NPOV concerns have nothing to do with the sources. Sources are governed by WP:V and WP:RS. Article text is covered by WP:NPOV. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

In an effort to gauge consensus from the wider community on this point, I have started an RFC on this article. The relevant disputes are discussed at some length in the above threads. To summarize:

• Are recent changes (diff) to the article helpful and do they adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR?
• Which version of the article is preferable? This one or this one?

· j e r s y k o talk · 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• My view, as explained in the above threads, is that the recent changes do not adhere to NPOV and NOR (the additions continue to insert research relating to the constitutionality of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment instead of merely presenting the Memorial for what it is, such as inserting references to various portions of the text of the Constitution in attempts to demonstrate that the text of the Memorial is accurate). In addition, I find the additions to be uniformly poorly written and unencyclopedic, requiring a large amount of cleanup. Finally, while I prefer the first of the two versions of the article, I would not be opposed to delving into the text of the Memorial in more detail in this article (as was attempted in the recent changes). Nonetheless, the current incarnation of such in this article is so poor that it would be best to start from scratch in that regard. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Jersyko- Your view is narrowed to views focused on the the constitutionality of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the fuller scope of the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress (which includes the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment being in question), and your view is narrowed regarding references to the Constitution in that you assume are merely to demonstrate the accuracy of the Memorial when in actuality it gives the readers quick reference to the aspects raised in the Memorial. I would not be opposed to clean up of what you contend is "poorly written", but gutting large sections does not reflect excelnent editing to restate the points better, rather it suggests unwarranted censorship that keeps pertinent information from the readers. Your suggestion to start from scratch may be seen as persistent bad faith attempt to keep pertinent information from the readers.Burk Hale 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with editor Jersyko. This version [4] is preferable as a jumping off point for further development of the article. I tried a bit overnight to tone down the POV in the article. The separate problem of original research also needs to be dealt with. To me it makes more sense to start (or re-start) with the preferred version.

The 1957 Georgia Memorial might have some historical significance, which is why a Wikipedia article on it might be beneficial. As explained elsewhere in this talk page, however, the Memorial has essentially no legal significance. The 1957 Georgia Memorial has no legal effect on the United States Constitution, including any amendments thereto.

If it is ultimately decided by Wikipedia consensus that the fringe argument -- that the Memorial does somehow affect the 14th and 15th Amendments -- should be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, neutral point of view would require that we also disclose (if such is the case) that no court has ruled the 14th and 15th amendments to be invalid, etc. (whether based on the "Georgia Memorial" argument or any other argument).

Many fringe arguments, however, do not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia at all. In this context please note:

The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.[5]

Inventors of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. [6]

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance.[7]

Yours, Famspear 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The RFC addition to this article may be viewed another spurious attempt to continue excessive scrutiny of pertinent text in the article that gives readers a clear understanding of this monumental legislation. This version guts most of the pertinent text and citations which gave rise to spurious non-notability claims aimed at deleting the article altogether). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1957_Georgia_Memorial_to_Congress&oldid=111024080 This article gives the reader a greater understanding of what the memorial is about and adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:NORBurk Hale 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with editor Famspear. I also note that this article may never be beyond relentless scrutiny due to comments and edits by editors with a biased view that the article is related to a "fringe theory". The "fringe theory" is a spurious conspiracy theory meant to skew the subject matter and put a spin on it that is typical of politically correct censorship. Also, by making an issue of "original research" implies that Famspear desires to remove any editing by anyone that has thoroughly researched the subject matter. Famspears contentions that the Memorial has no legal significance or effect, and has no supportive court rulings is an example of very poor research on the subject matter, and gives way to spurious claimes of non-notability even though the Utah Supreme Court ruling citation, consistent with the Memorial, was edited out by other editors. The Utah Supreme Court clearly supported the monumental fraudulence of the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments (key documents that changed America significantly). There are no theories purported in the article, and this, too, is more spin to negate the import of the Memorial. Famspear also seems to promote the narrow-minded, politically correct status quo favoring dogmatic academia as a filter to remove historical facts and suppress the truth, as revealed in the monumental legislation of the 1957 Georgia Memorial. If allowed, then the Wikipedia Project will result in being nothing more than a parroting of polically correct history. Famspear's couching with the "fringe argument" comments is remarkably obvious in its spin-doctoring of the article's import and also down-plays the relevance of the purported facts in the Memorial has for a significant portion of the American population (especially the South). Further arguments along the "fringe argument" line should be ignored and considered as spuriously argumentative and tainted as best.Burk Hale 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this dispute, having arrived here via the RFC. I have nothing against the concept of expanding the article beyond a stub by describing the document in more detail. However, the changes made to this article violate Wikipedia standards of style, quality and neutrality. It clearly reflects an attempt by the editor to push his point of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. In addition, the Chattanooga Free Press article User:Burk Hale cites says that the person who was pushing this issue in 1995 was none other than Burk Elder Hale III. That means the user is presumably also violating WP:NOR. I believe all changes by User:Burk Hale should be reverted and replaced with a neutrally written, Wikipedia-style-compliant expansion of the document summary. In fact, I'm going to do that right now. -- Mwalcoff 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes I've made, alleged to be in violation of Wikipedia remain to be clearly identified, and remain without standing. The Chattanooga Free Press article is an editorial about the subject matter tha adds addition al verification what has been alleged to be ommitted by other editors, and this citation is not Burk Hale's research, but bonified editorial by a respected new paper. Arguing to remove it would be an argument to remove all citations from Wikipedia envolving news papers or other reporting agencies regarding the notability of the subject matter. All the facts stated by me, Burk Hale, are neutral and simply reflect what the memorial states without adding a positive or negative position, and makes it easy for the readers to see the notable significance of the article.Burk Hale 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with editor Mwalcoff. Yours, Famspear 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Burk Hale: You are correct that this article "may never be beyond relentless scrutiny." Wikipedia editors are continuously watching this article like hawks. A very high percentage of all Wikipedia articles are being watched in that way.

All editors have a "biased view." Merely "having a biased view" is neither inappropriate nor a disqualification to edit in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia does require, however, is that we try our best to set our own biases aside and to follow Wikipedia official policies, guidelines, etc. What is required is that the articles themselves conform to the concept of neutral point of view as the concept has been developed in Wikipedia over time.

I think you might be taking my use of the term "fringe theory" personally, and that's understandable -- as the term does have a negative connotation. As explained above, however, your personal, idiosyncratic theory that a 1957 resolution by the Georgia legislature could somehow change the legal effect of an amendment to the United States Constitution is, from a legal standpoint, a "fringe theory" -- and in using the term "fringe theory" I am being diplomatic here.

Perhaps following Wikipedia rules about verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research might be what you personally believe is "politically correct censorship." You will find, however, that following those rules is not going to be negotiable with Wikipedia editors. That's not my personal rule. That's a rule that was instituted in Wikipedia a long time ago.

