Talk:Mojave Memorial Cross

Latitude/Longitude

Can the latitude and longitude be provided please, so that this can be identified on a map? Thank you.
--Atikokan (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Found BBC article with photos before and after ruling. Provided link. 216.36.10.137 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mojave Memorial Cross is located near 35 degrees 17'52" N 115 degrees 32' 05" W close to the trail head for Teutonia Peak. From this location, Sunrise Rock can be found by looking east toward Kessler Peak, the highest point in this section of the Ivanpah Mts. JamAKiska (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

JamAKiska (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) details of location

Questions

How big is it? When was it destroyed, and by whom? When was it boarded up? When and why did Congress give the land to the veteran's group? AxelBoldt (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Six feet tall maybe? I've driven by it a dozen times, but in its boarded-up state I didn't realize it was anything interesting, and it only appears in a corner of one of my photos taken in the area. Stan (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

With a little adroit cropping, it's at least recognizable. :-) Stan (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

8 feet tall is the size I see reported. The original wooden cross was destroyed during a storm a number of years ago (can't find exactly when right now). When the lawsuits started, the cross was first covered with a tarp, but the cross could still be seen when the sun shone behind it, so they later covered it with the wood box. The land became federally-owned only in 1994 and the land trade happened in Nov. 2003. Seregain (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the Snopes[1] article the original 1934 cross was wooden and long gone before the metal one was erected in 1998 (that's four years after it became a Federal Reserve). ~ Brother William (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How remote was the cross site? Was it visible from public roads? JPAnalog (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

From the article, it sounds like it's somewhat remote, but one public road (Cima Road) does go right by it. Seregain (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's about 30 feet away from Cima Road, and easily visible, but not conspicuous, at least with the box over it. I must've looked at it a dozen times and not paid much attention; but there are a surprising number of inexplicable objects scattered around the desert. :-) Stan (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term 'vandals'

Is the use of the term 'vandals' appropriate to describe the party(-ies) responsible for the removal of the memorial? Xburrows (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

van-dal : "one who willfully or ignorantly destroys, damages, or defaces property belonging to another or to the public" - Fits perfectly. Seregain (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

By that measure, the erection of the cross, without permission, on public land, is itself vandalism. Would you agree?Xburrows (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the cross is simply gone, we don't know if it has been destroyed, damaged, or lovingly repainted and set up in someone's living room. :-) For all we know, the property owner did it to pump up public attention! After all, the big Supreme Court ruling came and went, and went out of the news after a couple days. Absent solid information as to perpetrator and motive, "vandal" is not a neutral choice of term - we can just say "unknown persons" and leave it at that. Stan (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet the bolts anchoring the cross were cut, which is vandalism. Property was destroyed to steal the sign. If this were any other object, this would not be an issue (and you would not be bringing up absurd conspiracy theories). Besides, we have reliable sources that call it vandalism. Seregain (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The cross was not erected on public land. It was first erected in 1934 while the land it is on didn't become public land until 1994. If someone damaged or destroyed a historic church on public land (such as these two) because it was on public land, would we be having this discussion? Would you be so hesitant to call it vandalism? Seregain (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was BLM land back then. (Almost everything in this part of the world is BLM, nobody wants to buy it. :-) ) Your use of the word "because" means you know motive, which in turn means you know something about who did it, which we don't in this case. "Vandalism" is a pejorative that connotes random destructiveness - the fact that we're debating it at all indicates that it's too strong of a word for this context. Plus it doesn't add anything. You're not trying to push POV, right? Stan (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously BLM land is not the same as federally owned land. Whatever the case, there was no possible issue with this cross before 1994 when the government took control of the land it was on. As far as who removed the cross and why, it's obvious that this was no official removal because it was done in secret and without permission. Whatever you personally might think, the act falls within the definition of the word "vandalism" (as well as "theft") and several reliable sources have rightfully used the word(s). There's nothing about the word "vandalism" that denotes randomness. That's your POV being pushed. Seregain (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From Bureau of Land Management: "Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency [...] which administers America's public lands". But your hairsplitting has successfully exhausted my small interest in the whole subject, goodbye. Stan (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it simple: management is not the same as ownership. Seregain (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the cross is not that the bolts were cut. I don't seen anyone really upset about those bolts- what I do see is outrage over the THEFT of the cross. That is the issue. To call thieves 'vandals' is pushing a POV, otherwise you would just call them thieves. This is a silly argument. To call the thieves 'vandals' is to try and represent them as a certain type of person because of the meaning of the word (it implies a motive for the theft that we simply cannot know). Let's not add words designed to ignite emotions and let's just stick to telling what happened and quoting people. If you want to quote some idiot who said 'vandals' did it then fine, but don't say it as if it is fact because that is wrong. Oh, and BLM land IS public land by definition. --Brendan19 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is nothing more than POV and OR. The use of the word is backed up by reliable sources. Vandals can steal and thieves can vandalize. Seregain (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seregain, I am not sure why you, alone, are battling multiple people on this, but please stop. To make claims about a person or people which cannot be verified is pushing a POV and that is what you are doing. We cannot know the motive of whoever stole the cross so to say anything to that effect is inappropriate. Let's just say it was stolen and try not to push a POV about who did it and why. --Brendan19 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you battling multiple reliable sources that have used and continue to use the term "vandal?" Why are you ignoring these in favor of your original research and POV? And why are you making changes that have not been agreed upon here? Seregain (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple sources which use the term 'vandal.' There are also multiple sources which do not. There are at least three of us (Xburrows, Stan, and myself) who disagree with the one of you on the use of the word 'vandal.' A reliable source (Merriam Webster) defines vandalism as something separate from stealing- and while the "bolts were cut" as you say, that is not the noteworthy issue with the cross. The proper term would be 'thief,' but as I've said before, I think it is redundant to say that something was stolen by a thief.

