Talk:Mount Soledad Cross

January 2009
Does anyone have specifics on the update for this case?

I know that the plaintiffs in the case (two consolidated plaintiffs Jewish War Veterans and Steve Trunk) have appealed their case to the Ninth Circuit and filed their brief on January 7th, arguing that Judge Burns of the lower court erred in holding that the cross was not a predominantly religious symbol.

A source has told me that he does not expect the case to occur till much later this year due to all the briefs that will be filed.

Does anyone know if a court date for the Ninth Circuit has been set?

This is such an interesting case that will have been going on for two decades this year. I have a feeling that this Ninth Circuit appeal along with a potential hearing by the Supreme Court might be the final steps in this long fought court case.

Lsoccerprol (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
The 1998-2001 section makes it sound like an impartial auction of the land was overthrown by the courts; this is confusing, because the introduction lists an impartial auction as one of the ACLU's proposed solutions. I think the text should point out that the auction of the land was run in a way intended to give an advantage to those groups wishing to preserve the cross.

76.200.154.71 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Original cross stolen or burned?
This sentence seems dubious to me:
 * The original wooden cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens living in La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923; later that year it was affixed back in the ground in Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.

Are there any references to support the idea that the stolen cross was somehow returned and then burned down by the KKK? The given citations just say that the KKK burned a cross on Mt. Soledad, and given that the previous cross had been stolen, it seems more reasonable that the KKK burned a cross that they themselves had erected. All the recent supreme court ruling says about this is "After the first cross was destroyed by vandals in 1923, a new cross was erected." - Rundquist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Previous links were provided to articles quoting a Gegory Peck biolgrphy. The story told is that when Gregory Peck was only 7 years old the KKK burned the Soledad Cross in reaction to a Black family in another neighborhood. In the article Greg is the only stated source for the book and article and Mr. Peck admits that he and other children were too young to understand the meaning. No reliable evidence is provided that the fire was KKK related.Harpervi (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Mt. Soledad Easter Cross or War Memorial?
Section contributor states there are 2 sides of legal debate but only list legal arguments for the cross removal point of view. This appears very biased. Legal arguments for the cross to remain should be provided also or this section will need major editing or deletion. It seems biased to characterize the argument to preserve the cross as "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross is a war memorial" yet provide no details of their legal arguments. I never heard of this cross called the "Easter Cross". This naming seems biased to prove that it always had a religious purpose which may be true but needs properly cited sources to prove rather than editorial naming. Also the legal arguments listed are not properly linked to the sources cited so that others can verify. Harpervi (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ninth Circuit official decision is available online archived at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011-1-4-JWVopinion.pdf. In terms of what influenced their decision, look up the area's long history of "Anti-Semitism" in the doc. The judges mention that the gigantic cross was the only thing on the site until legal challenges and then plaques were added. It was dedicated on Easter Day and is used in Easter religious services. A reference for the name "Easter Cross" is in the case Murphy v. Bilbray, 782 F. Supp. 1420 (S.D. Cal. 1991) at 1437-1438. Another source for looking at the reasoning is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/national/01cross.html. Another source covering the 9th circuit case : http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-7218193.html Thank you for your interest in reliable sourcing. -- Javaweb (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Javaweb Another source: An AP report via http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/04/judges-rule-cross-calif-park-unconstitutional/ -- Javaweb (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Errata in the ACLU proposed solution
The closest churches to Mount Soledad Park are:
 * Roman Catholic
 * Presbyterian
 * Jehovah's Witness

Those three are about a quarter mile away from the cross' current site, much closer than the nearest Episcopal parish.

--Diegueno (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Although "Episcopal" is mentioned in many sources, it appears from a search that it may have actually been the Presbyterian church that was mentioned in 2004 as a relocation site.[]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38045-2004Dec5.html]. I'll keep researching. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Inserted "in a personal statement" as modifier of Alito's two comments on denial of cert
In most documents when a Justice is the author of a published statement that appears in the official web site of the Supreme Court, the public believes it reflects the sense of the court, rather than an individual view. This is not the case with statements relating to refusal of cert, as specifically stated in official and/or scholarly sources. This from this Supreme Court official site:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders.aspx

The opinions included here are those written by individual Justices to comment on the summary disposition of cases by orders. Such an opinion might, for example, dissent from the denial of certiorari or concur in that denial Arodb (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mount Soledad cross controversy. 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.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/jewishnewsstory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mount Soledad cross controversy. 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.lajollalight.com/printer/article.asp?c=223555
 * Added tag to https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1079452237969430964&q=%5BTrunk+v.+City+of+San+Diego,+629+F.3d+1099,+1119+(9th+Cir.+Cal.+2011)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601041122/http://www.soledadmemorial.com:80/veteran-plaques/ to http://www.soledadmemorial.com/veteran-plaques/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006125313/http://churchstatelaw.com/commentaries/leevweisman.asp to http://www.churchstatelaw.com/commentaries/leevweisman.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215062102/http://www.aclusandiego.org/legal_item.php?cat_id_sel=003&sub_cat_sel=000016&article_id=000319 to http://www.aclusandiego.org/legal_item.php?cat_id_sel=003&sub_cat_sel=000016&article_id=000319

