Talk:Peace Cross

4th Circuit
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).

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)

The Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross
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 term "Peace Cross" is well documented as the name of this monument. Even the National Register of Historic Places entry for the monument uses this term (see this). Google returns 45 thousand hits for this term . Sourcing the term "Bladensburg Satanic Peace Cross" to a primary source at this location is not making it "well-sourced". There is obviously an effort underway to force this nickname onto the article, and such effort has been going on for months now. A number of people have reverted the change. If the change keeps on being attempted without there being consensus for inclusion here on the talk page of the article, I will request the page be protected. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If we have a name that is only coming from one group, and can only be backed by primary sources, that's not really an alternate name per WP:UNDUE. --M asem (t) 13:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be backed by some non-primary sources as noted in this diff but I consider these weak at best. Further, it's a nickname being used by a single organization, not by multiple entities. This has been added in various forms seven times in the last half year or so. It's been reverted each time. The next time it gets added and removed, I'll ask for page protection. This has become absurd. We don't do this by brute force bludgeoning an article into submission via edit warring. Barring evidence of consensus for inclusion, the fact that it's been removed so many times is evidence enough that it shouldn't be included. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, given that the non-first party sources are saying "becuase SCOTUS called it secular, the primary source group is calling the cross this name" still to me is UNDUE as an alternate name for the cross, though the fact that that activity was recognized would be fair for body inclusion. --M asem (t) 02:18, 9 December 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)
 * I disagree with adding it at this time. Simply put, this alternate name isn't notable. The references provided are weak at best. Further, nobody has a "right" to anything on Wikipedia. We do not include things because people have a "right" to do so. We work based on notability, not based on one organization's desire to have the cross under another name. Provide proof from reliable, secondary sources that are independent from the subject and hopefully from some significant media outlets and then maybe we have some grounds to discuss inclusion. As of now, we don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure I'm understanding you (Hammersoft) properly, you are saying that 1) you do not think that either of the names previously in the first paragraph belong in the article at all, and 2) you think the naming controversy itself is not notable and does not belong in the article.
 * You might want to take a look at this revision which is the last one before the court case. The entire reason the article has been expanded beyond a single paragraph is because of the controversy. Leaving out part of that controversy doesn't make a lot of sense. I doubt you think we should revert the entire article back to 2017. There are hundreds of thousands of places on Wikipedia where things are added with citations needed or where the citations could be better. I understand that you don't personally like the references but Patheos is a well-respected neutral media site about religion (from Wikipedia: Patheos is a non-denominational, non-partisan online media company providing information and commentary from various religious and nonreligious perspectives.). It is definitely independent and is cited many other places on Wikipedia (estimate from search: at least 425 pages). That reference alone should be sufficient.
 * Note also I was not saying anything about the right to be on Wikipedia, but it made no sense to have an unsourced name retained because it was aligned with a Christian religion while removing a sourced name because it was aligned with a non-Christian religion. If anything, the latter has better support for inclusion.
 * Your entire statement on "one organization's desire..." doesn't make sense — everything in religion is "one organization's desire". There are no facts, only opinions (though The Satanic Temple is one of the very few religions in which core tenets are fundamentally aligned with science). To have a NPOV, Wikipedia cannot dismiss one religion's opinions unless it dismisses all religions' opinions.
 * In closing, I am in favor of a new section or paragraph while you (Hammersoft) are against it. It sounds like Neither of us is "we". Masem seems ok with body inclusion. Perhaps others will weigh in. RoyLeban (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're claiming the name used for the article is unsourced. This is false, and already proven to be so. The name of the article isn't based on an organization's desire. It's the accepted name of the thing. That one organization called it something else doesn't make that name notable without support from reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This isn't a question of opinion, and thus whether one religion or another is aligned with science is wholly irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care. I care what the sources support, which don't support inclusion at this time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I wish you would understand what I wrote before arguing with it. The name you are referring to is not the name I'm referring to. You're referring to "Peace Cross" which is the name of the article. This is the name used by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for this monument and many others. It's more of a designation than a name. I have no problems with this designation. I do think using the name for this particular article is confusing, and I would rename the article Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland if it were solely up to me. That is a much more accurate name for the article.
 * The name that I was referring to is the one that is no longer in the article — the name "Bladensburg Cross Memorial" which has apparently only been used by the religious group "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property". I don't know their agenda in promoting that name but I assume it is in line with their overall goal of promoting extreme right Christianity. There were no other references to that name outside of an opinion piece by that group, yet earlier editors felt that was more significant than the name used by The Satanic Temple and discussed in articles on Patheos and elsewhere. This backwards assertion is why I said it seemed religious bias was a factor. That is not reasonable and certainly not NPOV. In contrast, your apparent argument that neither belong is reasonable, though I disagree with it. Similarly, my statement that name used by The Satanic Temple belongs, because it is sourced and relevant to the entire controversy, is reasonable. And, a statement that both belong is reasonable if additional sources can be found for the Christian group's name.
 * I asked you some specific questions earlier which you ignored. Does that mean that my understanding of what you wrote earlier is correct? You do not think the naming controversy is notable? A new question: Do you claim that Patheos is not a reliable secondary source? Should somebody kick off a project to scrub references to it from the 425+ other articles that reference it? Should we delete the article Malchus which only has two references, one from Patheos and the other from Goodreads? Or just remove the Patheos reference? (Note: this isn't an "other problems exist" argument — it's the argument that you're inventing a problem with Patheos as a neutral, independent media source when it's clear it's not a problem.)
 * RoyLeban (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Silence by me on a subject does not in any sense imply anything on my behalf. You attempting to attribute my silence to something is nothing more than an aggravating factor which I will also ignore, as I won't be subject to such trivialities. However, if you act on your wrongful conclusions about my silence you can expect push back. The presence of things elsewhere on the project as some sort of justification for presence here is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and does not hold water. That something is bad somewhere else is not justification for making it bad here. To the rest of this, I find no compelling need to repeat myself. As much as you claim I am not listening to you, it is likewise the case you are not listening to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am listening to you, but you are one editor. You act as if your opinion matters more. I want to understand what you are saying and asked for clarification, asked if I was understanding you correctly, multiple times. You didn't reply. To most peole this would mean either that I am understanding you correctly or that you are not being Reasonable. I am extremely aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — did you read what I wrote? I referenced that policy explicitly (though not with a link) and explained why that was not the argument I am making. You have said that Patheos is not an acceptable source. You did not say it was not an acceptable source here. So, taken at face value, you are implying that 425+ other pages should be scrubbed of references to it. But the fact is that it is a fine source, and you have given no explanation as to why it is a problem and the editors of those other 425+ pages are wrong. It's just your opinion. If you want to indict Patheos, you are free to make such an argument and it can be discussed. But, you have not done made such an argument, so your statement that you don't personally like Patheos as a source has no weight. 12:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyLeban (talk • contribs)

