# Talk:Four Corners Monument

I had a good laugh when I read the part in the article "The Navajo live near this area."  The Four Corners is smack dab in the middle of the LARGEST Navajo Indian Reservation in the U.S.  The Four Corners landmark is run by the Indians there. B
Actually, it's on the border, not smack dab in the middle.  The Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico "corners" are Navajo Nation.  The Colorado "corner" is Ute reservation.  140.147.236.195 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I seem to recall some sort of a fire at the site ~15 years ago... can anyone confirm? (That would mean I was 8 at the time, which is why I don't remember very clearly.) ---Rob 20:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Somebody corrected the location of the monument to exactly 37N,109W. It's not correct - it's supposed to be there, but 19th century surveying was not as accurate as today's tools are. This can be easily checked by looking at google maps - 37N,109W is some distance inside Colorado.
Yes, but the person who provided the location shown (36°59′56.31532″N, 109°02′42.62019″W) thinks modern techniques are much better than they really are -- the 5th decimal place in a second of latitude is a fraction of a millimeter.  Even in closely controlled surveys, accuracy better than a few centimeters is hard to achieve. I would knock two decimal places off the numbers given.--Jameslwoodward (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the reservation is technically a sovereign nation, this really isn't the border of anything.

This is indeed the border for the four states. It is true that the two reservations are sovereign but that does not invalidate the fact that there is a state boundary running through them. For instance if you, and non-Indian earn money on the Indian reservation you would owe state income taxes to the state you were in when you earned the money.
I am in the process of researching this and will post more as soon as I have it.
Nwbeeson 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying these particular state corners aren't really corners here?  I think surveyors would dispute that. 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The monument is not within any state, it is on Navajo land. The states have no jurisdiction here since the area is not considered a part of any state, so the monument is not actually the corner of four states. They sometimes sell merchandise at the monument but they don't charge state sales tax. They charge to visit the monument but, again, don't pay state sales tax. They also don't follow state rules there for time zones because the Navajo nation has its own rules. The claim about taxes, above, is wrong since that depends on where you live. This area is not a part of any state and thus is not actually four corners. Peter (Cactus Pete) (talk)

Should this article not be merged with Four corners? Both articles are about the same thing and there both quite small.
Allard   Monday 24 April

The two pictures of the monument (the long shot and the one with the child) are clearly not of the same thing.  Is the one with the child the pre-1992 monument?  Or is the right-hand one actually an artist's impression of a proposed alteration?  (It's either a drawing or it's very heavily processed.)  TSP 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The one with the kid was taken sometime in the mid to late 1960s. -- Prove It (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Picture taken May 13th, 1965 -- Prove It (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Us_four_corners_msspider.jpg is listed as having a non-commercial-only license. Isn't that incompatible with Wikipedia? 81.158.1.11 02:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My time-space-spatial skills are lacking. Could someone figure
out the distance between the two different locations for
the "Four Corners"? Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 

Per Google Maps, it's about 2.5 miles. [1] Dave (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This story does not make sense.  Please add appropriate explanatory details.  Having this monument in the wrong place for over a hundred years is somewhat trivial by itself.  But moving the whole border of four states by 2.5 miles would be a very big deal.  So apparently this marker is located in an area so remote that the matter of where the state borders are actually located is not important?  How can that be?
It may be "unlikely" that the traditional monument will be moved/abandoned, but it is hard to believe that the proper point will not be publicly marked, sooner or later.
-71.174.183.110 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though this surveying error is not newely discovered (It's been known for decades) the recent publicity is causing this article to get rapidly edited. I've attempted to clarify. However in the big scheme of things this is not a big error. Remember we are taking about counties that have hundreds of square miles, yet only a few thousand inhabitants. In that scope 2.5 miles is nothing. Dave (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the hazards of easy editing!
The news item of April 20, 2009 claiming errors in surveying appears to be itself in error. (This report is cited in the Four Corners Monument entry as footnote #3, and in the entry on Four Corners as Footnote #7)
Reading the comments in the cited news report (http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/1,5143,705298412,00.html) reveals that the "controversy" stems from sloppy reporting and a misunderstanding regarding the reference point used for surveying state boundaries in the latter half of the 19th century.
In 1868, state boundaries in the US did not use the Greenwich Meridian as a reference point. Instead, they were measured as distance from The "Washington Meridian". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_meridian). When measured as degrees west of the definition of the Washington Meridian at the time, the location of the Four Corners monument is QUITE close to where the Federal government intended it to be when it was defined. It is only when the monument is measured against the Greenwich Meridian that it appears significantly "off."
I will not hazard further "mis-editing" of the article. Rather I will leave it to the regular caretakers of the article to research the issue further and clarify things.
(Ken Lacouture, unregistered user, late at night April 21, 2009.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.40.35 (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 
ADDITION BY KL: Using the following assumptions I have calculated that the current monument is only 574 feet from where congress intended the real border to be.