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) 13:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mount Soledad cross controversy. 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.lajollalight.com/printer/article.asp?c=223555
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soledadmemorial.com/veteran-plaques/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150506200540/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

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) 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mount Soledad cross controversy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609102810/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_16 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213205020/http://www.cali.org/wiseman/US/538/538.US.978.02-1101.html to http://www.cali.org/wiseman/US/538/538.US.978.02-1101.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604160342/http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060504/news_1n4soledad.html to http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20060504/news_1n4soledad.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519224811/http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060602-1454-bn02cross.html to http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060602-1454-bn02cross.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117103618/http://www.splcenter.com/center/history/mcelroy.jsp to http://www.splcenter.com/center/history/mcelroy.jsp
 * 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
 * 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
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513123457/http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2375 to http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2375

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) 23:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title
Most articles in this general category are titled "lawsuit" not "controversy". If there are no objections, I will rename this article to "Mount Soledad Cross lawsuits".

What is "recessed concrete"
No way in this Site to find that term! It may be understood from the shape of the construction, yet it needs to be clarified somewhere! Thank you editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.236.113.155 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move to Mount Soledad Cross
That redirects to this article, but there is also some information on it at Mount Soledad, which bolds the cross the in lead section too. I propose having leaving that the article for the mountain and area itself and this article for the cross and memorial and lawsuits, rather than as a subarticle of the place only on the lawsuits. This article can be linked from List of national memorials of the United States rather than the Mount Soledad article. Reywas92Talk 07:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Reywas92. I went ahead with the move, following your G6 request. Let me know if you need any assistance. Cheers, Reh  man  06:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of Jews being denied to purchase homes in La Jolla
The paragraph beginning with: "For many years, Jews were denied opportunity to purchase a home in La Jolla. This was enforced by "The La Jolla Covenant" among all local realtors." This does not seem to directly relate to the the cross controversy. Is there another place for this in this article? It is not shown in the history to be related to this Korean War memorial. I would vote for deleting this whole paragraph from the present article. Any takers on my suggestion? --Anonymous
 * I concur on the grounds of "relevance." For one! Does the edit even have a ref/cite/source? Vid2vid (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: I am doing a browser "find" on "for many [years]" and getting no hits; did you accurately quote or did someone already edit the page and remove that or those sentence(s)?? From Peter. Vid2vid (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Already removed, since it did not seem relevant to the article. Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks ! .. Strange, in the email I clicked the button for [Thank] but I am not finding a hard-coded record of Wikipedia doing so, eg, for others to see. I wonder what mechanism it uses to "Thank." Hey p.s., "small world," I know so maybe I'll see you at this SD Edit-A-Thon Event in July? :) From, Peter. Vid2vid (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Covenant (law) is not relevant to the subject of the article. It might be relevant to an article about the neighborhood surrounding this monument, but not to the monument itself.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 03:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Calidum   03:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Mount Soledad Cross → Mount Soledad Cross litigation – This article primarily discusses the different court cases and litigation against the cross being on public land. It seems that the article was moved to its current title in April 2019, but I disagree with that move. I believe there should be a separate article titled Mount Soledad Cross, similar to that of Peace Cross, that discusses the general history of the cross and memorial, with this article describing all the court issues. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't see any reason to make the title less WP:CONCISE preemptively. If you'd like to make a separate article about the general history, it'd be better to create it at Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial per https://soledadmemorial.com . -- Netoholic @ 20:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that the title should be clear what the article is about. As most of the subject of the article is about the litigation of the cross, I believe it should be retitled. Additionally, from the article history, this article was at the title Mount Soledad cross controversy or Mount Soledad Cross lawsuits for much of the time, until a recent move to Mount Soledad Cross. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The history of the monument cannot be separated from the legal controversies around it. This is an article about that cross - description, history, and court battles, it's all part of the same story. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning stated by Netoholic. Litagation about the subject, lawsuits about the subject, or controversy about the subject, still fall within the scope of the topic Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial. Whereas Mount Soledad Cross is its commonly used name.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 03:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . --В²C ☎ 23:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose **moving** all litigation and historical lawsuit content from Mt Soledad Cross main page, to a dedicated article devoted solely to just that, litigation. Litigation should definitely be a sub-section on the main article, as it lends history and insight into how a landmark came about. From, Peter. --Vid2vid (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absolutely no reason for two separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.