My making an issue of "original research" certainly does not imply that I desire to remove any editing by "anyone that has thoroughly researched the subject matter" (and I assume that you are referring to yourself as someone who has "thoroughly researched the subject matter"). Again, "no original research" is not my personal rule -- it's not something I came up with on my own one day. No matter how knowledgeable you think you are about the 1957 Georgia Memorial resolution, Wikipedia editors will enforce the concepts of verifiability, neutral POV, and no original research.

My statement that the Memorial has no legal significance or effect, etc., is not an example of "very poor research on the subject matter." It is a statement of what the law is. For two reasons, I am stating a negative. All you have to do to dispute my statement is find a primary, secondary, or tertiary source that backs up your claim that the Memorial has the significance you claim it has. If this is merely your own claim, then it is your original research.

If the Utah Supreme Court had ever ruled (in Dyett v. Turner or in any other case) the way you seem to claim the court ruled based on your own "thorough research," then you would have been able to support your claim. You were not able to do so. And if, under the U.S. legal system, a court of the State of Utah could somehow issue a binding ruling to the effect that the state legislature of Georgia could -- by a mere resolution -- somehow invalidate an amendment of the United States Constitution proclaimed to have been ratified nearly a hundred years before the date of the Georgia resolution merely because Federal authorities to whom the resolution was sent failed to respond to the resolution for one year -- or five years -- or fifty years -- and that all that would actually be legally binding in the state of Georgia or in the United States as a whole, you would be able to find some authority for that as well. You cannot, and you will not. The theory is hardly worth more than a giggle.

Contrary to your claim, I do not "promote the narrow-minded, politically correct status quo favoring dogmatic academia as a filter to remove historical facts and suppress the truth, as revealed in the monumental legislation of the 1957 Georgia Memorial." Indeed, an important part of the impetus for my recent vote to save the article from deletion was precisely the historical aspect of the 1957 Georgia Memorial, as I believe I may have stated in the talk page discussing the proposed deletion. I'll bet that historical aspect was also part of the motivation of other Wikipedia editors who urged the retention of the article.

Preserving the article is not a "parroting of polically [sic] correct history" -- and neither are the continuing efforts by me and other Wikipedia editors to improve the article to conform to the concepts of verifiability, neutral point of view, and especially the "no original research" concept. Yours, Famspear 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Famspear, regarding the Utah Supreme Court ruling, I have been prevented by Wikipedia from citing the exact text of the ruling. As a matter of fact Wikipedia has prevented much of the verifiable information to be posted in the article. So, of course I'm unable to prove very much due to the censorship which is based on spurious claims about guidelines that are contradictory and biased in application, thus making editing and verification nearly impossible for this controversial article. I do not have a biased view on this matter, and am very adamant about not presenting biased views, rather simple, verifiable facts instead. In this matter, I've clarified for readers that the memorial is saying and provided citations to support the clarifications.Burk Hale 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Both from a legal and Wikipedia policy standpoint, I concur with Famspear. Of course, such discourse is appropriate for a talk page but would likely be inappropriate in the article itself, as pointing out the ultimately impotent legal nature of the resolution aside from reference to reliable sources that are already doing exactly that constitutes original research just as attempting to demonstrate that it perhaps has a broad legal effect would be. I note again, however, that this does not make this resolution any less fascinating to me, nor any less deserving of a Wikipedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article, but found limited information that could be used to do so. For one, the "memorial" itself says little more than that the amendments are invalid because the Southern states were excluded from Congress and because the Reconstruction state governments that ratified them were not legitimate authorities. So there's not much more we can say about the document. And about the only websites that mention the memorial are Wikipedia mirrors and Hale's own pages. So my recommendation is that we go back to the stub version. -- Mwalcoff 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mwalcoff: Your observation fails to mention that the memorial states the position of Georgia that the government of the United States was overthrown by subversives, as well as 11 Southern states in an effort to give plausibility to the alleged ratification of the subject amendments. In a day when terror is pushed by the media, American Citizens are suspects and their unalienable and inalienable rights are being subjected to despotism, the same depostism that the '57 Memorial raises you would think that any information that sheds light on the concept of "home-grown" terrorism would be notable. The Memorial is an indictment and proof of such "home-grown" terrorism by the subversive organization exposed in the memorial, the subversive definitions being clearly cited in my article for verification. In 1956 and 1957 Georgia was standing for state's rights (and their Citizens) and resisting subversive takeover, so why leave out those facts? What is so volitile is that the Memorial points a finger at a de facto Congress, (still in power) an agent of the British Crown, as the traitors that are forcing all the states to submit to their subversive agenda. So, indeed, there is a great deal more that can be said about the document that has nothing to do with editorial opinion, either positive or negative. Again, the Memorial clearly states the the present U.S. government is not an example of representative government, and that is a very serious claim in itself. Georgia has the right to determine the validity of its ratification of an amendment, just like other states do, and the Memorial clearly states that subversive organizations overthrew lawful governments to impose the fraudulent ammendments addressed in the Memorial.Burk Hale 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: As explained elsewhere on this talk page, editor Mwalcoff's omission of the contention that the "memorial states the position of Georgia that the government of the United States was overthrown by subversives" is entirely appropriate, as the memorial does not state that the government of the United States was overthrown by subversives. The references to "subversives" that had been placed in the article were put there by one or more contributors to Wikipedia (I haven't yet checked to see who did it). The terms "subversive" and "subversive organizations" do not even appear in the text of the 1957 document. Insertion of the language regarding "subversives" left an incorrect impression in the article -- as does your comment to editor Mwalcoff above.

Statements like:

"The Memorial is an indictment and proof of such 'home-grown' terrorism by the subversive organization exposed in the memorial"

and:

"What is so volitile [sic] is that the Memorial points a finger at a de facto Congress, (still in power) an agent of the British Crown, as the traitors that are forcing all the states to submit to their subversive agenda"

--are not doing much to bolster your arguments about the text of the article. Yours, Famspear 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, one or another variation on the term "subversive" has been in and out of the article since day one, but on 20 February 2007 it appears that user Burk Hale made the edit at[8] which left the incorrect impression about the 1957 resolution and subversives or subversive organizations. Yours, Famspear 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Just to be clear, the language at the bottom of that 20 February 2007 Burk Hale edit states (in part):

"the document [i.e., the 1957 Georgia resolution] asserts that the de facto government existing since these unlawful and illegal acts appears to be a subversive organization" [bolding and bracketed material added by Famspear].

