Talk:Norfolk Scope

Wrestling events

Starrcade, being the ex WCW/NWA flagship event, is noteworthy and relevant to this article. TruthCrusader 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NorfolkScopelogo.jpg

Image:NorfolkScopelogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How many seats?

I don't understand the intro... it says it's a 12,500 seat venue, but shortly later says Norfolk is the largest city of its size with its largest venue only seating 11,000?

The latter phrase is, naturally, unreferenced. 842U (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kunstler Comments

I removed them. Although he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, Kunstler has all the facts wrong. Incredibly, this "expert" says a building that began construction in 1968 was designed in 1970. In addition he says that Scope was inspired by "typical 1970s, UFO-inspired monumental architecture" with "Star Trek" overtones." In truth... it was not designed in the space age... the concept was developed a decade before Star Trek and even before Sputnik. It was not part of some American architectural fad, the dome (the architectural statement) was designed by a renowned Italian architect who came up with the concept in the early to mid 1950s (see Wikipedia entries for Pier Luigi Nervi and for his mid-1950s design for the Palazzetto dello Sport, which is clearly a cousin of Scope). In short, Mr. Kunstler may fancy himself an expert of some kind, but in this case everything he says is based on demonstrably incorrect statements of fact. In the case of Scope, he has no idea what he's talking about. Memorializing his ill-founded opinions does nothing but confuse. In fact, his statements go a long way to demonstrate how much of an "expert" this man really is.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kunstler is a noted architectural critic; his opinions are set forth as such and nothing else. There is a positive comment to offset his quasi-negative comment. Hence the comments merit inclusion.842U (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the pedigree of the critic, this man saying so doesn't make a 1950s design a "typical" 1970s design. No one's opinion can move the design ahead 15 to 20 years from when it was conceived. Someone reading the man's comment in this article is not going to research whether it is factually tenable.... the average reader will assume that if he refers to it as a 1970s design... that it is, in fact, a 1970s design. And it is absolutely NOT a 1970s design, typical or otherwise. That statement IS NOT TRUE. As a compromise, perhaps we should let him have the bottom line of his embarrassingly baseless opinion, just because other critics think this critic has a worthwhile point of view. In this case, it is difficult to conceive that he could have framed his opinion in a manner that could be more persuasive that he had done no research on this building when he made his comments and that he had just said something off the top of his head. What educational or instructional value such an opinion offers is beyond me. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position to be that this article is a better, more factual source of information about this building by including a statement that it is a classic 1970s design... when its design was conceived in the 1950s and construction began in the 1960s. Isn't the statement that it is a classic 1970s design more likely to confuse anyone who reads the entire article and who understands that, based on the construction date alone, that it cannot possibly be a 1970s design? Please explain why it is so important to you to include what is clearly an incorrect statement.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kunstler's opinion is very clear. He's the noted authority. Your opinion may differ, but you are not the noted authority. Nowhere is Mr. Kunstler citing the exact date of the building's conception; it is simply not implicit in his statement that he's making a factual assertion of the exact time period of the building's conception – he's making a broad statement about the design. You are going to great length to trim, characterize and minimize a fairly benign albeit critical comment by a very well-known authority... but seem to be overlooking the statement that follows, which his hugely biased in favor of the building... but comes from someone of little national or professional notability. You might try to find someone of greater notability who went on the record to make a broad pronouncement about the building's loveliness. I for one, like the building -- but that doesn't change Mr. Kunster's opinion. 842U (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1) You say: "Nowhere is Mr. Kunstler citing the exact date of the building's conception..." The original Pilot story (reprinted in the Press) says: "James Howard Kunstler described Scope in an interview as "typical 1970s, UFO-inspired monumental architecture" with 'Star Trek' overtones. It was designed in 1970 when America was enamored with cars, technology and space travel, Kunstler said. As a result, 'It looks like yesterday's tomorrow.'" That sounds like he cited an exact date to me. Further, he opines that when it was designed is an all important element of the design. That's his argument. 