This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just wanted to note that the language saying the 4th Circuit ruled that the cross must come down is completely incorrect. The Court ruled that public maintenance of the cross was unconstitutional, but explicitly didn't opine on the ultimate dispensation of the cross and remanded to the district court for the parties to determine an outcome for the cross that would pass constitutional muster. See Footnote 19 of the actual opinion. ("Upon remand, the parties should note that this opinion does not presuppose any particular result (i.e., removing the arms or razing the Cross entirely); rather, the parties are free to explore alternative arrangements that would not offend the Constitution)
American Humanist Association, Steven Lowe,. Fred Edwords, and Bishop McNeill v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (PDF) (Report). United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. No. 15-2597. Retrieved 24 October 2017. {{
cite report}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |authors=
(
help).
I'll leave it up to someone who actually knows how to edit Wikipedia to fix it though. — 73.50.234.77 ( talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
At least one editor believes that this name for this monument doesn't belong in the article. It is true and well-sourced (unlike the supposed nickname of "Peace Cross", for which no citation is given, and for which there is ample evidence that the term does not refer to this monument). If the name "The Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross" makes some people uncomfortable, they should bring that up with the US Supreme Court. It is not appropriate to censor wikipedia based on one's personal beliefs.
If you believe that alternate names of the monument should not be in the first paragraph, propose a different place for them. RoyLeban ( talk) 07:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The current version which removes both the unsourced name (Bladensburg Cross Memorial) and the name that people here are saying is only from a single source (Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross) from the introduction seems reasonable. However, I think it is appropriate to add a section on the naming controversy. The so-called "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property" clearly wants to promote the religious nature of the monument, while The Satanic Temple has just as much a right to promote their name. Honestly, I suspect that if it was a single christian church promoting a name, there would be no objection to inclusion. And, of course, the non-official name which seems to get used everywhere (just "Peace Cross") is clearly intended to be religious. For that name, there is plenty of evidence that it is a generic name, used for many other monuments. If nobody here objects, I will add a "Naming Controversy" section when I have some time. Anybody else should feel free to do it as well. RoyLeban ( talk) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Since it seems abundantly clear there's a controversy here (if nothing else, Hammersoft's arguments makes it clear there's controversy), I have added a Naming Controversy web site. I included references to the National Register of Historic Places, the well-respected Patheos, the website of The Satanic Temple, and even the editorial on tfp.org web site, which is the only reference I can find to that group's attempted rename. I omitted the other references which are not as strong and as well-respected as Patheos.
I personally don't think that TFP's name used in a single editorial is notable. I included it so that nobody can accuse me of not promoting NPOV. That editorial does not mention the name given by The Satanic Temple, or even mention the naming. Their opinion is only clear by their attempt to give it a different name (and the way they attack The Satanic Temple). RoyLeban ( talk) 13:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been incredibly reasonable. I have asked for your help understanding your claims. I have asked for clarification. I have echoed back to you things you are saying to see if I understand you. Your response has been to ignore all of that. Wondering whether you actually want me to understand you is not an attack. Asking you for clarification is not an attack. Asking you for evidence is not an attack. Out of context, my statement that "You act as if your opinion matters more" could be construed as an attack. In context, I think it is clear it is not. You are one editor. You opinion has no more weight than my opinion. But my opinion has the backing of many other Wikipedians and my attempt to get clarification from you have been ignored.
Now, you're claiming that Patheos, a site cited in 425+ other articles is a blog. On what basis are you making that false claim? Can you point to somewhere, even on Wikipedia, that says that? The Patheos article says "Patheos is a non-denominational, non-partisan online media company providing information and commentary from various religious and nonreligious perspectives." Yes, some content on it is blogs, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but there is no indication as to what is a blog and what is not. Are Time magazine's editorials blogs too? Where do you draw the line? You think it's a blog. I don't. That doesn't mean it's a blog. Speaking of Time, the Wikipedia article says "Time magazine called the materials on Patheos "streamlined" and "reader-friendly".[9] Religion News Service described it as "a more cerebral approach to what Beliefnet's been doing for nearly a decade".[11] Patheos was featured as one of "21 Ways to Be Smarter in 2011" by Newsweek.[12]" Hundreds, if not thousands of other Wikipedians think Patheos is an acceptable reference. What do you know that all those other people don't? If you're not willing to explain, then your opinion has no merit. It's just an opinion with no evidence, and my saying that it seems you don't know something all those other people don't know is also not an attack. And no, this isn't "other things exist". Please don't cite that again. This is "you are giving no explanation for your opinion which many other people clearly disagree with."