Yours, Famspear 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simplification of citation

While the discussion above continues (regarding which version of this article should be developed), I went ahead and simplified the citation to the University of Georgia web site where the 1957 Memorial is posted. First, I removed the duplicated links, and just put one link at the end of the list. This should be sufficient to clearly show that all the material is being sourced to the 1957 Memorial itself (except where other links appear in the list, of course). Second, I changed the link itself so that the reader goes straight to the document. As previously posted, the link took you to a page at the University website that consisted of a list of various documents, and you then had to locate the link for the 1957 Memorial and click on it. I've just saved everybody a step. Yours, Famspear 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of list of contentions in the Georgia Memorial

OK, I have now completely re-written the list of contentions by reading the actual text of the 1957 Georgia Memorial (the resolution). This hopefully will reduce some of the POV, verifiability, and original research problems.

As previously written, the material included repeated references to "subversive organizations," and what not, with citation to Georgia statutory provisions on that. The terms "subversive" and "subversive organizations" are not even found in the text of the 1957 Georgia Memorial. The references to "subversives" were classic examples of spin -- original research, and especially unverifiable (not supported by the actual material that was being linked, which was the actual text of the Memorial). Yours, Famspear 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I have put the long list of citations at the bottom of the article into a footnote that ties directly to the place in the text where the related contention is made -- that various states actually rejected the proposed amendment or amendments. From my perspective the material looks better in a footnote and makes the article look a bit more like Wikipedia. Any comments? Yours, Famspear 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - To see where we are, compare the current version to this: [9] Yours, Famspear 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In connection with the aforementioned attempt to insert material about "subversive organizations" (with citations to the Georgia criminal statutes) into material purporting to summarize the contentions of the 1957 Georgia Memorial, note the following:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research.

Footnoted material: Jimmy Wales has discussed the problem of unpublished syntheses of existing material, stating: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy.) "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Copied on 2 March 2007 from [10]

The Georgia legislature, in the 1957 Georgia Memorial resolution, never contended that the "bad guys" in the Federal government, Congress, etc., who refused to seat the southern senators and representatives, and who crammed the 14th and 15th amendments down on them (if such are the facts) were "subversives" or "subversive organizations." Maybe those people were subversives, etc., in someone's estimation (and maybe they did or did not fit the definition in the Georgia criminal statute) -- but Wikipedia articles are not the proper places to publish this kind of original synthesis. This violated basic Wikipedia rules (and by the way, it would be a violation either with or without the citation to the Georgia statutes). Yours, Famspear 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: Oh, sometimes I just can't stop! I have to point out that the link that had been provided in the article to the Georgia statutes, which had nothing to do with the 1957 resolution, was to the Official Code of Georgia, title 16 (Crimes and Offenses), Chapter 11, Article 1, Part 1, section 16-11-4, entitled "Advocating overthrow of government". That provision states (in part):

2) "Subversive organization" means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or which has a purpose of engaging in or advocating, abetting, advising, or teaching activities intended to overthrow, to destroy, or to assist in the overthrow or destruction of the government of the state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence.

(b) A person commits the offense of advocating the overthrow of the government if he knowingly and willfully commits any of the following acts:

(1) Advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the state or any political subdivision thereof by force or violence;

(2) Prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, exhibits, or displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence [ . . . ]

This, along with the citation to the 1957 resolution (which, as already noted contained no language at all about "subversives"), was Burk Hale's support for his verbiage in the article to the effect that the 1957 resolution "asserts" something about the Federal government, etc., being a "subversive" organization. Yours, Famspear 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Clearly far down the road of original research. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1957 resolution and the Georgia Code Annotated

On 21 February 2007 (Feb. 20, U.S. central time), Burk Hale inserted the following verbiage on this talk page:

Dear readers: for what it's worth, the resolution was passed and approved on March 8, 1957. It is listed in the Georgia Code Annotated. When a resolution passes both houses and is signed by the governor (or president if a federal resolution), it becomes law.[11]

At one point I asked Burk Hale [12] for a citation so that we could find the Memorial "listed" in the Georgia Code Annotated. At this point (early Saturday morning, March 3, 2007, US central time) no response has been provided. As noted above, he did at one point cite to the Georgia Code, but that citation was provided for the text of the "subversive organization" criminal statute quoted above, not for the 1957 resolution. The Georgia criminal statute and the 1957 Georgia resolution are two completely different things.

As noted above, some resolutions are "the law" -- and others are not. Contrary to the implication by Burk Hale, the mere fact that a particular resolution passes both houses and is signed by the governor, the President, etc., does not necessarily make that resolution "a law" (for Congressional resolutions, for example, see my discussion on this talk page regarding joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions). As of now, user Burk Hale has not provided any citation for his proposition that the 1957 Memorial is the law in Georgia or anywhere else, or that the resolution "is listed in the Georgia Code Annotated." Yours, Famspear 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Acts of Georgia

As noted, so much has been deleted, and massaged with "politically correct" handling, it is amazing that the article has remained here at all. I'm not here to argue, just share the facts about the one of the most controversial and notable pieces of state legislation on the books. I have better things to do than waste time arguing with those that refuse to see what this document clearly says. If one is resticted from quoting the exacty text, and must write about it in the form of an article, one should be allowed to state what is "says", not what it "states".

If anyone wants to pick up a copy of the book, Acts of Georgia - 1957, at any legal library in Georgia, one will readily see the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress there. It is a fact that a joint resolution signed by the chief executive officer becomes law. Check with the Library of Congress for your own verification. It is an Act, PERIOD.

For anyone with a measure of intelligence that reads Georgia's 1953 Sedition and Subversive Activities Act, codified before 1957 (hello?), one will clearly see that the un-Constitutional overthrowing of governments is SUBVERSIVE. That appears to agitate some editors here who are not willing to see the FACTS. They do not want to see the word "subversive" being used in connection with the de facto U.S government, even if the de facto U.S. government has not denied it for over 50 years.

In closing, politically correct editing will no-doubt continue to "soften" and "politically correct" this article, maybe to the point of it being deleted altogether, and keep it in question to subvert its relevance and notariety.Burk Hale 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Burk Hale: Again, Wikipedia has some basic policies and guidelines including Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View. Your latest edits to the article have been modified because they violated some basic tenets. Enforcement of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not "political correctness."

Repeated insistence on inserting non-neutral point of view language in an article may constitute vandalism:

The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned.[13] {bolding added]

Anyone "with a measure of intelligence," to use your words, can understand from your commentary over the weeks that you feel very strongly, passionately, that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were not properly ratified back in the 1800s, and that a great wrong has not been righted. We are not here in Wikipedia to argue that point. I am a Southerner and I respect your feelings; I suspect other editors may also respect that you hold your beliefs strongly.

We understand that you feel that the Georgia Memorial is somehow a "law" or has some binding legal effect. The Memorial was a resolution by the legislature of Georgia. Whether it was an "act" of the Georgia legislature or not, it is not now -- nor has it ever been -- a statute. It is not legislation in the sense of a statute. And contrary to what you indicated some weeks ago, the Memorial is not found in the codified statutes, the Georgia Code.

