Talk:Mount Soledad

message: Was the cross always a war memorial, or was it only turned into one after the legal challenges were put forth? From the way this Auguest 22, 2001 article reads it appears like it was not a war memorial until it was turned into one by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association after that group won the bid to purchase it in 1998.  Also, this is the issue challenged by the judge in the most recent ruling.  --Serge 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's all correct.  While the city council voted against the transfer, the residents, separately, voted for it, and Congress agreed to make it a national memorial.  But all that is moot since such transfers were rendered unconstitutional per the countless court decisions made over the years.  We'll soon see if the current Supreme Court agrees or overturns all those decisions.  --Serge 16:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War Memorial?

message: Answers.com is a wikipedia mirror site.  So obviously it's unusable as a "source."   The 1985 AAA map referred to is from this page.  I marked it  so it can be confirmed. -- Perspective 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the citation be to "AAA Map of California (1985)"? DCB4W 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have the map, cite the specifics. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.  Wikipedia needs Reliable sources and No original research. -- Perspective 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Serge was the one who mentioned the 1985 AAA map; I see no reason to disbelieve him, and as best I can tell his only error was mentioning the citation in talk rather than as a footnote in the article (if indeed that was an error; he mentioned his source in the sentence itself). Citing a primary source for a factual proposition is never original research. It's not as though one has to cite Harold Bloom for the proposition that Hamlet is the title character of a play by William Shakespeare. 'All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' I don't mean to go off on a rant, but misinterpretation of the Original Research doctrine is sort of a pet peeve of mine; nothing personal directed at you. DCB4W 03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. There are some pitfalls with primary sources, but in the simple matter of the name of the cross a semi-official reference like the AAA is sufficient. -Will Beback 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole idea is to enable independent verification.  The policy: The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. Verifiability I'm ok with the current edit, but it's weak without a map name or reference number.  Wait!  I just found a solid reference for this; it's in the judge's court order. Standby for the edit. -- Perspective 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers.com is not a source, it's a Mirorr 

message: I just reverted a series of three changes made from IP address 66.75.40.183 on July 13, 2006.  I reverted these changes because they violated WP:NPOV.  Here are some examples:
# "A great summary of this issue is found at the following site".  Saying it's a "great" summary violates WP:NPOV.  What might be appropriate is making a statement and citing that site as a source.
# "This article needs major revision as it was clearly written presenting only one side of the case ..."  Such a comment belongs here, on the Talk page, not in the article itself.
# "Essentially this case seems to boil down to an angry minority attempting to impose it's will on the majority."  This is unsubstantiated opinion.
# "Crosses are regularly recognized as much for their memorial symbolism as they might be identified with Christianity. The choice is with the beholder and the blame for that choice also lies there."  Unsubstantiated opinion.
# "Samples of sensible responses to the cross: Gen Kelsang Tubpa, a resident teacher at the Vajrarupini Buddhist Center in Bankers Hill, said she doesn’t feel the cross imposes anything on her, and she just chooses to ignore it. 'We are living is a Christian country, so one would expect to see crosses,' Tubpa said."  Asserting that such opinions are "samples of sensible responses" violates WP:NPOV.   Tubpa's comments may be relevant if they are part of a court record, but it is unclear that they are.
Mixed in among these changes were some bits of relevant facts that, if presented in a manner that did not violate NPOV, would probably improve the article.  --Serge 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[July 13]], [[2006]] changes by 66.75.40.183 

