Talk:Vance Monument/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions by User:Rublamb

What do people think? Too much? I don't really know. It looks like a lot.

However, a lot of information is about the man and should probably be in the Zebulon Vance article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, details about Vance belong on the Vance Wikipedia entry. This article should be specifically focused on the monument and should only say things about Vance which are relevant to the monument. I hope User:Rublamb and others will weigh in here, so we can all work together to make this entry as helpful to readers as possible. Thanks for starting this Talk page discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the first paragraph added and it specifically mentions the monument, and has details that make it clear why people feel the way they do about the monument. So I put it back.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A big problem, and one that could lead to us having more about Vance himself in this article. My plan was to revert Rublamb on the Vance article, restoring it to how it was before he (she?) edited, and then move everything Rublamb added here, leaving just the brief summary here. The Vance article is pretty short and that would lead to more information about the man's racism than anything else, which wouldn't be fair. That's not to say these details shouldn't be somewhere. If the consensus is that the overwhelming amount of detail about the monument itself should remain, it no longer seems like such a big deal to have a lot about the man.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a second look at the information about Vance himself. Some of it clearly belongs because it is about his career and not his racism. I left the Ku Klux Klan section as is and will assume everything I removed from this article has been included in the Vance article. Take a look at what I did. Some of the information may need to be reworded and it wasn't an obvious fit. Some information was there already and better worded.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around the help. Literally was in a historic house with no internet. Here's the deal. Originally, the controversy section was problematic from a quality standpoint. The text did not flow and didn't always make sense. There were quotes and facts with no sources, and I could not find that content in the sources cited. My approach is usually to try and fix things, rather than to delete. In that process, I did add content. For example, I found the article cited portion of a quote taken out of context and felt that was important to fix (if the quote was going to remain). I an not personally advocating for Vance, but did add content so there was coverage of both sides in the debate about the monument. But as I responded elsewhere, I am fine with a reduction of that section--and I had previously moved some to the Vance article. Also, since the monument in is gone, a shorter summary of the debate may suffice. For example, I am not sure the African American Council's recommendation for adjacent interpretive panels makes sense in this article now. But I tried to fix that section in the spirit of fixing, not deleting. I am more than willing to work on editing if that is what you think is needed. And I really do appreciate your approach of including me in the conversation. Rublamb (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to save the Vance biographical content by moving it to the Vance article. That was a great solution! Rublamb (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course you were included. it wouldn't be right not to.

I'm hoping the problems you found were contributed by someone other than me and Another Believer. I did find additions in the history that looked sloppy.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Photo

I remember seeing a better photo, and I really think there needs to be one. I saw a great one but have my doubts as to its copyright status.

https://cdn.lib.unc.edu/commemorative-landscapes/media/monument/205_full.jpg

However, the other one I saw was eligible to be used on Wikipedia.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vance_obelisk_in_Asheville,_NC_IMG_5205.JPG

My problem is the building on the right distracts from the monument itself. For the article on the building, which looks completely different now, it's as good as I've seen to illustrate the building's former appearance.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, Are you asking if File:Vance obelisk in Asheville, NC IMG 5205.JPG can be cropped to focus on just the monument itself? If so, I can easily crop. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ether way, I went ahead and created File:Vance obelisk in Asheville, NC IMG 5205 (cropped).JPG in case that's helpful in the future. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually wasn't, but that's a good idea. Thanks. I cropped the same photo because it had the BB&T logo so I could use it on the article about that building. I don't know how people will feel about it, but seeing the logo on the building provides more evidence that was the building's name.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the cropped photo and if no one objects I plan to replace the existing photo on the monument article, because it just looks better without the large building beside it. The contrast of the lighter-colored building in the background is not a problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. What a difference. I wish we had a photo like this which could be used to show before and after. It is true that this would be better suited to The Arras but it would be neat to show the photo of the Vance monument with The BB&T Building in the backgound beside this one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Name of monument

When pulling sources for its history, I found that the monument was called the Vance Monument, never the Zebulon Baird Vance Monument. This is both before, during and after its construction. Does anyone know why this article was called the Zebulon Baird Vance Monument. Is there a source for this longer name? Rublamb (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Since I created the page, I've been bold and moved to Vance Monument. If anyone disagrees with this move, feel free to contribute to this discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring out how to do this! Rublamb (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)