You have also been unable to come up with any reliable, published third party source that states that the Memorial has any legal effect on the 14th and 15th Amendments.

We are not here in Wikipedia to promulgate the personal views of you, or of me, or of any other editor. We are here to write about what previously published, reliable sources have written about topics that are the subjects of Wikipedia articles -- not to use Wikipedia as a cyberspace soapbox to push political views or to right the perceived injustices of the past.

Your use of your own process of original research, including your synthesis of (A) a citation to the Georgia Code statute regarding "subversives," with (B) an attempt to insert that material into the article on the Memorial to make it appear (C) that the Memorial itself says something about "subversives" has been well documented here.

I argue that it is not "amazing that the article has remained here at all." I and other Wikipedia editors argued for its retention when it was nominated for deletion. We believe the subject of the article, the Memorial, has historical significance that is notable for purposes of a Wikipedia article. We were able to reach a consensus that the article should be retained.

I somewhat disagree with your statement that you, Burk Hale, are "not here to argue, just share the facts." My perception is that your real purpose in being here is indeed to argue and to push your personal point of view about the Georgia Memorial and the amendments.

Your personal opinions about the putative injustice of the process of ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments are not "facts." Further, your article edits and your talk page commentary have been riddled with inaccuracies, "point of view pushing" (repeated edits re-inserting non-neutral point of view material in the article), unverifiable data (making statements in the article with citation to a source that does not stand for the proposition you indicated), and original research -- synthesis of "point A" (found at "source A") with "point B" (found, or in at least one case NOT found, at "source B") to reach "conclusion C" -- your own conclusion C -- a conclusion not found at either source A or source B. This is blatant original research and worse, it is blatantly incorrect.

Let's look at this statement:

That appears to agitate some editors here who are not willing to see the FACTS. They do not want to see the word "subversive" being used in connection with the de facto U.S government [ . . . ]

So far, the only place that the word "subversive" is being used in connection with the "de facto U.S. government" is in your article edits and talk page commentary. As previously discussed, the Georgia Memorial does not contain the term "subversive" and the Georgia Code statute in question does not speak of the United States government or anyone in the government (either today or at the time of the ratifications) as being subversive, or non-subversive. All this is your own personal point of view, your own personal synthesis, until and unless you find some reputable, published, third-party source that connects the dots you insist should be connected.

Wikipedia editors are not really arguing with you that the dots should not be connected. We are not saying they should be connected somewhere, and we are not saying they should not be connected, either. We are saying that neither you nor I nor any other Wikipedia editor can, connect the dots ourselves, on our own, while writing or editing the article. We are saying that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require that some reliable, previously-published third party have already connected the dots for us. No original research.

We are also saying that where a reliable, previously-published third party does make an assertion (such as "connecting some dots"), neutral point of view requires that we present that assertion as being that third party's assertion, and not Wikipedia's assertion. Neutral Point of View.

We are saying that where you cite a source for a statement inserted in a Wikipedia article, the actual text of that source must specifically and precisely back up the Wikipedia article's statement. Verifiability.

Please take another deep breath and think about the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Thanks, Famspear 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress notes "subversive" acts. Georgia code defines "subversive". The terms usage in the article is not an "un-verifiable" opinion, a "non-neutral point of view" or "original research", and its use by the original editor is within Wikipedia guidelines. I will replace the term subversive in the article, and I will not submit to a spurious threat about "vandalism" to Wikipedia because an editor is not comfortable with these facts. Continued spurious removal of the term "subversive" is as I have already stated above.Burk Hale 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: No, as already explained the Georgia Memorial does not note "subversive" acts in the way that you are saying. The term "subversive" is not found in the memorial, as has been pointed out over and over. The Memorial does mention certain acts that you, or I, or someone else, perhaps might argue are "subversive," using the definition in the Georgia statute that you keep citing, or perhaps using some other definition. Or someone might contend those acts are not "subversive." That is a point on which reasonable people may have differing opinions.

The point that you have been unwilling to accept is that the Georgia Memorial itself does not state that the U.S. government, or the people etc., etc., who effected the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment were "subversives" or that the U.S. government is now or ever was "subversive." Another point that you have been unwilling to accept is that the Georgia criminal statute itself does not state that the U.S. government, etc., is a subversive organization. You are still trying to use your own original research to tie source A together with source B to form your conclusion C that sources A and B are saying something they are not saying. Your obdurate recalcitrance in refusing to acknowledge this simple fact is well documented here.

This is not about other editors being "uncomfortable" with the "facts" as you see them to be. You still seem unwilling to accept that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a soapbox for your own views about the putative injustice of the ratification (valid or otherwise) of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is not about suppressing the "truth" that you apparently yearn to see revealed here in Wikipedia. You seem to be unwilling to accept that I (and I believe other editors) do not have a personal axe to grind about the Fourteenth Amendment. We are not arguing with you that the ratification of the Amendment was fair or that it was unfair, legal or illegal, subversive or non-subversive. You are arguing with us about the substance of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and we are arguing with you about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In short, you fail to assume good faith in your dealings with other editors.

As I have pointed out on this talk page, I and other editors argued successfully for retention of this article when it was nominated for deletion. We did not argue for retention merely so that this article could continue to be a mouthpiece for blatantly false, unverifiable information, blatantly incorrect original research, blatantly presented in a non-neutral manner.

No one is making spurious threats about vandalism. Under the Wikipedia rules as I quoted above, repeatedly pushing POV after having been warned may be considered vandalism. I didn't write that rule.

No one person owns any Wikipedia article. A basic tenet of Wikipedia is consensus -- achieved when Wikipedia editors work together. The Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral POV and No Original Research are not negotiable. I strongly encourage you to abandon the tack you have been taking since you began editing here, and to work with other editors to achieve consensus. Famspear 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Verification

The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress is Georgia Law:

Reference: Ga. Laws 1957, pp. 348-351.

Internet source: http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/1957.htm

The State of Georgia has the right to determine its position on ratification:

Judge A.H. Ellett, of the Utah Supreme Court, in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968], concluded:

... the States have the "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issues" to determine the validity of the ratification votes cast on an Amendment", and ..."The authority to determine the validity of the votes cast in ratification of an Amendment are with the States..."

