Talk:Mount Soledad

War Memorial?

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)

That is true, Serge. For 50 years the cross stood without any designation whatsoever as a "war memorial". No memorial services were EVER held there until this millenium. The only services ever held there prior to the lawsuits, were Easter Sunday services. THe "war memorial" was concocted to avoid the plain unconstitutionality of the cross on public land. --66.54.170.187 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I found a 1985 AAA map of the "San Diego Area" at my parents house, and it identified it as the "Easter Cross". --Serge 02:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article states that on March 8, 2005 the San Diego City Council voted against a proposal to transfer the land to the National Park Service, but a recent article posted on Forbes.com says, "...Congress agreed to make the area a national veterans memorial, and San Diego residents voted to transfer the land to the federal government." Which is correct? -- cellswo1

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/07/07/ap2865145.html

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)

Answers.com is not a source, it's a Mirorr

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)

Wouldn't the citation be to "AAA Map of California (1985)"? DCB4W 14:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question from 132.239.1.231

Is it relevant that Philip Paulson is an atheist? We don't state the religions of the other relevant individuals.

I don't think religion has anything to do with it. It's a matter of law irrespective of religion. But please wait while others may chime in before you change it. Also, I've moved your question here to keep the page more chronological. A colon ( : ) at the beginning of a line will indent your comments, and you can sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ like this. Perspective 01:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That has everything to do with the court cases. When the ACLU decided to bring this up, they had to find sombody in the area who was willing to be a plaintif. If 75% of the people in the area want it to stay, the best wat to find one of the other 25% is to find sombody who doesn't follow Christianity. This is just another example of the ACLU's (American Communist Lawers Union)war on Christianity.Rayfan87

Is the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) involved with the Mt. Soledad cross case? Answer: No. James McElroy [1] is the only attorney of record of Plaintiff Philip Paulson, and the ACLU attorneys are not involved in any way with Plaintiff Philip Paulson's case in either the jurisdictional federal courts or the California State courts or any other para-legal capacity.68.105.121.34 05:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Philip Paulson edited out the "Atheist" pejoration or pejorative [2] (although the word usage of pejorative is an adjective and pejoration is a noun) in his name for good reason. Mount Soledad has a so-call "War Memorial" positioned at the apex of the Mt. Soledad Natural Park. Philip Paulson has legal standing to file a lawsuit against the City of San Diego about the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross permanently positioned in a publicly owned park because he is (1) a resident of San Diego and (2) an Honorably Discharged US Army veteran of the Vietnam war era. Being an "Atheist" or a religious person is totally irrelevant to the cross case. The word "Atheist" appeared in print as a pejorative usage. Somehow, one could falsely image that there was something not quite right about Plaintiff Paulson being an "Atheist" in San Diego or America. So how does this relate to the Wikipedia article on Mount Soledad? To this day Paulson cannot figure out the use of a pejorative "Atheist" attached to his name. Paulson wears his "Atheism" as a badge of honor and pride, and he doesn't pay much attention to the distracting, intimidating and harassing voices of the majority religious culture. As for Paulson, it really does not matter whether or not he keeps to himself or shares with other Atheist Americans a common philosophy of life. So yes, he is totally out of the closet as an individual, free-thinking non-conformist. But most importantly, why is it that only a precious few seems to even mention or care that Paulson served his country in time of war, but the San Diego Union Tribune referred to him in print for the past 17 years as "Atheist Philip Paulson?" In truth and in fact, Philip Paulson served two tours of military duty on the front-lines of battle in Vietnam while serving with Company C, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173 Airborne Brigade (separate) of the US Army?68.105.121.34 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU--which the more intelligent among us know stands for American Civil Liberties Union--is NOT involved in the Soledad Cross case. Lawyers on both sides are working pro bono. --MP

War on Christianity??? Do you see any lack of churches in this country, or anyone calling for suppression of Christian expression in the private sector? Seems to me Christianity is thriving just fine in this country without government help, and the ACLU helps to keep it that way. If you're going to push such a blatant POV, Rayfan, maybe you should not be editing Wikipedia. MFNickster 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to MFNickster-you should set up a user page so you can be contacted for clarification on some of your comments.Arodb 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Arodb - I already have a Talk page. MFNickster 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