I have no desire to quote the Christian site which is the only mention of that other name. I added the sentence and citation solely so nobody (like you) could accuse me of pushing a particular viewpoint. The name from the Christian group with no reasonable citation at all was in the article long before I added the name used by The Satanic Temple. But, no, it's completely impossible that there is religious bias at play (I'm not accusing you of religious bias (I have no idea), but in the US, at least, there is systemic religious bias at play, and Wikipedia is not immune). Also, those edits happened before either of us looked in on this article, or at least before I did. I cited The Satanic Temple's site only to have a clearer quote than was in the Patheos article. I could care less about the two primary sources. You know that Patheos is not a primary source.
Let's talk about personal attacks. Here are some of the things that people might say when they are making personal attacks:
The goal here is to make Wikipedia better, not worse. That's my goal. I also believe that "notability" is incredibly poorly defined, so poorly defined that different editors reach different conclusions. This doesn't make you right.
If you truly believe that Patheos cannot be cited, that citations to it do not belong on Wikipedia, then you should want to start up an effort to remove all citations to it, not just the one in this article. If that's not the case, what is the difference between the citation here and all those others? I mentioned an article above whose primary citation is from Patheos (it took me <5 minutes to find it). Should that article be removed completely? If not, why not? If I were to do that, you would no doubt claim I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (see, I know all the rules too), but how is that different from what's going on here? Is Patheos acceptable or not? It's a simple question. RoyLeban ( talk) 14:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I have reported you to WP:AN/I. And, no, I didn't see "Search this blog" because it's rather buried. It doesn't look like a blog. It looks like many minor media sites, and I honestly have no idea how Pantheos really works. From the looks of it, it looks like this section of Pantheos uses an older template and newer sections don't have "Search this blog" on them. There is still the question you have never responded to. Do you believe that all of pantheos.com should not be cited on Wikipedia? Or just this section which reports on Atheist topics? And then there's the general question (which I'm going to guess you will think is a personal attack): why haven't you responded to this question that I have asked multiple times? I am sincerely attempting to understand your opinion and your point of view. I do not understand why you are not willing to answer. RoyLeban ( talk) 04:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
"But the fact that they held a ceremony to rename the monument after the SCOTUS decision (they say encouraged by the SCOTUS decision) which was written about on Pantheos is notable. I think it would be notable without the article, but Wikipedia needs secondary sources. Hammersoft has a different opinion."First, that the Satanic Temple renamed it isn't notable by itself. Let me give you an example; I've just declared myself to be the Grand Pooba of the most Holy Order of the Dark Side of the Moon. I hereby renamed the cross the "Funky Fishing Lure". One of my followers has written a blog article about this renaming on Patheos. Therefore, the renaming is notable and must be included on the article! Does this sound absurd to you? These are the grounds on which you are asking me to accept that the renaming is notable. So let me try to be clear once again; you say that Wikipedia needs secondary sources. You are 10000000% correct. We also need such sources to be reliable. A blog article on Patheos is not considered reliable, as it is a self published source. So I'll repeat myself again; I'm sure you can find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support this claim. So find them. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Four responses:
1. Cullen328's statement of "... affiliated with a Satanic group ..." does not appear to be NPOV. It is also a false statement. The columnist in question, Hemant Mehta, has no affiliation with The Satanic Temple.
2. I do not see anywhere in Hammersoft's arguments (recent or earlier) that explain why Hemant Mehta's articles may not be cited. Mehta is one of Patheos' top 6 columnists. If his articles are not acceptable, then what what articles from lesser columnists are acceptable? What makes his articles unacceptable when others are acceptable? (and note there are 911 references, not the 425 I cited earlier)
3. Hemant Mehta is not "promoting a contrived 'controversy'", nor does he use the word controversy anywhere in the article — he is simply reporting on what The Satanic Temple did. I erred in calling it a "controversy". I did so because of the Christian editorial which attacked The Satanic Temple and promoted a different name and I was trying to avoid somebody saying I wasn't maintaining a NPOV.