Reference: Judge A.H. Ellett (Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968]):

Internet Source: http://www.rangeguide.net/illegal14thamendment.htm

Large City Newspaper (legal county organ as well) Editor confirms illegal attempt to ratify the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, and supports and verifies the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress:

Reference: The Chattanooga News Free Press - Editorial section, March 8, 1995

Internet Source: http://www.rangeguide.net/freepress.htm

(Editors may wish to consider the Constitution as a third party, published document that suppports Georgia's position. The third party verification above has been ignored and in some instances removed by editors.)Burk Hale 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

None of that is new information; it has all been discussed and refuted in regard to using it in the manner you persist in using it. Thus, I placed OR and NPOV tags in the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko - Thank you for proving my points, again. You state nothing that has not been discussed and refuted as well. The truth stands on its own, spurious editing and comments to the contrary notwithstanding. And that truth is that the so-called 14th Amendment was not legally ratified due to subversive activities attempting to give ratification verification.Burk Hale 20:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the truth. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the text of the '57 Memorial, just like the text of the so-called 14th Amendment has been added to the Wikipedia page without removal by you or anyone else, has been RE-ADDED to this article, even though it was removed from the original article. To remove the text of the Georgia Memorial, again, would TRULY reveal someone's bias and non-neutral point of view, not to mention their politically correct propensities.Burk Hale 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly false, unverifiable material

User Burk Hale is still re-adding blatantly false, unverifiable material. The beginning of the article currently reads as follows:

The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress is a law[14] enacted by the legislature of the state of Georgia declaring Georgia's legal position on the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The resolution was approved by the governor on March 8, 1957 and was added to Georgia Law in 1957[15].

The first line, saying that the Georgia Memorial is a "law" is immediately followed a link to the Georgia Code criminal statute regarding "subversives." Nothing in that criminal statute says that the Memorial is a "law" or even mentions the Memorial.

Similarly, the last sentence says that the resolution was "added to Georgia law in 1957" -- and attempts to support that statement with a link, again, to the Georgia Code criminal statute on subversives, etc., which does not mention the Georgia Memorial or the Fourteenth Amendment at all.

These kinds of edits have already been discussed on this talk page. Wikipedia rules require Verifiability. That is, a statement in an article should be backed up by a source, and the statement in that source should actually stand for the proposition that is being promulgated in the article.

Further, the Wikipedia rule prohibiting original research means that we do not take proposition A from source A and combine it with proposition B from source B to formulate our own theory C.

The use of the language "so-called" is yet another example of blatant POV pushing on the part of Burk Hale.

Any comments, anyone? Famspear 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No new comments, given that all of this has been addressed at length. Nothing new here, no new sources, no new evidence, no new wording. The changes are still not permitted per Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate Burke Hale bringing this interesting memorial to Wikipedia his repeated attempts to push his POV, ignoring several policies including those on concensus and original research, lead me to believe that he will never stop trying to push his theories unless he is blocked from editing the appropriate articles. He's clearly not willing to be reasoned with, claiming he has refuted others when he has done nothing of the kind and refusing to listen when people point out the flaws in his original research. Edward321 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to the LAW is [16]. It is a LAW and not an opinion. I've reposted this LAW several times only to be deleted by editors who have an opinion that contradicts the facts of verified third-party sources such as the Laws of Georgia. Live with Famspear and Edward321. "So-called" is equivalent to "purported", regarding the so-called 14th Amendment that has been documented to have not been ratified (verifiable third-party sources including government publications). Live with that too, Famspear and Edward321, as your personal attacks on me do not serve your positions in any way whatsoever. There is no "original research" in the article, no matter how many times you say there is. It is what the Memorial says, and verifiable references provided, again, due to removal by editors who do not want this article as it is to remain. Jersyko, this article does comply with Wikipedia, as of 12:31PM 4/16/2007, and if you have a a particular point to make supporting that it is not, besides just vague and general comments, please provide them as your argument has no standing either.Burk Hale 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Of course, if you read that link, you see the 1957 Georgia Memorial in not a law at all. Even if it was, US judicial history established that Federal Law superseeded the decisions of state governments well before 1957, or 1868 for that matter. Finally, you accuse me of making personal attacks on you - where have I done that? Edward321 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The logic that the federal government can dictate to states how they voted regarding ratification of an amendment is an example of its dictatorship and the fact in the 1957 Georgia Memorial that points out that the federal government is no longer the champion of representative government. Georgia Law says that clearly. If you read the link you will see that it is a LAW, likewise, as I said before, this is proven in any legal library in Georgia that has the Acts of Georgia. I let everyone else figure out the obvious on the pesonal attacks throughout this discussion.Burk Hale 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the text. If the text of the so-called 14th Amendment is permissable on Wikipedia, then leave the text of the Georgia Memorial [17] alone.Burk Hale

Dear fellow editors: I essentially agree with editor Edward321 in his April 10th comments regarding Burk Hale. Based on the conduct of user Burk Hale over several months, I conclude that Burk Hale intends to continue POV pushing, that he intends to continue inserting text with citations to sources that do not support his text (Verifiability problem), that he intends to continue inserting his own original research, and that he intends to continue refusing to accept Wikipedia consensus in this article, and probably in the article on Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well. Famspear 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Famspear (or Edward321) removing the text of the 1957 Georgia Memorial. It being placed in the article proves the points I've made, and apparently this is intolerable for Famspear, an editor who uses "dear fellow editors" to appear cordial. I conclude that Famspear is strecthing the policy of this website beyond its limits to justify censorship of key points stated in the memorial that Famspear cannot tolerate, thus the continual harping (screaming fire in the theatre where there is not fire). The word subversive is completely appropriate for what is stated in this memorial. It requires no original research to employ the term subversive as the acts noted in the memorial EQUAL subversive under Georgia Law's definition. We are talking about Georgia, Famspear (hello?). Famspear, you need to get it into your head that when governments are unconstitutionally overthrown, as the memorial states, that is subversion. Reducing the language of the memorial that clearly states that in more detail with a word that means the same thing in summary for the article is NOT original research! It is not POV! Stop removing the text. I consider removal of the text as vandalizing. Stop vandalizing. Consensus does not create facts, but is good to a certain point. Attempts to vote on the facts to make them viable is the epitome of politically correctness, and does not give Wikipedia credibility. Abuse of consensus is your strategy, Famspear, to ostracize me and continue to manipulate the article to suit your POV. Your hyprocisy on the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is blatantly obvious. You want to cover up the true history of both issues, and your only tactic left is to employ lies about me and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines. I've said all along that this article, even the memorial itself, will be abused by those that persist in conducting themselves inappropriately (as you are). So, address the facts and stop the personal attacks. Playing the "Mighty Oz" behind the curtain is futile, Famspear (unless there is another Oz here with more admin power that takes your biased view, and then there goes all good faith out the door).Burk Hale 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, fellow administrator Isotope23 is the editor that removed the text. As noted in Isotope23's edit summary: "take it to wikisource". Every editor that has chimed in has opposed your changes, Burk Hale. There is a clear consensus that the changes violate Wikipedia policy or are otherwise unhelpful. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko and Isotope 23, If the text here in this article violates Wikipedia policy, then remove the text from Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Secondly, if Wikipedia requires verification, and then persists in removing the verification, what's the point in requiring verification? Such behaviour is the epitome of hypocrisy. Every editor, adverse to my editing, that has chimed in here has exhibited bias against the article I've recently cleaned up in a spurious manner. The idea is obvious by editors adverse to my clean-up, "lets use consensus to fabricate POV and OR by Burk Hale". Its so obvious it is ludicrous.Burk Hale 13:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM AND ABUSE OF THIS ARTICLE

Along with the text of the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, below is a short overview about the memorial presently in the article that has been removed and abused by other editors (vandalized):

The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress is a law[18] enacted by the legislature of the state of Georgia declaring Georgia's legal position on the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The resolution was approved by the governor on March 8, 1957 and was added to Georgia Law in 1957[19].