2) You accuse me of bias because I like the building. How do you know I like the building? Since you have leveled the accusation, can you point out where I made any comment on the loveliness of the design? I did not add, I did not encourage and I have not agreed with any of the other comments given by other "authorities" in the article. I have nowhere offered my own opinion, nor would I as I am not en expert in the field. But I am intelligent enough that if someone says this is a 1970 design, I will say that is not correct because it is chronologically impossible. If an “expert” says it was influenced by the Space Age or Star Trek, I will say that that is impossible because the design was conceived before Star Trek and the Space Age. You seem to believe that my concern is that this man was negative. That is not at all the case. My concern is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. I devalue that opinion because the rationale he gave for his opinion was demonstrably false. You appear to value his opinion because he is who he is… despite the fact that essentially everything he says to back up his opinion reveals that he knew nothing of the subject. If Kunstler had merely announced that, “I am an important critic and I think it’s ugly”, that would be OK with me. He has the requisite CV. But, if he said, I hate it because it’s painted red, I would say that is not something that should be included in a Wikipedia article, because it is clearly not painted red. And it is clearly not the 1970s design icon that he says it is. He was simply wrong. Having Wikipedia repeat this mistake does the reader no service.Ruedetocqueville (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a very lawyerly argument. You contend that Kunstler's crux point is that the building was designed in 1970... not that the building was designed when America was enamored with cars, technology, and space travel and that the latter can't be true if the former is false. Another way of reckoning with Kunstler's statment isn't that he's saying the period when America was enamored with cars, technology and space travel was isolated to one year, or that the building suffers because it was designed in 1970. His point is that the building suffers because it's basic shape and form is mired in a genre that is passé. There is wide recognition of the schools and thoughts of architecture precisely influenced by the factors Kunstler cites (see: (Googie architecture, Futurist architecture, Novelty architecture, Fantastic architecture). The building fits squarely into these categories; and he opines it's to the building's detriment. 842U (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A very deft response, in that you choose to ignore the misstatements that you made previously. Earlier you argued (in a swipe at what you implied was my ignorance) that the "noted authority" never said or even implied it was designed in 1970: "it is simply not implicit in his statement that he's making a factual assertion of the exact time period of the building's conception." Since he didn't say anything that could possibly be inferred to mean the year 1970, you maintained, my arguments were baseless. Of course, the specific year 1970 is exactly what he said. Now you say, well, it doesn't make any difference that he made that mistake. That's because, you say that I, “contend that Kunstler's crux point is that the building was designed in 1970... not that the building was designed ‘when America was enamored with cars, technology, and space travel’ and that the latter can't be true if the former is false.” Now, your revised position is that Kunstler is right because “… Kunstler's statement isn't that he's saying the period when America was enamored with cars, technology and space travel was isolated to one year…” Yet another error. This isn't an American design of any year. It is an Italian design. “(T)he period when America was enamored with cars, technology and space travel…” -- regardless of when it was -- had absolutely nothing to do with this design. I am sure you will explain this away, too and come up with a re-revised position. I am persuaded that any and all facts are irrelevant. You continue in your response to explain all the important things that you contend Kunstler intended to communicate even though he didn't say them about this building. In summary (just the headlines): You argued that he never said or even implied 1970 – in fact, he said it straight out. You argued that I simply did not understand that he didn't mean to limit the American period to one year and that Kunstler was making a clear reference to a period of American design that was understood by the educated among us. But, unfortunately for this new position you are taking, this wasn’t an American design of any era. You mockingly accused me of bias with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation. Your bottom line is that you know more about this and your opinion must rule. It is clear that no presentation of facts… nor any procession of embarrassing, gross errors… can influence that judgment. You are apparently immovable in your position that Kunstler's ill-founded and inaccurately expressed opinion is important to a complete understanding of Scope. You appear to be confident in your belief that his error-ridden rationale is an appropriate basis for an encyclopedic entry on this building — because, despite all the mistakes, you knew what he meant. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hostings

This section is without sources, and as such may be completely removed per Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

2016 Update: still no sources. 842U (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)