Talk:Salazar v. Buono

Inappropriate use of 'Vandal'
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)


 * But if and when the window-breaking thief is caught, they would get charged with destruction of property (the window) which is... vandalism! I don't understand how "vandal" is more POV or assumes specific reasons more than "thief." By your absurd reasoning, "thief" certainly is POV since we don't know who took the cross or why.  In any case, none of your arguments change that fact that reliable sources (cute use of the word "supposedly") have used and continue to use the word "vandals."  Your conclusions and arguments are nothing more than POV and OR. Seregain (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention the thief/burglar/vandal/criminal/person of shady moral character/ was using illegal drugs and was double parked when committing the heist. He was also peeking in the window prior to the crime(s).  He (or they- we still don't have any idea) might get charged with all the offenses (illegal parking, DUI, peeping tom, vandalism, breaking and entering, trespassing, larceny, etc.), but I hope you see my point.
 * I answered you in more detail on the cross article discussion page. Let's move our discourse there if you will.  In fact, couldn't both of these articles be merged?  What do you think?  --Brendan19 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I don't see your point. You're just being absurd for the sake of being absurd. Seregain (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add to another Wikipedia page
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)
 * Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see reliably sourced information in the article that verify the ACLU was involved in this case. If you know of such sources, can you please links to them?--JayJasper (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
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)