The location was intended to be 32 degrees west of the Washington Meridian
It was intended to be at true 37 degrees north.
The Washington Meridian in 1868 was understood to be at 77, 2' 48" west of the Greenwich Meridian.
Thus, the intended location was N 37 0' 0", W 109 2' 48"
The location of the current monument is 36° 59′ 56.31532″N 109°02′42.62019″W
Using GPS visualizer (http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/calculators) and the decimal form of the locations results in 574 feet difference. (Visual at: http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/map?format=google&units=metric&lat1=36.998976&lon1=-109.045172&lat2=37.0&lon2=-109.046666&gc_segments=&gc_altitude=&tickmark_interval=&show_wpt=3)  
Additionally, this "intended" location is actually WEST and north of the current monument.
SECOND ADDITION BY KL: Dave, your rewrite of my rewrite improved things a great deal. However, I additionally suggest you remove or alter the assertion that congress declared the position to be an even 109 degrees west, as there appears to be no evidence of such. Rather, they declared specifically that it be 32 degrees west of the Washington Meridian, and made no reference to the 109th meridian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.40.35 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 

Done, again, thanks for your effort. I was cringing watching this article go down the toiled due to the sensational coverage in the media. I did what I could but could only spare a few minutes for research. Your efforts saved the article from the downward spiral.Dave (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
FOLLOW UP: Dave, I agree this has been fun "outsmarting" the lazy media. For me it has been a very fascinating and eye-opening lesson in how misinformation gets started and amplified.
I'll note that one of the most interesting aspects of it for me was how, on Tuesday, a lot of our effort went into editing a passage in a way that would be bullet-proof against further "miscorrecting" (i.e., taking the time to explain why the news stories were wrong, instead of just deleting reference to them). Yet a user still managed to blunder in and miscorrect!
Finally: my opinion is that we should let the dust settle for a while, and then consider making the controversy a separate sub-section of the entry. That way we could explain more slowly and coherently how the location was initially mandated and why it's not on the 109th meridian, as well as how the reporting mistake got made, while not cluttering up the flow of the main sections of the article.
Oh, also: I really like the changes you made to the Four Corners Area entry.--72.72.40.35 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It gets worse. The Idaho Statesman ran a no-byline blurb today (April 23, 2009) on this, that first stated the monument is off by 2-1/2 miles, then quoted a figure of 1,870-some feet. The utter stupidity of the obvious math error prevented me from remembering the exact number given. 2.5 miles is 13,200 feet, quite a bit more than 1,870! The blurb's author *and* the newspaper editor both need remedial math education ASAP. P.S. According to YAUC on my PDA, that's 13,200 survey feet in 2.5 statute miles, or 13,200.0264001 feet of some other sort.
I think it's calmed down now. I'll give the re-write a stab. Any objections feel free to fix, revert, tell me to jump in the lake, whatever. Dave (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I have decided to nominate this article for GA. That should be a good test to see if the article is back into shape. Dave (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Four Corners Monument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Comments:

Is it possible the picutes can be distributed throughout the article rather than be bunched together?
woops, that was a big miss, thanks
"leading to their being called the Four Corners region" sounds awkward.
"with the Ute Mountain tribal boundaries coinciding with Colorado's": add "boundaries" after Colorado.
Is there any history of the area before 1861?
"by by"? Probably a typo, there only needs to be one "by".
In sentence "The first modern Navajo government convened in 1923, in an effort to organize and regulate an increasing amount of oil exploration activities on Navajo lands", comma not needed after "1923".
In the history section, there seems to be a significant jump from 1923 to 1992. Were there any historical events that happened in between those years?
"that the this"? Remove "this".
Concerning the controversy, where was it believed that the monumnent was located (i.e. what state was it supposedly in)?
In sentence "Pointing out the achievement given the conditions, he further stated, "Their ability to replicate that exact point — what they did was phenomenal, what they did was spot on".", quotations should be after period.
In last sentence of Controversy section, there should be a citation at the end.
I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I got everything everything. Thanks for the review. I have also re-added some material I cut earlier because I couldn't find a source at the time. 06:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Passing. Dough4872 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am enclosing a paragraph recently added to the article page:
A newly popular activity at the monument is playing Four Square Four_square. Became popular when the Mission Hills Math Department documented with photos and video their road trip and game in 2009. Shez Sirimanne, Four Square at Four Corners
I am not sure if this recent addition is appropriate for a few reasons, and am moving it here for discussion:

It is a level 2 section, and with this addition the controversy and history sections are now level 3 sub sections under a section titled Four Square. I don't believe this to be appropriate
The section begins with "A newly popular activity", yet the source is a single high school field trip, not a source about a new activity rising in popularity.
The source is a collection of photos from the field trip, but doesn't actually have any information about the monument itself. In addition the source is self-published and not compliant with wikipedia's sourcing guidelines.
However this may be appropriate for one of the external links at the bottom of the page (not sure). Please provide input if you have any.Dave (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent Simpsons Episode on May 16th 2010 features a monument called the Five Corners, which is a reference to this specific monument, only with one more state added. -66.41.62.253 (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the borderlines marked in Google Earth the four lines do not meet all rectangular. Actually the Utah Colorado frontier is shifted about 30 meters (100 ft) to the west. 100 meters (330 ft) the border has an angle to meet the junction of the others from northwest. If Google Earth is right in this way, the plate on Four Corners Monument should be mentioned wrong, as is shows all borders rectangular to each other. 89.247.164.238 (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, all four borders intersect at right angles. The border with a NNW bearing joins a due south border well north of the 4 Corners Road. Furthermore, Google Maps erroneously marks the four state boundaries slightly northwest of the monument itself but inside the loop road. But the marker itself is the legal corner according to the Supreme Court so Google Maps is wrong. Hence I would not trust their zig-zag line. The legal boundary is that surveyed by Robbins in 1875, which should have been marked by monuments every few miles. Hence the Google Map version of the Utah-Colorado border zigs too close to the monument itself to be believed. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that Google Maps and Google Earth is the neatest thing since sliced bread, one should understand the limitations of those applications. They are NOT super reliable sources. As it is based from satellite images, it is a descent source for distance between features (as long as one avoids False precision), however the road, trails, political boundaries and similar information used by Google is a combination of several separate databases. Each of these databases has errors and outdated information, with additional errors created by trying to get those databases to overlap, when sometimes they don't. I contribute frequently to road articles and am fairly familiar with the standards set by the U.S. Road's Wikiproject. I can tell you from first hand experience that any article nominated for good article status or higher that overly relies on Google Maps will be shot down by any experienced member of that project. Long winded point is, don't take Google Maps as the word of God. Dave (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some action on the MESSED UP location DOT's on the Arizona Map w/Rivers:..File:USA Arizona location map.svg. (All 50 state .svg Maps must be messed up.)
See the maps below for the FOUR CORNERS location. Also the Painted Rock Dam which is supposed to appear on the Gila River.  (See: Talk:Dendora Valley) The Dam is the eastern terminus of the Dendora Valley west of the Painted Rock Reservoir. (The Gila River then turns south from the Dam.)
From the HOT-SonornDesert, ArizonaUSA...Mmcannis (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From the HOT-SonornDesert, ArizonaUSA...(And........ are all the STATE .svg maps messed-up, and nobody has bothered to fix this across ALL 50 states?) (It seems obvious its a sizing problem, THE DOT is in the correct corner of the map, but the corner of the State Ain't There !...HA HA, we fooled the world.  Any way,... this needs to be FIXED)-From the HOT-SonornDesert, ArizonaUSA...Mmcannis (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like there may be a problem with the {{Geobox}} template.  The {{Location map}} template uses the same map, but places the dot properly.
There must be many articles, in all 50 states with improper DOT's. I was trying to locate Klondyke, Arizona on new article: Aravaipa Creek-(ny article). next went to neighboring mountain peaks; the DOT was still 50 miles out of POSITION. So YOU, may be this first actual believer...(From the HOTdesert)..Mmcannis (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have missed what I said in my final line above.  The problem seems to be with the Geobox template, not with the map. - Denimadept (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem was that the SVG image was using the calibration template for the PNG image (Template:Geobox locator Arizona) - the PNG map and SVG map have different sizes and limits, so the dot was off. I made a new template: Template:Geobox locator Arizona svg and that works pretty well - the dot may be a pixel or two too low. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