The law memorialized and urged the Congress of the United States to declare "that the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect"[20] due to subversive[21] acts in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of several states during the post-Civil War era.

Among the subversive acts noted in this law, Georgia declared that the subversive organization[22] pretending to act as Congress was unlawful, it overthrew the duly established governments of 11 states and established subversive organizations[23] that pretended to act as state governments merely to force un-Constitutional amendments upon all the states, and that the federal government cannot claim to be champions of Constitutional governments due to its failure to abide by the Constitution and its failure to protect the states from invasion.

Firstly - Famspear, or other editors, continue to remove the memorials text and the overview above. The main contention by Famspear and others is that the memorial is not Georgia Law, despite the verifiable fact that it is stated at the bottom of the page on the cite [24], Source: Ga. Laws 1957, pp. 348-351. Any legal library in Georgia will also verify this.

Secondly - Famspear, or other editors, continue to remove the overview of the memorial where the term "subversive" is used, despite the fact that the acts noted in the article are synonymous with the term subversive as defined by Georgia Law [25].

The Georgia Code states the following about "subversive":

16-11-4.

 (a) As used in this Code section, the term:
   
   (1) "Organization" means any corporation, company, partnership,
   association, trust, foundation, fund, club, society, committee,
   political party, or any group of persons, whether or not
   incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together for
   joint action or advancement of views on any subject.
   
   (2) "Subversive organization" means any organization which engages
   in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or which has a
   purpose of engaging in or advocating, abetting, advising, or
   teaching activities intended to overthrow, to destroy, or to
   assist in the overthrow or destruction of the government of the
   state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or
   violence.
   
 (b) A person commits the offense of advocating the overthrow of the
 government if he knowingly and willfully commits any of the
 following acts:
   
   (1) Advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity,
   desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the
   government of the state or any political subdivision thereof by
   force or violence;
   
   (2) Prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells,
   distributes, exhibits, or displays any written or printed matter
   advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
   desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the
   government of the state or of any political subdivision thereof by
   force or violence;
   
   (3) Assists in the formation, participates in the management, or
   contributes to the support of any subversive organization, knowing
   the purpose thereof;
   
   (4) Becomes a member or continues to be a member of a subversive
   organization, knowing the purpose thereof;
   
   (5) Destroys any books, records, or files or secretes any funds in
   this state of a subversive organization, knowing the organization
   to be such; or
   
   (6) Conspires with one or more persons to commit any of the acts
   prohibited by this Code section.
   
 (c) A person convicted of violating any provision of this Code
 section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $20,000.00 or
 by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years, or
 both.

The law above was in place BEFORE the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress, and the memorial's detailed comments about subversive acts are synonymous with the definition of "subversive organization" in the Georgia Code), thus proving the claims of POV and original research as spurious.

The remainder of the article is precise and informative for readers, spurious claims otherwise notwithstanding. Again, in the overview above, there is no POV pushing or original research whatsoever, as spuriously claimed by other editors. The text of the memorial and the cites proves this fact.

I consider the removal of text to be hypocritical, especially when compared to the "protected" Wikipedia article about the so-called 14th Amendment that has its text included in the article, and extremely abusive and vandalistic. The same holds for the removal of the term "subversive" used in the overview.Burk Hale 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If we accept your original research (though you've been repeatedly shown this is not a law) at face value, then we must also conclude that the government of the State of Georgia is a subversive organization. First, you say 'Congress...overthrew the duly established governments of 11 states and established subversive organizations that pretended to act as state governments'. According to your theory, the government of the state of Georgia would also be a subversive organization based on several points of Georgia legal code for continuing to support the Federal and it's own government. Thus, by your theory, the Georgia Memorial is a document issued by a subversive organization and has no legal standing.

For that matter, applying your reasoning - For almost ninety years, no contradictory response from Georgia regarding 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was received the Congress of the United States or other government officials disproving the declarations 14th Amendment to the US Constitution - thus the passage of time without response shows the 14th Amendment is the law. Edward321 14:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly shown Source: Ga. Laws 1957, pp. 348-351. What is your problem with this fact in the cite? Your bias is revealed in your persistence in ignoring the facts. Any legal library in Georgia will also verify that this is Georgia Law. And your redundancy about alleged "original research" claims against me is more of the "consensus" building by un-identifiable editors. I use my name, and that is verifiable. Who these other editors are could be the same person using different usernames for all we know, just to build a fabricated consensus (just worth a mention, but it matters not if there are a hundred verifiable editors with the same degree of bias you are showing). It is so incredibly ludicrous that Source: Ga. Laws 1957, pp. 348-351 is continually and blatantly ignored by editors adverse to my editing in this article. I've employed no theory, but you have: "Congress...overthrew...". I said the "subversive organization...overthrew..." Your desperate attempt to twist my words is revealing. But you do make a good point about Georgia's present condition. It remains under the bayonet, and it remains subverted. In 1957, under the boot of a heavily armed federal gestapo, the best Georgia could do is note the federal governments subversive character, and even that took some courage. But you digress in your comments about "90 years". Georgia and several states rejected it in the very beginning, a fact that you refuse to acknowledge as well. Georgia and South Carolina was still recovering from a terrorizing HOLOCAUST when they rejected the so-called 14th Amendment.Burk Hale 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From near the beginning, this article has been butchered by editors that do not want to see the facts presented in the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Verification with cites were provided, and then removed by editors. Everything possible has been thrown at the article to remove the painful facts that go against the POV of the editors adverse to my editing. What they do not want to see revealed in my article is continually removed, verification edited out. Readers and editors, are you getting the picture? Its so obvious.Burk Hale 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: What I have said is that the Memorial is not a law in the sense of a statute. Go back and read my comments. Without having run down to the library to check, I would suspect that the reference to "Georgia Laws" is a reference to what is known as the session law publication of the State of Georgia. The "Georgia Laws" and the "Georgia Code" are two different things. If the "Georgia Laws" publication is indeed analogous to the "session law" publication of the United States Government Printing Office (i.e., the United States Statutes at Large), then the "Georgia Laws" publication could well include more than just statutes, just as the United States Statutes at Large includes more than just statutes. For example, the United States Statutes at Large includes what are known as concurrent resolutions of Congress -- which are not statutes (and not binding law).