4. There are many other references from more acceptable sources (like news and TV station affiliate sites), but the ones I looked at were either identical to The Satanic Temple's press release, or they were thinly veiled rewrites. So, yeah, I could cite those but it would be disingenuous — they're not independent. In contrast, Mehta's article is actual independent reporting. And, no I'm not making this my life's work to find other references. RoyLeban ( talk) 10:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's another reference, an article from Route 1 Reporter, a subscriber-based local news site in Prince George's County, MD, where the monument is located. RoyLeban ( talk) 06:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just wanted to note that the language saying the 4th Circuit ruled that the cross must come down is completely incorrect. The Court ruled that public maintenance of the cross was unconstitutional, but explicitly didn't opine on the ultimate dispensation of the cross and remanded to the district court for the parties to determine an outcome for the cross that would pass constitutional muster. See Footnote 19 of the actual opinion. ("Upon remand, the parties should note that this opinion does not presuppose any particular result (i.e., removing the arms or razing the Cross entirely); rather, the parties are free to explore alternative arrangements that would not offend the Constitution)
American Humanist Association, Steven Lowe,. Fred Edwords, and Bishop McNeill v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (PDF) (Report). United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. No. 15-2597. Retrieved 24 October 2017. {{
cite report}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |authors=
(
help).
I'll leave it up to someone who actually knows how to edit Wikipedia to fix it though. — 73.50.234.77 ( talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
At least one editor believes that this name for this monument doesn't belong in the article. It is true and well-sourced (unlike the supposed nickname of "Peace Cross", for which no citation is given, and for which there is ample evidence that the term does not refer to this monument). If the name "The Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross" makes some people uncomfortable, they should bring that up with the US Supreme Court. It is not appropriate to censor wikipedia based on one's personal beliefs.
If you believe that alternate names of the monument should not be in the first paragraph, propose a different place for them. RoyLeban ( talk) 07:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The current version which removes both the unsourced name (Bladensburg Cross Memorial) and the name that people here are saying is only from a single source (Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross) from the introduction seems reasonable. However, I think it is appropriate to add a section on the naming controversy. The so-called "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property" clearly wants to promote the religious nature of the monument, while The Satanic Temple has just as much a right to promote their name. Honestly, I suspect that if it was a single christian church promoting a name, there would be no objection to inclusion. And, of course, the non-official name which seems to get used everywhere (just "Peace Cross") is clearly intended to be religious. For that name, there is plenty of evidence that it is a generic name, used for many other monuments. If nobody here objects, I will add a "Naming Controversy" section when I have some time. Anybody else should feel free to do it as well. RoyLeban ( talk) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Since it seems abundantly clear there's a controversy here (if nothing else, Hammersoft's arguments makes it clear there's controversy), I have added a Naming Controversy web site. I included references to the National Register of Historic Places, the well-respected Patheos, the website of The Satanic Temple, and even the editorial on tfp.org web site, which is the only reference I can find to that group's attempted rename. I omitted the other references which are not as strong and as well-respected as Patheos.
I personally don't think that TFP's name used in a single editorial is notable. I included it so that nobody can accuse me of not promoting NPOV. That editorial does not mention the name given by The Satanic Temple, or even mention the naming. Their opinion is only clear by their attempt to give it a different name (and the way they attack The Satanic Temple). RoyLeban ( talk) 13:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I have been incredibly reasonable. I have asked for your help understanding your claims. I have asked for clarification. I have echoed back to you things you are saying to see if I understand you. Your response has been to ignore all of that. Wondering whether you actually want me to understand you is not an attack. Asking you for clarification is not an attack. Asking you for evidence is not an attack. Out of context, my statement that "You act as if your opinion matters more" could be construed as an attack. In context, I think it is clear it is not. You are one editor. You opinion has no more weight than my opinion. But my opinion has the backing of many other Wikipedians and my attempt to get clarification from you have been ignored.
Now, you're claiming that Patheos, a site cited in 425+ other articles is a blog. On what basis are you making that false claim? Can you point to somewhere, even on Wikipedia, that says that? The Patheos article says "Patheos is a non-denominational, non-partisan online media company providing information and commentary from various religious and nonreligious perspectives." Yes, some content on it is blogs, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, but there is no indication as to what is a blog and what is not. Are Time magazine's editorials blogs too? Where do you draw the line? You think it's a blog. I don't. That doesn't mean it's a blog. Speaking of Time, the Wikipedia article says "Time magazine called the materials on Patheos "streamlined" and "reader-friendly".[9] Religion News Service described it as "a more cerebral approach to what Beliefnet's been doing for nearly a decade".[11] Patheos was featured as one of "21 Ways to Be Smarter in 2011" by Newsweek.[12]" Hundreds, if not thousands of other Wikipedians think Patheos is an acceptable reference. What do you know that all those other people don't? If you're not willing to explain, then your opinion has no merit. It's just an opinion with no evidence, and my saying that it seems you don't know something all those other people don't know is also not an attack. And no, this isn't "other things exist". Please don't cite that again. This is "you are giving no explanation for your opinion which many other people clearly disagree with."