### New Mexico fix
New Mexico svg map fix: (test run)(finalized)

This is why you have a sandbox. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And this is why you have a public Forum, so an easy Fix can be shown; (I've gotten instructions from the Initial person that Fixed this for Arizona(there are 49 states that could have this fixed for use with the Geobox.)(The first person that commented, Was a Disbeliever..You are in a Different Category-(to remain 'nameless' and unrevealed)--(I think only the 2nd person had the "Fix")(this is the 2nd state, this and 48-more to go-I assume YOU're too busy?)(except to make an aside comment)---(In just minutes from now, I'm going to try (a "perfect", set of numbers, and see where the Pushpin dot ends up.))--(from the SonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA) Mmcannis (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The One-step Method I used was very close. (for a 'quick-and-dirty' attempt)(the Pushpin moved slightly south)(Note-the 2nd Map is calibrated by somebody else, probably Long Ago, and the Pushpin is slightly "north" of 4-CORNERS); what maybe somebody cares about knowing (except the previous commentor), is that, the coodinates are only one aspect(maybe 1/2? the accuracy?); the second aspect is the Ratio calibration (see the advice from the initial person for the Arizona map, His explanaion is on my Talk Page)(there are two numbers I tried-for the Ratio); (I may try redoing for a 3rd Ratio Number-(and averaging ALL THREE))--(Fix for New Mexico-(Nevada & California to follow))-- (from Arizona-HOTdesertLand-USA..--Mmcannis (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added information about the monument's closure back into the lead.  It is not "history" that it is currently closed--it is the current state of the monument.  It is also unreasonable to bury this information only in the history section; as evidenced by the New York Times article, people are driving thousands of miles to discover it is closed. Spril4 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is still inadequate.
The question of whether the monument is in the "right" place is sort of trivial, per se.
But the question of where the current legal and/or actual boundaries of these four states really are is not trivial.  And since these boundaries are straight lines (?), they have to meet somewhere.  Which may or may not be where this monument has been placed.  If they differ, and the monument defines the legal intersection, then the boundaries have to curve to cheat to meet up there?  We not only need good text, we need a good map/diagram showing these details.  And if these things do not currently have an exact consistent explanation/resolution, maybe we should say that?
This kerfuffle is the most interesting aspect of the topic?  May ultimately need it's own article?  Would be good to have a sequence of magnified images of the intersection area on a sequence of maps, historic and particularly official, over hundreds of years, finishing with most current/official/authoritative. -96.233.18.244 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The legal boundaries of these states are straight lines, but all are short, only a few kilometers in length from one physical boundary marker to the next. The boundary that was physically surveyed on the ground is legal according to the United States Supreme Court, not arbitrary lines of longitude and latitude. The lines from the far end of the four states to the monument only appear to be straight—they are actually slightly jagged. The last four segments ending at the Four Corners Monument from the four cardinal directions are likewise straight. However, the angles between them differ from 90° by a very small amount, so they do not come from due north, east, south, or west. Even when highly magnified, this difference from cardinality could not be discerned. Unfortunately, I do not know of a good source discussing this.
This difference is not a great concern at the Four Corners Monument, but is critical at international borders. When the border between Canada and the United States was recently resurveyed using highly accurate GPS devices, the straight line segments between these old boundary markers were found to pass through buildings near border crossings, making post 9/11 border control problematic. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Aha! Now things are finally starting to make sense, of a sort...  So, the entire "straight" boundaries of these states are based historically on a theoretical definition, but are actually currently ultimately legally based on a series of physical markers on the ground?  Under what conditions, how often, if ever, would all those markers be re-surveyed and all potentially moved?  Never?
