Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress

/Archive1LeonaCatherine (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up Completed
Before I be begin to elaborate on the clean up of this article, I wish to point out up front that I agree with Mr. Hale's argument, but his use of wikipedia has been flawed in the past. I appreciate his passion on the matter and I'm not concerned that I may get rediculed for saying so. Other than that, I am glad to see this amazing historical document dusted off and presented on Wikipedia. I have seen similar legislation almost identical to this passed by other states. Georgia is not the only state to have pointed out this outlandish violation of the Constitution.

We saw the recent revision that user rangeguide made in the last 24 hours, and judging by the looks of it, it appeared to be very well done. It was a great improvement over past attempts. Having witnessed the various changes by other editors besides Mr. Hale since this article was first submitted I decided to save a copy (before it could be edited by another editor) and make changes of my own to improve upon the clean up so hopefully the clean up banner will be removed. At this point, there is very little editorial comment in the article, the text and extensive footnotes taking up about 90% now. I submit that had the same critique employed by those adverse to Mr. Hale's opinion been equally applied to the protected 14th Amendment wikipedia article that it would have the clean up banner over it as well, and many screams of original research and point of view echoing about. It is my observation that there is bias against the 1957 Georgia Memorial Article because 1- it so aptly exposes what is apparently one of the most incredible hoaxes ever perpetrated - the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment, and 2- considerably consensus-bias against it is apparent when comparing it to the editing of the 14th Amendment article which it nullifies quite effectively.

I also found where Georgia passed legislation, a few days after passing the March 8th memorial, officialy delcaring certain Supreme Court justices "...guilty of attempting to subvert the Constitution of the United States, and of high crimes and misdemeanors in office, and of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States after taking an oath to support the Constitution for which the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, in the performance of its high duty to preserve the republican union of republican states..." - IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. This would appear to substantiate Mr. Hale's claims that Georgia was making a point to focus on subverive activities committed in the District of Columbia, and against Georgia, not because of segregation. My original research on the matter shows that Georgia legislators were not previously aware of the subversive activities resulting in the purported passage of the 14th Amendment, and as soon as they had discovered this that they sought consensus from the other branches of government and proceeded to move forward with the memorial/petition.

And, I also agree with Mr. Hale that it is notworthy that the federal government has acquiesed in the claims presented by Georgia. The doctrine of laches applies because if one, or a body, does not rebutt an adverse, publicly recorded claim, or a legal action as monumental as this, then it is contrued to mean that they agree with the adverse claims of the action. The federal government has, indeed, never responded for over 50 years. This was pointed out in the article presented in previous revisions (which I removed because it was not specifically clear where it should be connected to this article). The article, as well as the others noted in previous revisions, did at least validate the notariety of the subject matter that those, adverse to Mr. Hale's position on that matter, claimed did not exist.

With that said, I wish to direct my comments now to user Famspear, who has exerted a great deal of effort towards this article for some reason. While I agree with some of your revisions, you revised the article three times today (2-27-2008), and removed the text, extensive footnotes and validation provided by user rangeguide. Is that permissable under wikepedia editorial guidelines? This would appear to be counter-productive to your effort in appearing unbiased. It also took a great deal of information away from the article that helps the reader come to their own conclusions about the import and notariety of the subject matter without having to wade through any OR and NPOV issues, especially with the text being available to read. I noted that you want to repeatedly insert the unvalidated NY article and add your original research and point of view regarding segregation. The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress says absolutely nothing about segregation.

At this point, there is no OR biased point of view in the article, and all text provided is fair use and copy-permitted by the website owner for use by anyone. I submit that the clean up banner should be removed as the article is now well within wikipedia standards.LeonaCatherine (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As the original creator of this article, I agree with the revision by talk. It is an improvement consistent with wikipedia standards. Will Beback should not make major changes without discussion. Removal of the memorial's text, by Will Beback, is inconsistent with editing precedent set with the article on the so-called 14th Amendment (and numerous other articles on significant legislation) that it sharply contradicts, and should be prohibited. Previous versions, apparently having the approval of Will Beback, contained large portions of the text. Will Beback's removal of the text gives rise to biased editing that contradicts itself. Consensus is in favor of leaving the version edited by LeonaCatherine intact. I recommend additions to her revision, but dissaprove of any deletions.Burk Hale (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear "Rangeguide/Burk Hale" - and now "LeonaCatherine": This is not the "consensus" on this article in Wikipedia. The history of your edits here is preserved. Your edits are not only soapboxing, they are blatantly incorrect POV. I invite all editors to review the creation of this article over a year ago, and especially the edits by "Rangeguide/Burk Hale." ("Rangeguide" is also a web site operated by Burk Elder Hale, III, and LeonaCatherine is a brand new Wikipedia account.) In short, Rangeguide, Burk Hale and LeonaCatherine are, for all intents and purposes, single purpose accounts set up to push Mr. Burk Hale's frivolous, fringe views about the "legal" effect of the 1957 Georgia resolution and the supposed "invalidity" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famspear (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to read the incredibly long screed at the top of this page. I will note that there is clearly some sock or meatpuppetry going on here, or at the very least, a couple single purpose accounts with clear intentions to push a point of view. Would block them myself if not for my prior involvement in discussion here. · jersyko   talk  13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And "Burk Hale" has admitted above that he is the "creator" of the article. According to the edit history, the article was created by "Rangeguide." Thus, "Burk Hale" is admitting that "Rangeguide" is his Wikipedia account. I would also point out that the web site for Burk Elder Hale III is "www.rangeguide.net." And "LeonaCatherine" is a brand new account, the operator of which miraculously "supports" Burk Hale/Rangeguide. Famspear (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, I am Leona Catherine and 75 years old, not Burk Hale, and I do have interest in the websites mentioned, and your redicule was expected to appear here in discussion as well as that of Jersyko. But I take great exception to your false assumption about my purpose in being here and your rude behaviour towards me as I endeavor to participate in wikipedia for the first time. That is a very rude welcome and I insist that the moderators of wikipedia put you in your place for attacking an respected senior citizen with a great deal more experience in literary works than you or Mr. Hale. Your attempt to "uncover" something that has not been covered up in the first place is a futile attempt to push your bias upon the readers here by fabricating a conspiracy theory. Lets be clear, I am an individual with an editorial opinion and right to edit wikipedia regardless of my association with anyone else. If my entire family, my neighbors, my local high school alumna, the people of Georgia and anyone else that supports my opinion (or not), etc., want to come here and express their opinions and edit they have every right to do so without your approval. I suggest that you get used to it and cease with your whinning.