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)
 * Well now you are accusing me of not being reasonable and acting as if my opinion matters more. Sorry, neither is the case, and you need to read WP:NPA and follow it. If you persist in personally attacking me you will find yourself reported for it with a recommendation you be blocked. Your choice. I am removing the section. You are sourcing this supposed "naming controversy" to two primary sources and a blog. This is not acceptable sourcing for this. There isn't a controversy if you can't identify significant, reliable, secondary sources to support that it is a naming controversy. Just because a christian group and satanic group claim there is a controversy doesn't mean there is one. It's as if you're saying there's a controversy because the group that wants to name it says there's a controversy. It doesn't work that way. This is now the third time that I've noted these sourcing issues and you're still attempting to use primary sources. I'm at a loss as to understand how to better communicate this. I am removing the section until you get consensus to include it, which would be greatly supported by providing the reliable, secondary sources I have repeatedly asked you for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:19, 14 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:
 * "There is obviously an effort underway to force this nickname onto the article" (just curious: did you, or anybody, write this about the editor(s) who put in the reference to the Christian group's nickname?)
 * "You attempting to attribute my silence to something is nothing more than an aggravating factor which I will also ignore, as I won't be subject to such trivialities" (I'm not doing that — I am concluding from your silence that either you can't or won't answer my requests for clarification and evidence — that is merely a fact.)
 * "However, if you act on your wrongful conclusions about my silence you can expect push back" (see above)
 * "If you persist in personally attacking me you will find yourself reported for it with a recommendation you be blocked" (this is clearly a threat, which is an attack)