Anyway, this basic legal/surveying matter should be mentioned in the article, with links to further info.-96.233.19.223 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Once a survey commissioned to establish a boundary has been accepted, the survey markers become legally binding."  Is how the article currently states of all of the above. If this needs further clarification, IMO the best option is just to expand on that sentence. Dave (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The source of this statement is probably Boundaries of the United States and the several states by Franklin K. van Zandt, Geological Survey Professional Paper 909 (1976) page 2, which states "It is legally well established that a boundary or property line once marked on the ground and accepted by the interested parties involved becomes the true line, whether or not it follows the written description." This is amid a long discussion on how boundaries are established on pages 2–10. An earlier and shorter version of this discussion, which includes an earlier version of this statement, is online in Boundaries, areas, geographic centers and altitudes of the United States and the several states by Edward M. Douglas, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 689 (1923) pages 1–4.
Marginally applicable to this article is the controversy over the Colorado-New Mexico boundary, which lasted from 1864, when Congress defined the boundary, until 1960, when the United States Supreme Court accepted the final resurvey. See Retracing Colorado's south line. Subsequent surveys cannot move existing boundary markers—they can only specify their coordinates on later datums (ellipsoids) such as NAD 83. The boundary was first surveyed in 1868 by Darling from the northeast corner of New Mexico territory to just west of the Four Corners, which he may not have attempted to locate. His line included a half-mile jog now five miles west of US 84, among other deviations north and south of 37°N. It was "straightened" in 1902–03 by Carpenter who was instructed to "obliterate" the Darling line. In 1925 the Supreme Court decided that the Darling line was the legal boundary and must be remonumented. This was done using Carpenter's notes, which recorded the locations of Darling's monuments before he destroyed them, between 1925 and 1950 (interrupted) by Kidder, but he was never paid so he did not release his notes. His widow was paid in 1959, his notes were released, and the boundary became official in 1960. A sample of Kidder's field notes is online (rest of notes, including those of Darling and Carpenter, are on microfiche at federal depository libraries associated with US Supreme Court case New Mexico v. Colorado, 364 US 296 (1960)).
The four boundaries that meet at the Four Corners Monument were marked every mile, terrain permitting, and at crossing roads, railroads, etc., using roughly ten astronomical stations along each boundary which were near the monumented line. A temporary astronomical station was placed in 1875 by Robbins 49 chains (0.6 miles) northeast of his Four Corners Monument in the valley of the San Juan River, where he cut a large cottonwood tree to use its stump to support his theodolite. I doubt that the straight line segments between the nearest mile markers and the Four Corners Monument deviate from cardinal directions by more than a few minutes of arc, hence would not be visible on any map scale. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The caption on one photograph says "The Four Corners Monument rest area, maintained on Navajo Nation lands."  But the facility seen in the photo seems to be in Colorado.  I thought that would place it in the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, not the Navajo Nation.  Can someone please clarify?  140.147.236.195 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Feel free to change the caption if you don't feel it's  clear. However, the caption is correct. As stated in the article in at least two places, the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Dept. maintains the monument. So its only misleading in that there are some objects (namely a hut and a car or two) that are technically in the Ute Mountain Tribal nation. IMO that's not worth mentioning, but whatever. Dave (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