It should be noted that you do not address the topic with valid objections, rather, you continue your tactic of addressing personal attacks the original author of this article and those that agree with him. This reveals the true weakness of your argument that is obviously intended to suppress and secret away any information about this historically significant document. It is quite obvious, by the evidence presented here that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever "frivolous or fringe view" about this document. What you took liberty to remove was the actual text and numerous footnotes citing the Georgia Code, Utah Supreme Court Justice A.H. Ellett, and records of various House Journals from Georgia and other states. Your arguments are ludicrous. (Side-Note: Burk Hale was not very familiar with using wikipedia, and he has informed me that he created a different username because he could not log on with the Burk Hale username due to his lack of understanding. He has been given some assistance, as well as I have with wikipedia, with this and he will be using Burk Hale login from now on. In short, it was a simple error in using two usernames, not a conspiracy. I'll let him speak for himself on this further if needed.)

Jersyko, your bullyish claim of meatpuppetry is without evidence, and your threat to censor is noted. I will go even further to state that you are free to contact me at leonacatherine@gmail.com and request my office phone number and talk to me personally. I am quite capable of putting young whippersnappers like you in your place. If you block Burk Hale or me LeonaCatherine you will have exposed your talk point of view, bias and a real conspiracy with Famspear and Will Beback to force your political views and agenda to suppress any proper editing of this article that is richly deserved. Readers and editors, should this article be censored or abused further, it will be fully documented elsewhere on the internet. Contact me at my email address - leonacatherine@gmail.com for further information.

Finally, being that there is absolutely no valid argument against my revision, expect to see it returned to my version. I will not further address any of the nonsense presented by jersyko and famspear meant to digress from the proper editing of this article as enough has been said. To persist further with said nonsense and biased re-editing will be considered as a personal attack on me. Again, Mr. Hale can speak for himself.LeonaCatherine (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear LeonaCatherine: Thank you for sharing that with us. I have posted some links on your user talk page on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. It is obvious that you are re-posting the information about the Utah court case and the Georgia criminal subversion statute that Burk Elder Hale III, using the accounts "Burk Hale" and "Rangeguide," tried many times to put into this article over the last year or so. It is also obvious that you have obliterated much of the article and replaced the text with what amounts to almost a reprint of the 1957 Georgia resolution. You have also admitted that you have communicated with Mr. Burk Hale, apparently outside of Wikipedia, and that you are attempting to get his material into Wikipedia.


 * Please understand that Wikipedia has rules that do not allow you and Mr Burk Hale to do what you are trying to do, and especially in the way you are trying to do it. I understand that you are a new user and that you may not have realized this.


 * I'm not sure why you brought up "segregation," but I understand that you may have feelings about "segregation" as you put it, and that you may feel, as Mr. Burk Hale has indicated he feels, that the Fourteenth Amendment is not legally valid, etc., and that a great wrong was done after the Civil War. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to spread the word.


 * Please take a deep breath and read the Wikipedia policies and guideliness, especially "original research", "neutral point of view," and "verifiability." And please read the talk page that you archived. The issues regarding the Burk Hale/Rangeguide materials have been thoroughly hashed out there.


 * Also, if you and Burk Hale continue to re-insert this material, which in one form or another Burk Hale has inserted over and over and over during the past year, etc., you may be blocked from editing (not by me, but by Wikipedia administrators). Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear user LeonaCatherine: OK, now I see where your comment about "segregation" came from - it was the quote in the article from the New York Times article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
Is footnote 5 necessary? The part of the article to which that footnote is attached merely states what the memorial says and outside sources about the truthfulness of its claims seem superfluous as well as original research. Idag (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear editor Idag: Regarding footnote 5, the long footnote, I would argue that it is not "original research" in the technical, narrow Wikipedia sense. It does, however, appear to be superfluous -- essentially just a recitation of the states that ratified or rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. Presumably this could be covered in the article on the Amendment (and it may well be already covered). This article is of course about the 1957 Georgia Memorial. I may delete some or all of footnote 5 on the basis that the material, while not technically original research, is simply too tangential. Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have deleted the footnote, per this discussion. Famspear (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
"The Memorial, part of Georgia's "continuing battle for segregation," 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." - Removed for NPOV. This atricle and subject has nothing to do with segregation. Burk Hale (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)