July 13, 2006 changes by 66.75.40.183

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:

1. "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.
2. "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.
3. "Essentially this case seems to boil down to an angry minority attempting to impose it's will on the majority." This is unsubstantiated opinion.
4. "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.
5. "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)

Proposed move-separate article on Mount Soledad cross controversy

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have been accused by an anonymous source of showing a bias in presenting facts in the Mt. Soledad Article. Here are two material facts to the Mount Soledad title that I inserted in the Article: I entered the insertion for June 26, 2006 and July 19, 2006 in the Article. Additionally, a very significant material fact was omitted from the Article, which I inserted: The Peters Resolution and Proposition K. 68.105.121.34 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

My Reply to MFNickster, Actually, I think I am through editing the Article and have supplied important references to support certain insertions. I have diligently put in my best and highest efforts to be objective about all the facts and to inquire into all matters that are substantive and relevant to the Mount Soledad Article. If you can point out in particular detail the weasel words, that you suggest I have been using, then I would attempt to remedy those words with more appropriate ones. 14:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

KKK burning citation

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)

1. Here is an official report on the history of the Cross, prepared by Mary Kay Jackson. But the interesting commentary is that "It was destroyed by vandals ten years later..." but the City Attorney's Memorandum does not go into details about the culprits.

DATE: April 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Crosses on Mount Soledad and Presidio Park REQUESTED BY: George Loveland, Director, Park and Recreation Department PREPARED BY: Mary Kay Jackson, Deputy City Attorney

"Mt. Soledad Cross. "The original cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens of La Jolla and Pacific Beach. It was destroyed by vandals ten years later and rebuilt by private citizens, but was destroyed in 1952 by a severe windstorm. Again a group of private citizens raised the funds for a new cross. When the latest cross was dedicated in 1954, it was dedicated as a memorial to the military casualties of the World Wars and the Korean conflict. At that time the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association was formed by a group of citizens to help promote and maintain the park. The land on which the cross is located was originally owned by the City and dedicated as a public park in 1916 by Ordinance No. 6670, subsequent to the building and dedication of the original cross." 68.105.121.34 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the documentary evidence of a cross burning on Mt. Soledad in this citation: "In 1923, when a black family rented a house on the outskirts of town, the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross on Mt Soledad." [3]

“From: Lynn Haney, Gregory Peck: A Charmed Life, Carroll & Graf Publishers: New York, NY (2003), pages 44-45:

Like Jem and Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird, Greg was discovering there was an undercurrent of evil amidst the quotidian joys of La Jolla... In 1923, when a black family rented a house on the outskirts of town, the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross on Mt Soledad.

'None of us youngsters knew what it was all about,' said Greg. 'But even with the sheets we could recognize some of the hot bloods of the town. They made quite an impression on us.

...Started [by Southern Baptists] after the Civil War, the KKK experienced resurgence in the 1920s. Members of the terrorist KKK presented themselves as defenders of the white against the black, of Gentile against Jew, and of Protestant against Catholic. They thus traded on the newly inflamed fears of credulous small-towners in places like La Jolla. Their message appealed to ordinary men with an infantile love of hocus-pocus and a lust for secret adventure. By setting a cross ablaze in the night, they aroused fears of burning houses, beatings and sometimes lynching.

When Greg [Peck] was older he was able to appreciate the immense power of movies as propaganda. As Darryl Zanuck liked to say: 'The movies are the greatest political fact in the world today.' In the case of the KKK, the organization benefited greatly from D W Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915). This controversial, explicitly racist movie set up a major censorship battle over its vicious, extremist depiction of African Americans. Nonetheless, the film was a huge box-office moneymaker, raking in $18 million by the start of the talkies. It was the most profitable film for over two decades, until Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).” [4] 68.105.121.34 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• .*.*.*.*.