" Unlike many other attractions based on what are primarily political boundaries, such as the Berlin Wall, Four Corners Monument is an example of a political boundary that is a tourist destination in its own right."
I don't really get the difference here. This isn't well explained at all. If the political boundary didn't exist here, the monument wouldn't exist. So what's the difference between this and the Berlin Wall or the signpost at Land's End Philipwhiuk (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That statement has been in the article for several years, but I'm not sure who inserted it or what their intentions were. I think the intended meaning is that,  the Berlin wall (and related Brandenburg Gate), Great Wall of China, Bridge of no return and many others are not only notable for their use as a political boundary, but are notable for other reasons as well (be they historical events, conflicts or whatever). Whereas the 4 corners monument is only notable because of its location on a political boundary. In that aspect it is similar to the Land's End signpost you mention (as well as the one at Key West, Barrow, Alaska etc.), with the exception that these monuments are on natural, not political boundaries. Dave (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Four Corners Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110215055447/http://www.las-cruces.org:80/public-services/museums/history_exhibit/LearnMore/documents/CivWarArizona.html to http://www.las-cruces.org/public-services/museums/history_exhibit/LearnMore/documents/CivWarArizona.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Four Corners Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626005051/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/pdfs/ute_mountain_ute.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/guide/pdfs/ute_mountain_ute.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062608/http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/Committees/Historical/NMConstitutionMeetsFacts.pdf to http://www.nmbar.org/AboutSBNM/Committees/Historical/NMConstitutionMeetsFacts.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421225556/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C705298412%2C00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C705298412%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Four Corners Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427203037/http://www.navajonationparks.org/htm/fourcorners.htm to http://www.navajonationparks.org/htm/fourcorners.htm
Added archive https://archive.is/20120712103054/http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=1370 to http://history.utah.gov/apps/markers/detailed_results.php?markerid=1370
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509145307/http://www.navajonationparks.org/htm/fourcorners.htm to http://www.navajonationparks.org/htm/fourcorners.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted a recent addition claiming the monument was in New Mexico. The source was reliable, but the only part of thst source that showed the monument in NM was an embedded map from Google maps. While Google Maps has its proper uses as a source in Wikipedia articles, it also has its limits. See Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles.Dave (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This section reads strangely defensive, as if written by someone strongly arguing against the accusations of inaccuracy.
Please wrerite in a neutral tone, where our editorial voice doesn't so clearly side with those wanting to downplay the issue.
CapnZapp (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as a tone problem. But What I see is there are a couple of statements that are "dated" now that the 2009 controversy is long past. As I see it, it would take less work to remove the dated statements than to tag the article. It's past my bedtime, I'll prune tomorrow if nobody else gets to it first. Dave (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I have rephrased it to avoid the issues, and thus removed the tag. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the edits you made are fair. I might do some touch up work, but I agree with the bulk of your changes. If you want some history, this article was one of the most visible articles in Wikipedia when this 2009 controversy happened, it was even cited by a couple of the news sources. The page was getting spammed with edits of "it's it the wrong spot, it's off by 2.5 miles, it's really just in the middle of New Mexico" and there were several sourced edits made to drive the point home, no, surveyers aren't idiots, they know what they are doing. The monument is the legal corner of the 4 US states." But to your point 2009 was 12 years ago, and that level of argument is no longer required, and frankly was only required then as an anti-vandal tool. Dave (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I suspected something like that was the reason. Now, Wikipedia articles are of course not meant to school vandals, so my response would have been the same then as it was now: with me possibly adding how the editorial tone should not assume the reader needs to be told right from wrong, and or commenting that such a sort of meta message is instead appropriate for the talk page. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If so, then the removal of that section by Kittykittypants is justified. If not, then it isn't. T3h 1337 b0y 19:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Last time I was there, the monument was open, but a mask requirement was still in effect. Dave (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)