Talk:Four Corners Monument

message: 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)
thread_title:  in the middle of the LARGEST Navajo Indian Reservation in the U.S. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  fire at the site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  location of the monument 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Actual borders? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unfree image? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Per Google Maps, it's about 2.5 miles.  Dave (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  state borders moved? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recently Added section about 4 square 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference to this monument in a recent Simpsons Episode 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shape of the corners 

message: New Mexico svg map fix: (test run)</S>(finalized)
	USA New Mexico	label      =	label_size =	alt        =	position   = right	background =	lon_dir=W	lat_dir=N	lat_deg    = 36	lat_min    = 59	lat_sec    = 56.31532	lon_deg    = 109	lon_min    = 02	lon_sec    = 42.62019	lat        =	long       =	mark       =	marksize   =	border     = none	float      =	width      = 250	caption    = {{Location map New Mexico}}
}}
:This is why you have a sandbox. - Denimadept (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New Mexico fix

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added construction closure to lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rest area--Navajo or Ute? 

message: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political boundary vs Attraction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Four Corners Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google Maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have rephrased it to avoid the issues, and thus removed the tag. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  tone of Misplacement Controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is it true that the COVID-19 closures are no longer in effect?