No one is disputing the point that a nonbinding resolution -- like the 1957 Georgia Memorial -- can be published in the "Georgia Laws." What we hear you saying in various comments you have posted on this talk page or in the article, however, is that the Georgia Memorial is somehow legally binding. That is false.

You also claimed at one point that the Georgia Memorial was found in the Georgia Code (which is a publication of Georgia statutes). Unfortunately, the Memorial is not found in the Georgia Code (or if it is, you haven't been able to locate it). What is found in the Georgia Code is the criminal statute that refers to subversive organizations (the one you quoted above, the one that I have previously discussed on this talk page).

It is ironic that you keep pushing for publication, in the Article, of the text of the Memorial itself -- as a reading of the text clearly refutes your arguments.

Other editors have removed the text not in an effort to suppress the truth, but (A) because of copyright claims (which may be valid or invalid -- but that is not for me to determine here) and (B) because of basic Wikipedia encyclopedia style concerns (the material is more appropriate in Wikisource). For example, in a Wikipedia article on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, we don't include a republication of Einstein's entire 1905 paper on the subject (granted, the Memorial is probably not as long as Einstein's paper).

If I were you, I would not be insisting that the actual text of the Memorial be reprinted here in Wikipedia.

You are repeating your own blatantly incorrect original research. You are trying to put source A together with source B to publish your own personal conclusion C. In substance, you are also accusing Wikipedia editors of trying to suppress what you view as "the truth." Yours, Famspear 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: Just as a follow-up, regarding your comment above to editor Edward321:

And your redundancy about alleged "original research" claims against me is more of the "consensus" building by un-identifiable editors. I use my name, and that is verifiable. Who these other editors are could be the same person using different usernames for all we know, just to build a fabricated consensus (just worth a mention, but it matters not if there are a hundred verifiable editors with the same degree of bias you are showing).

The following "unidentifiable" editors (listed in no particular order) have found problems with your material in this article (based on the Wikipedia rules regarding Verifiability, Neutral POV, or No Original Research) since you began contributing in Wikipedia under your name on or about February 20, 2007:

Edward321; began contributing in Wikipedia in August 2006; over 1,300 Wikipedia edits since that time;

Zantastik; began in November 2004; over 3,100 Wikipedia edits;

Will Beback; began December 2005; over 29,100 edits;

Jersyko; began January 2005; over 11,300 edits;

Isotope23; began April 2005; over 10,700 edits;

me (Famspear); began November 2005; over 9,000 edits.

Yes, most editors in Wikipedia do edit pseudonymously. But come on now: You're saying that two or more of these editors could be the same person using different user names -- just to build a "fabricated consensus" about your edits to this article? Please think about what you are saying. Famspear 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Subversive"

Actually, I think Burk Hale makes a decent, albeit badly articulated, point about the Memorial matching the criteria for "subversive" under the Georgia criminal code of that time. Maybe put in something along the lines of "The allegations contained in the Georgia Memorial would, if true, mean that the U.S. government was a subversive organization under the Georgia criminal code that was in place at the time the Memorial was written"...reason I think its notable is that the Georgia gov't might have been trying to put a subtle message into the text of the Memorial (again, I haven't looked up the Ga Code, but if the criteria fits, then I think its a notable point). 149.101.1.116 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with user IP149.101.1.116 on this point. Even if Burk Hale had had a valid point, Wikipedia has a rule against Wikipedia editors including their own original research in Wikipedia articles. It might be acceptable to report that a reliable third party had published the statement somewhere that "The allegations contained in the Georgia Memorial would, if true, mean that the U.S. government was a subversive organization under the Georgia criminal code that was in place at the time the Memorial was written" -- if a reliable third party had actually published such a statement, and if the article made clear that this was the opinion of the third party. (Also, I think Burk Hale was referring to the Georgia Code as it exists now, not as the Code was worded in the 1950s when the Memorial was issued, and not as the Code was worded in the 1800s when the ratifications were done.) Under the rules of Wikipedia, however, it is not acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to take Source A (the Georgia Memorial) and Source B (the Georgia Code provision), then make a correlation between A and B, and then insert the Wikipedia editor's own Opinion C -- regardless of whether that Opinion C is valid or not. The basic Wikipedia rules of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research would have to be observed.

That aside, from a legal standpoint, the idea that the people who pushed the Fourteenth Amendment, etc., etc., through to ratification back in the 1800s (which is what we're really talking about here) were part of a Federal government that was a "subversive organization" under Georgia criminal law is, to put it bluntly, preposterous. That's my opinion. Yours, Famspear 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree so far as my personal opinion is that the entire document is incredibly stupid and legally questionable. I was only trying to point out that if the language fits PERFECTLY into the criminal code of the time, then it would be worth mentioning (i.e. if the connection between the Ga. Code and the language of the Memorial is blatantly obvious then, to use your example, there's no original "C"-inference being drawn). That being said, I don't personally know anything about the Ga Code that was in effect in the '50s, so if the elements of the Memorial don't squarely fit into the definition that was in place at the time, then I'll defer.

149.101.1.116 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP149.101.1.116: Here is the text of the statute in question from the Official Code of Georgia, title 16 (Crimes and Offenses), Chapter 11, Article 1, Part 1, section 16-11-4, entitled "Advocating overthrow of government". The provision states (in part):

2) "Subversive organization" means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or which has a purpose of engaging in or advocating, abetting, advising, or teaching activities intended to overthrow, to destroy, or to assist in the overthrow or destruction of the government of the state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence.

(b) A person commits the offense of advocating the overthrow of the government if he knowingly and willfully commits any of the following acts:

(1) Advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the state or any political subdivision thereof by force or violence;

(2) Prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, exhibits, or displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence [ . . . ]

This statute, along with the citation to the 1957 resolution (which, as already noted contained no language at all about "subversives"), was Burk Hale's "support" for his opinion that the 1957 resolution "asserts" something about the Federal government, etc., being a "subversive" organization. I believe he was saying that the Federal government, or whoever in the government was involved in the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, etc., was a "subversive organization" under section 16-11-4 of the Georgia Code. I'm sorry, but that is blatant soapboxing on Burk Hale's part, and it's prohibited under the rules of Wikipedia. To say that those involved in the political process of ratifying the post-civil war amendments -- as unfair or messy as that process may well have been -- were somehow literally guilty of "advocating the overthrow of government" and criminal "subversion" under the aforementioned Georgia Code provision (which for all we know did not even exist when the Post-Civil War Amendments were ratified) is laughable.