You mention OR and POV. As best I can tell, I am not using OR when I fail to mention who stole the cross because the provable truth is that nobody knows who stole the cross. This should be reason enough to omit descriptions of the perpetrator(s). There are also reliable sources which back me up on this and do not use the term, vandal. As for POV, I would love to know how my removal of an inflammatory term makes this article LESS neutral. Please explain that to me. I think it is far easier to show that the use of the term, vandal, gives less of an impartial tone, uses a loaded word to describe a person or people about whom we know nothing, and is really nothing more than propaganda. --Brendan19 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. "It's three against one. We win." Mob rule, right? Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. One can beat three, ten, a hundred or thousands and thousands if NPOV and reliable sources are on that one person's side.

That multiple sources do not use the term "vandal" means nothing and has no relevance to the multiple ones that do use it. Again, it's not about how many are on your side and how many are on mine. It's about what reliable sources say. You have removed the USA Today reference -- which used the term -- more than once, obviously because you personally disagree with the term. USA Today is a well-established, well-respected, often used reliable source. Are you now claiming otherwise?

Use of the term also is not subject to what the dictionary says. Again, that would be original research on your part. If this were about the definition of the word on the article about it, you'd have a case, but it's not and you don't.

You may not think the cutting of the bolts it's that important, but the article isn't about what you think. The fact remains that it is destruction of property, i.e. vandalism.

"Vandal" is no more loaded or inflammatory than "thief." I'm sure the person who took the cross doesn't consider himself a thief, but what he personally thinks is as irrelevant as what you personally think. In fact, the person has not even been charged and convicted of any crime, so again by your twisted logic, it is unproven and use of the word is inflammatory.

Do I really have to take this to the next step of dispute resolution? It will only prove that both NPOV and RS are on my side, not yours. Seregain (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I welcome outside opinions. Should we request comments from others? I'd be interested to hear who they think is pushing a non-neutral POV. --Brendan19 (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A Proposed Solution

It is the obligation, I insist, to respect the war-survivor feelings and the intentions of the World War One doughboys who in 1934 erected a memorial in the Mojave Desert - regardless of the nit picking, pettifogging, umbrella ACT that defined the land as Federal Property. No memorial manufactured today, even by the kindly Mr. Sandoz, can repair the ethical damage caused by the May 10 theft.

Perhaps it would be best for the American Veterans of Foreign Wars to appeal for the donation of a World War One Service Memorial, one that was created and went into use 70 to 90 years ago. If such an authentic memorial were to be found in Europe, it would be more meaningful when erected in the Mojave Desert. Further, the presence or absence of a cross in such a donated memorial would be irrelevant, according to a majority of the US Supreme Court. Wherever such a memorial originally stood, the intention was not any =state promotion of Christianity=. --Ed Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.90.109 (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the caliber of your addition to the article, you'll excuse me for doubting the seriousness of this proposal. Seregain (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC discussion for use of the term "vandal"

There is a dispute over whether the use of the term "vandal" in the article is NPOV or not. (See above for a lengthy discussion that has already taken place.) Seregain (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Salazar_v._Buono. Seregain (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be settled on a prose matter over anything else. Common language would call them theives, not vandals. Neither fits 100% exactly legally, but a missing cross tends to theivery in common discourse, while vandalism would imply that the cross remained where it is, but was defaced. Theives just seems like a better fit for prose, so barring any specific concern against the word "theif", we should go with that. (Obviously, of course, vandal stays in the direct quote currently in the article.) Yoshi348 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "vandal" is not appropriate in this circumstance (outside of direct quotations). Seregain states above that "vandal" means "one who willfully or ignorantly destroys, damages, or defaces property belonging to another or to the public." This definition is convenient, as it does seem to support the use of that word. However, this is only one dictionary's (Random House's) definition of the word. Several other sources (American Heritage and Mirriam-Webster, for instance) omit the word "ignorantly," using only "maliciously" or "willfully." Thus, intention appears to be a key part of the definition for some people (that is, apparently there is not consensus on the meaning of the word). Since some people may reasonably be working from the model that a "vandal's" intent is to damage or deface the property, and since we do not know the intent of the perpetrators, this seems inappropriate. The article itself mentions a claim that the purpose was not to deface, but to honor. The very fact that said report is unverified indicates that we cannot impute a motive with certainty. Thus, it makes more sense, to me, to retain only the word "thief," as it it indisputable that the cross was removed by someone other than the owner/manager. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)