During the 1920's, San Diego, along with many other Southwestern cities and towns, witnessed a new emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, a rebirth of the older secret organization that, in the nineteenth century, had targeted newly freed slaves in the South. The new Klan of the 1920s was a racist as well as a anti-immigrant organization targeting new immigrants and Jews as well as African Americans. In San Diego, the Ku Klux Klan particularly targeted Mexican immigrants. Thousand of Mexican newcomers were crossing into California every year lured by the demand for laborers in the fields and in the newly developed suburbs. There the Mexicans encountered other immigrants, white Midwestern Protestants, who were eager to find fortune in the west. For many of these white immigrants the Klan, as well as fundamentalist religious organizations, offered a solution for the anxieties they felt as they encountered a new environment and new peoples.1

While there have been several monographs on the Klan in the 1920s, Klan activities in Southern California have been ignored by most scholars. The Klan continues to exist under a new name, the White Aryan Resistance, and some of its main forerunners are from San Diego. There is an unbroken narrative of this hateful association in San Diego and its legacy has never been told.2

-- 1. The classic work on the rebirth of the KKK is Charles Alexander, The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1965).

-- 2. See Richard Melching, "The Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in Anaheim, California, 1923-1925," Southern California Quarterly, LVI, 2, Summer, 1974 68.105.121.34 01:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the 1920s, with the Ku Klux Klan much in evidence in San Diego, the Forum invited a Klan leader to explain what it was all about. Catholic, Jewish and Negro factions tried to prevent the Klan's Dr. L.F. Lukie from speaking. But the Forum presented him on schedule. Dr. Lukie did his job well. Feeling was so intense in the auditorium, the speaker was rushed to a back room and locked in until the crowd dispersed. -- Rev. John Ruskin Clark, Radio Address, December 2, 1962. [5] 68.105.121.34 01:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I've added the Adherents link to the article. -- Ari 01:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Reference to Cunningham as "Inmate"

It's true, of course, but not relevant to his role in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial saga, and is a NPOV problem. If it were relevant, then it requires an explanation. Also de-emphasized the fact that Cunningham and Hunter are Republicans... the key point of their involvement is that they are Congressmen, not that they are Republicans.AndrewSaint 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not one Republican in the House of Representatives and in the US Senate voted no to the eminent domain transfer of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross to federal ownership. So, it is relevant to the article and the voting records of Congressional Republicans clearly show a political bias. They explicitly are on record for according federal government preference for the Christian religion over all others. The Congressional Republicans, particularly Hunter, Cunningham, Issa and Bilbray would have us believe that the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross should only exalt but one religion and they would never have that cross come down. The fight here should be about "equal treatment under the law" - not preferential treatment. The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross is not a universal symbol for all veterans, but Congressional Republicans want America to become a "Christian Nation" based on their voting records and do not care about the civil rights of other Americans. 68.105.121.34 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Congressional Republicans want America to become a 'Christian Nation' based on their voting records and do not care about the civil rights of other Americans." See, now that's the kind of statement that gets you in trouble on the NPOV front. Can you substantiate that? Or for that matter, can you even substantiate your claim that "Not one Republican in the House of Representatives and in the US Senate voted no to the eminent domain transfer"? My research on http://www.thomas.gov seems to indicate that the provision was added in conference between the House and Senate. The final roll call vote on the bill in the House was 344-51, with 27 Republicans voting Nay. So, I don't think your claim holds water.

"The fight here should be about 'equal treatment under the law'..." That's exactly the point people are trying to make to you here: this is not the place to fight these battles. If you want to wage a holy war (pun intended) over religious symbols on public lands, there are plenty of places to do so. The Wikipedia is not one of them.AndrewSaint 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

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)

I am not clear about how removing facts,"comprehensive listings of every action taken on the case" from the article is in the best interest of the reader. The most significant issues appear to be in the article and your words "every action" is unclear to me. Please explain. Thank you. Philip Paulson 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The late Philip Paulson

For those who aren't keeping up on San Diego news, Philip Paulson died yesterday.[6] RIP, Phil. MFNickster 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

initial assessment

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

Neutrality

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)

Page split

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)

No objections from me. MFNickster 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)