I have no desire to quote the Christian site which is the only mention of that other name. I added the sentence and citation solely so nobody (like you) could accuse me of pushing a particular viewpoint. The name from the Christian group with no reasonable citation at all was in the article long before I added the name used by The Satanic Temple. But, no, it's completely impossible that there is religious bias at play (I'm not accusing you of religious bias (I have no idea), but in the US, at least, there is systemic religious bias at play, and Wikipedia is not immune). Also, those edits happened before either of us looked in on this article, or at least before I did. I cited The Satanic Temple's site only to have a clearer quote than was in the Patheos article. I could care less about the two primary sources. You know that Patheos is not a primary source.
Let's talk about personal attacks. Here are some of the things that people might say when they are making personal attacks:
The goal here is to make Wikipedia better, not worse. That's my goal. I also believe that "notability" is incredibly poorly defined, so poorly defined that different editors reach different conclusions. This doesn't make you right.
If you truly believe that Patheos cannot be cited, that citations to it do not belong on Wikipedia, then you should want to start up an effort to remove all citations to it, not just the one in this article. If that's not the case, what is the difference between the citation here and all those others? I mentioned an article above whose primary citation is from Patheos (it took me <5 minutes to find it). Should that article be removed completely? If not, why not? If I were to do that, you would no doubt claim I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (see, I know all the rules too), but how is that different from what's going on here? Is Patheos acceptable or not? It's a simple question. RoyLeban ( talk) 14:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I have reported you to WP:AN/I. And, no, I didn't see "Search this blog" because it's rather buried. It doesn't look like a blog. It looks like many minor media sites, and I honestly have no idea how Pantheos really works. From the looks of it, it looks like this section of Pantheos uses an older template and newer sections don't have "Search this blog" on them. There is still the question you have never responded to. Do you believe that all of pantheos.com should not be cited on Wikipedia? Or just this section which reports on Atheist topics? And then there's the general question (which I'm going to guess you will think is a personal attack): why haven't you responded to this question that I have asked multiple times? I am sincerely attempting to understand your opinion and your point of view. I do not understand why you are not willing to answer. RoyLeban ( talk) 04:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
"But the fact that they held a ceremony to rename the monument after the SCOTUS decision (they say encouraged by the SCOTUS decision) which was written about on Pantheos is notable. I think it would be notable without the article, but Wikipedia needs secondary sources. Hammersoft has a different opinion."First, that the Satanic Temple renamed it isn't notable by itself. Let me give you an example; I've just declared myself to be the Grand Pooba of the most Holy Order of the Dark Side of the Moon. I hereby renamed the cross the "Funky Fishing Lure". One of my followers has written a blog article about this renaming on Patheos. Therefore, the renaming is notable and must be included on the article! Does this sound absurd to you? These are the grounds on which you are asking me to accept that the renaming is notable. So let me try to be clear once again; you say that Wikipedia needs secondary sources. You are 10000000% correct. We also need such sources to be reliable. A blog article on Patheos is not considered reliable, as it is a self published source. So I'll repeat myself again; I'm sure you can find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support this claim. So find them. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Four responses:
1. Cullen328's statement of "... affiliated with a Satanic group ..." does not appear to be NPOV. It is also a false statement. The columnist in question, Hemant Mehta, has no affiliation with The Satanic Temple.
2. I do not see anywhere in Hammersoft's arguments (recent or earlier) that explain why Hemant Mehta's articles may not be cited. Mehta is one of Patheos' top 6 columnists. If his articles are not acceptable, then what what articles from lesser columnists are acceptable? What makes his articles unacceptable when others are acceptable? (and note there are 911 references, not the 425 I cited earlier)
3. Hemant Mehta is not "promoting a contrived 'controversy'", nor does he use the word controversy anywhere in the article — he is simply reporting on what The Satanic Temple did. I erred in calling it a "controversy". I did so because of the Christian editorial which attacked The Satanic Temple and promoted a different name and I was trying to avoid somebody saying I wasn't maintaining a NPOV.
4. There are many other references from more acceptable sources (like news and TV station affiliate sites), but the ones I looked at were either identical to The Satanic Temple's press release, or they were thinly veiled rewrites. So, yeah, I could cite those but it would be disingenuous — they're not independent. In contrast, Mehta's article is actual independent reporting. And, no I'm not making this my life's work to find other references. RoyLeban ( talk) 10:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's another reference, an article from Route 1 Reporter, a subscriber-based local news site in Prince George's County, MD, where the monument is located. RoyLeban ( talk) 06:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)