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)
 * Let's have a look at this. Do you see where it says "Search this blog..."? It's a blog. Do you dispute it says "blog"? WP:BLOG applies. I don't care if there were a million citations to this blog. As I mentioned above, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Because something is bad elsewhere on the project is not justification for making it bad here. As to my supposed threats; if you believe that informing you of your blatant violations of the no personal attacks policy and my intentions as to what to do if it continues constitutes a personal attack, please by all means feel free to report me to WP:AN/I. I have tried on multiple occasions to make it clear to you that your sourcing is dramatically poor. I don't know what more I can say to make that clear to you. I am repeating myself over and over again. Using two primary sources and a blog to support a passage on this project is not going to fly. If this object naming is supposedly a controversy, I'm sure you can find multiple reliable, secondary sources to support this claim. So find them. Trying to convince me that your primary sources and blog are sufficient obviously isn't working since, according to you, I am ignoring you. So stop repeating yourself and try to find reliable, secondary sources to support this claim. If you're not willing to do that, then perhaps you would be willing to start a request for comment, where you can lay out your argument to convince the community you are correct. The community can then comment and perhaps achieve a consensus opposite to not include it which is where we are now. Continuing as we have before is a non-starter. I hope you can see the futility in that. So, either find multiple reliable, secondary sources supporting this supposed controversy, start an RfC to change the consensus, and/or report me to WP:AN/I to have me banned from the project. Your choice. If you just wish to continue this argument as it has been, we will get nowhere. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 20 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)
 * I have repeatedly responded to it. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make it any clearer. I am against the source from Patheos you are attempting to use, as it is a blog, and WP:BLOG applies. I did not say all of Patheos is bad, as I have not reviewed (nor do I have any reason to) the entire Patheos cite. But, as the WP:AN/I thread noted, it would appear others have and WP:PATHEOS applies. I never said this source was acceptable elsewhere but not here. In fact, I said the opposite, as trying to assert its ok elsewhere so it must be ok here is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. On the AN/I thread you said "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)
 * Oppose inclusion of this nickname promoted by bloggers affiliated with a Satanic group per WP:PATHEOS. There is no way that the 450 blogs hosted by Patheos are reliable sources except in the very limited context described at WP:SPS. Patheos also includes a reference library and some peer reviewed content that may be OK for some things but certainly not this blog promoting a contrived "controversy". Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 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)
 * I have repeatedly explained why Mehta's articles shouldn't be used. I doubt at this point that I could repeat myself again and it would somehow be heard this time. Others have noted elsewhere that Mehta is not a subject area expert, which WP:SPS asks for. Part of the reason why blogs are not usually considered reliable sources is that there is no editorial oversight (see WP:NOTRELIABLE); it's just one person. Let's look at the New York Times. In general, articles from that source are considered reliable; there is editorial oversight. However, their opinion columns should be handled by WP:RSOPINION. See WP:NYTIMES. Mehta is writing by himself, for himself. Further, Mehta is not a columnist for Patheos. I am not even certain he was columnist when he wrote the blog entry. Mehta has now left Patheos. As mentioned before, I don't care how much Patheos is being cited or not. I haven't evaluated all of Patheos and I have no reason to do so. As I previously noted, others have done so and noted WP:PATHEOS. Further, the feedback on your RfC regarding Patheos so far has been universally against with six other editors standing in opposition. To be honest, I don't know why we're even talking about Mehta. You were using his blog entry only to support what the Supreme Court declared. What the SC said is not in dispute, and using this blog entry to support it doesn't do anything to help sustain its verifiability. So, I don't see what utility his blog entry brings to the article. So, while the RfC might generally be useful to the project to help update WP:PATHEOS, I think the source itself is rather meaningless if it were to be used. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I did see that Mehta recently left Patheos, like in the last month. He's still listed as one of their top columnists on their About page (their terminology, not mine). His article is the one about the renaming ceremony. It looks like he wrote it before the ceremony and then updated it afterwards. I think if there was greater clarity in the policy, we would not have had such an argument. As it is, it's just opinions, honestly. RoyLeban (talk) 07:07, 29 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)
 * Local interest references are usually not considered very strong. wmtips.com notes that it is, at best, a site with very low traffic. There have been 11 articles posted in the news section on the site in the last 6 months with the last one being 2.5 months ago . This is not a significant news outlet. Reviewing the site, it appears the site is written entirely by a single person. I.e., there is no editorial oversight. I.e., it's effectively a self published source, and not useful for sustaining notability. Whether we want to call Mehta a "columnist" or "blogger" is really irrelevant. Mehta refers to himself as blogging, and I'll take his word for it. And, again, I fail to see why we're even talking about Mehta. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)