I would respectfully but completely disagree with your opinion that "if the language fits PERFECTLY into the criminal code of the time, then it would be worth mentioning" in the Wikipedia article. Even if the language were a perfect fit (which it is not), for us to make that comment in Wikipedia would still be original research. This was a personal, bizarre point of view that Burk Hale himself cooked up on his own, and tried to push into Wikipedia. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read this entire discussion page from start to finish, and look at the related edits to the article back in the early part of the year, to see what I mean.

Wikipedia presents something of a moral challenge to those who discover they can make edits to an online encyclopedia that thousands or millions of people presumably read every day. The moral challenge for each user is: How does the user conform to the rules of "verifiability," "neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- that is, how does the user resist the temptation to push the user's own personal point of view? Many, many new users -- like Burk Hale -- simply do not rise to that challenge. Yours, Famspear 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of that part of the editorializing. Since the language is clearly not even close to a perfect fit, then we should of course not include it. I would respectfully disagree with your view of "Perfect Fit" being original research, but it is a moot point. FYI, I don't agree with Burk Hale's views in the slightest, I just thought that one particular claim would be an interesting historical addition if true (personally I can imagine a few legislatures doing something out of sheer stupidity and spite in the wake of the civil rights cases that SCOTUS was handing down). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.46.170 (talk • contribs) (on 8 August 2007).

Famspear, thank you for making your personal attacks against me (the proverbial "kill the messenger" tactic), the author of this article from the beginning, so obvious in your continuation to repeatedly remove the words used that ACCURATELY document what Georgia's memorial petition states.

There is no need to repeat what I've already stated, as arguing with you is not my purpose in being here. But your continual personal attacks, obviously allowed by the moderators of this website, is going to be clearly noted again here, as follows -

I think that the open-minded, intelligent and honest people that have read all this can clearly see that "hostile majorities" removing elected officials in Congress and several states at bayonet point to supplant the duely elected representative and lawful government, and the clear language of Georgia's sedition act are quite adequate in making my point, as well as clarifying that I have not injected "original research" and other such abusive applications of Wikipedia's rules you have applied to ostracize and redicule me in a relentless effort to keep the third-party verifiable facts (that upset your anti-Constitution agenda against lawful State sovereignty) about this memorial off of Wikipedia.

But for the record, Famspear, making your complaint - "those involved in the political process of ratifying the post-civil war amendments -- as unfair or messy as that process may well have been -- were somehow literally guilty of "advocating the overthrow of government" and criminal "subversion" under the aforementioned Georgia Code provision (which for all we know did not even exist when the Post-Civil War Amendments were ratified) is laughable" - is not what I said, and is your feable attempt to twist it yet again.

The point is that Georgia's sedition act defines "subversive"; that Georgia's memorial petition (undisputed facts ACQUIESED in by the federal government due to NEVER having responded - legal maxims clearly state that if you do not deny the allegations of a valid petition and continue to acquiese that one effectively admits to the allegations - which in this case has been OVER 50 YEARS) clearly describes subversive activities as defined by their own law; and these are third-party verifiable facts that you cannot tolerate, and this results in your continunal attacks and spin-doctoring that perpetuates without warning from the moderators.Burk Hale 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burk Hale: I have not made any personal attacks against you. The edits made by each contributor to this talk page and the article are readily available for you to read.

I have not removed the words used that accurately document what the petition states. I and numerous other editor removed tendentious soapboxing verbiage and in at least one case blatantly false material that you stubbornly re-inserted in opposition to the consensus of other editors. Again, both your edits and my own edits for both the article and for this talk page are available for all to read. I would encourage you to read or re-read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 19:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Burk Hale: There is no legal maxim stating that if the federal government refuses to act on a petition, then that petition becomes law. Quite the contrary, a petition, or any piece of legislation for that matter, does not become law until the federal government makes an affirmative action through either a bill, a Congressional resolution, or an executive order. Under your logic, I can send a petition to Congress and if Congress doesn't respond to my petition, then it admits all the allegations contained in the petition. That proposition is ludicrous as this is not how our government operates. See U.S. Const Art. I-II. 129.174.226.5 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The following edits are being removed for NPOV and OR guideline violations:

"The Memorial, part of Georgia's "continuing battle for segregation,"[1] followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from discriminating against racial minorities in public schools."

"Nevertheless, the consensus among legal scholars, including the Supreme Court, is that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are valid." 64.18.118.178 16:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 64.18.118.178: I'm not sure, but you may have given an incorrect rationale (non-neutral point of view and original research) for your edits, which have been reverted by another editor. Also, I may be splitting hairs, but I'm not sure that the 14th and 15th amendments were ever actually declared null and void by the State of Georgia. Read the actual text of the 1957 Georgia Memorial. I think the Georgia legislature was asking someone else to declare the amendments null and void. Someone else never did, of course, but that's a different story. Famspear 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 4

I wanted to discuss this before making the changes, but I believe that the reference in Footnote 4 to the Chattanooga Free Press needs to be removed for violating Notability and POV. The reference is to a fringe editorial that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for a citable source. 70.21.89.54 20:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP70.21.89.54: I have been watching this article for a long time. I would tend to agree. Famspear 22:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am having second thoughts. It appears that the Chattanooga Free Press is a real newspaper - now part of the Chattanooga Times Free Press. The problem is that the link is to the rangeguide web site of Burk Hale, the individual mentioned in the editoral. This is apparently the same individual who intermittently tries to re-write this article to push his own point of view about the Georgia Memorial, the Fourteenth Amendment, and so on. If the link is objectionable, it might be because the link is to Burk Hale's own web site. Maybe we can find an alternative link to the editorial at the newspaper web site??

The article basically says that the Chattanooga Free Press was editorializing -- which it was. Maybe that in and of itself does not disqualify the material. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: I have three problems with this footnote,

1. As you have correctly pointed out, the cite is to Burk Hale's web page. The cite should properly be to a page that contains nothing but the article (I did a quick search but couldn't find any free sources carrying that editorial).

2. I went on to read this article and the article never mentions the Georgia Memorial. The article goes into great depth about Burk Hale and his theory, but nothing is said about the Memorial itself.

3. I think that an editorial that doesn't have some kind of unusual importance would fall under WP:Trivia. If we start including editorials as real sources, then some of the bigger articles are going to have gigantic citation pages. 70.21.89.54 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP70.21.89.54: Yes, but on your point 2, what the article says is that "[t]he events described in the memorial have been the subject of editorials in the Chattanooga Free Press" (bolding added by me for emphasis) -- and the text of the editorial is cited and linked as support for the statement that the editorial does indeed describe the events. I would argue that this part might be considered OK.

On your point 3, I don't have a strong view pro or con. On your point 1, I agree with your agreement with me. (Oh, big surprise, right?)

Therefore, if you decide to go ahead and delete the link to the rangeguide web page (and make any appropriate corresponding change to the text), I would say: go for it! Yours, Famspear 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

LeonaCatherine (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)