This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
While some supposedly reliable sources have claimed that vandals stole the cross, the vast majority of reliable sources have wisely chosen not to use the term. The cross was stolen- not vandalized. To argue that because bolts were cut in the process of stealing the cross 'vandalism' occurred is just silly. The thing was stolen, which is different from "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" as Webster defines vandalism. If a thief breaks a window to get inside your home and steal all your electronics, money, and jewelry then I doubt you would be calling the cops to catch a window-breaking vandal. You would want to catch the thief. To quote Thomas Tradewell calling the thief/thieves a "vandal" is entirely appropriate and I have no problem with that. I am not trying to remove his quote about a vandal. I am just trying to ensure that the article itself has a neutral POV. To insert it as if it were fact in explaining what happened is, however, not appropriate and obviously pushes a POV that the thief/thieves did this for specific reasons which we cannot possibly know. -- Brendan19 ( talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This case does not appear on the page called "List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union." Can you please add it? Forgive me, I am technologically inept, or I would do it myself. Thanks for your help. 68.52.82.204 ( talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Mojave Memorial Cross says the court ruled that the cross may stay. This article says that it simply sent the case down to a lower court. To the casual observer at least, this appears confusing and contradictory. The court gave its opinion, but is the case over or is it indeed in the hands of a lower court to be reconsidered? Swarm X 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
While some supposedly reliable sources have claimed that vandals stole the cross, the vast majority of reliable sources have wisely chosen not to use the term. The cross was stolen- not vandalized. To argue that because bolts were cut in the process of stealing the cross 'vandalism' occurred is just silly. The thing was stolen, which is different from "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" as Webster defines vandalism. If a thief breaks a window to get inside your home and steal all your electronics, money, and jewelry then I doubt you would be calling the cops to catch a window-breaking vandal. You would want to catch the thief. To quote Thomas Tradewell calling the thief/thieves a "vandal" is entirely appropriate and I have no problem with that. I am not trying to remove his quote about a vandal. I am just trying to ensure that the article itself has a neutral POV. To insert it as if it were fact in explaining what happened is, however, not appropriate and obviously pushes a POV that the thief/thieves did this for specific reasons which we cannot possibly know. -- Brendan19 ( talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This case does not appear on the page called "List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union." Can you please add it? Forgive me, I am technologically inept, or I would do it myself. Thanks for your help. 68.52.82.204 ( talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Mojave Memorial Cross says the court ruled that the cross may stay. This article says that it simply sent the case down to a lower court. To the casual observer at least, this appears confusing and contradictory. The court gave its opinion, but is the case over or is it indeed in the hands of a lower court to be reconsidered? Swarm X 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)