message: I propose we move the majority of the cross-related content to a new article, Paulson v. City of San Diego, since that topic has now grown to dominate this article which is, after all, about the mountain itself. There's some precedent for this kind of split, e.g. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow being separate from the Michael Newdow article. MFNickster 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a friend of Paulson, and supporter of his position, I have a higher dedication to the fairness and accuracy of Wikipedia, and this discussion.  In reading the appeal decision of the sale of the 1/2 acre, I found in spite of the talk of all the judges supporting Paulson unanimously, that key appeals decision was won 6 to 4.  So, I will be happy to participate in a new movement of the subject.  I suggest, and agree with the subject head Mount Soledad cross controversy.  This is an important issue, as it reflects the conflict over secularism in this country. The introduction in the court of appeals decision provides a good part of the article. However this is structured, I will correct any errors that I see, even if they are biased towards my own values.Arodb 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  In fact, I have been thinking the same thing, though the article title I had in mind was Mount Soledad cross controversy.  The court case name might be more appropriate, however.  In any case, the "cross controversy" section should stay in this article, though only with a very short summary and a link to the new article, however it is named.  Be bold. --Serge 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The cross controversy has been made a separate article as of late may 2007.  Whether I agree or not, I accept it.  I have linked to Mount Soledad, so for the time being at least, the reference to the cross controversy should be in the first line, as an accomodation to those who are seeking this aspect.  The evidence, based on google, is that Mt. Soledad is predominantly associated with the cross controversy.
Although I am an expert on the topic of Mount Soledad, I am a newbie to Wikipedia. I am studying the Policies and Guidelines and will try get it right. Having the article under the title Paulson v. City of San Diego would not be appropriate for this "Cross Controversy" since there has been numerous titles of various cases in both federal and state jurisdictions. Philip Paulson 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a lot of bits in the article which are only marginally relevant, and sometimes the mere decision to include them (regardless of their veracity) can show bias. I think there is also some editorializing and use of weasel words. Any bias aside, 68.105.121.34 (is that you, Philip Paulson?), you have made over 75 edits to the article in the last 10 days. You might consider doing some offline editing or using the sandbox to consolidate your edits into larger chunks. MFNickster 13:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it looks okay now - it took me a while to go through all the edits from the past week. The editorializing has been qualified as the opinions of those involved, and the relevant facts have been retained. What I was concerned about included statements like "the cross clearly shows preference and discrimination," "the symbol arrogantly proclaims that 'Jesus Rules San Diego,'" and "the City of San Diego [has acted] as contemptible scofflaws by refusing for years to comply with the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross removal remedy order of the case." These kinds of editorializing comments are in no way objective and don't belong in an encyclopedia. MFNickster 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Your proof reading is appropriate based on my study and in conformance with the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. I have no further edits. However, this story of Mount Soledad has legs and it has become an on-going saga with more text-based web content to add. Expect to see me participate in the future with further submissions of additional content as new developments unfold. 68.105.121.34 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move-separate article on [[Mount Soledad cross controversy]]  

message: The current citation for the KKK cross burning review of To Kill a Mockingbird does not provide any evidence the Mount Soledad cross was burnt down by the KKK.  Although it may be true, a better source is needed. -- Ari 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I've added the Adherents link to the article. -- Ari 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK burning citation 

message: The second paragraph in the lead section needs to be rewritten to summarize that there is a cross controversy and then a new paragraph should be added as a lead at the top of the "The Cross Controversy" heading that summarizes the current status of the various cross cases. I'd also like to see the 2005 and 2006 sections as summary paragraphs, similar to the other dated sections, rather than comprehensive listings of every action taken on the case. A summary of the major actions and themes of the case would both shorten the article and make it easier to read.
I also added two fact tags to the text next to the votes, but stopped after two even though there are other citations needed. Generally, I'd like to see references for any votes.
I'd try to do the above editing myself, but I trust that someone else more intimately connected to the case would do a better job.
Finally, I should mention that I removed a single event from the 2006 list regarding a letter to the editor  by a member of the public that stated the cross should be converted into a peace symbol. Everything else in the section described legal activities and a single letter to the editor in 2006 when dozens of similar letters have been printed or blogged elsewhere just seems trivial to me. Having removed this, though, I wouldn't mind seeing a new section added to the Cross Controversy section outlining public reception to the controversy and including alternative suggestions that have garnered some degree of notoriety or public support. Orayzio 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit needed 

message: For those who aren't keeping up on San Diego news, Philip Paulson died yesterday. RIP, Phil.  MFNickster 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The late Philip Paulson 

message: needs more breadth, especially in ecology and early calif history Anlace 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: initial assessment

message: A notice needs to be listed at the top of the page regarding the neutrality of this article.  Certain phrases and statements (ie. "'War Memorial,'" "obvious symbol of the Christian religion") should be changed.
However, judging by the talk on this page it seems as if ACLU members are firmly in control of the article. --68.238.209.193 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Last year there seemd to have been a consensus to split the page. See #Proposed move above. Apparently the split was never done. I think it'd be a good idea still and propose that we proceed. Splittling would allow this artilce to be about the physical place while the other could focus on the legal and political aspects. The article is now unbalanced. "Mount Soledad cross controversy" was the favored name. Any objections? -Will Beback · † · 08:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me. MFNickster 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -<B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page split 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Soledad. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F10%2F03%2Fstate%2Fn145815D44.DTL
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.www.thedailyaztec.com/media/storage/paper741/news/2003/05/12/Tempo/A.Big.Man.Looks.For.The.Land.Of.The.Littlepeople-757722.shtml?page=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112041901/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/04/08-56415.pdf to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/04/08-56415.pdf
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) 17:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified