Talk:Hope Memorial Bridge

Conflicting sources

ClevelandHistorical.org states that the Hope Memorial Bridge was named for "Bob Hope and his family". This same source, however, is contradicted by a 2002 Plain Dealer story already present in the article: "... the county decided to honor comedian and former Clevelander Bob Hope through his father, Harry, who was part of a stoneworking team on the bridge." Based on the older PD source, I did some research, and confirmed that the bridge was in fact dedicated specifically to Harry Hope. I've added a PD story from September 2, 1983, the day after the dedication ceremony, accordingly. Levdr1lp / talk 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted to the July 19 version until we arrive at some type of consensus. Levdr1lp / talk 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I had added numerous sources (before the revert) which showed that nationally, the bridge is viewed as not only honoring his family, but the man himself. It is frequently included with all the other building and streets and what not he has named after Hope. Not arguing over the fact that it was named after Harry Hope, but it also can't be brushed over that the bridge is considered as part of Bob's legacy as well. This situation doesn't have to be one or the other, there's enough room to cover all the bases - named after the stonemason father AND considered as part of the famous entertainer's legacy. There's plenty of sources to verify both things. Named after Harry - FACT. Considered as part of Bob's legacy - FACT. Not gonna go tit-for tat, but I don't think it's unreasonable to see that there's something for everybody here, so it doesn't have to be either/or. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I have no problem with mentioning Bob Hope. Unfortunately, that does not address the fact there are conflicting sources (see list below). Levdr1lp / talk 18:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp I don't see those sources as a conflict, to me it shows all bases are covered regarding the interested parties...Harry the stonemason who helped build the bridge's most iconic feature, and Bob the world famous entertainer who is considered a favorite son of his longtime hometown. No need to be one or the other, when there's plenty of room to include both. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- Numbers 1, 3, 5, & 8 Multiple sources below would disagree with you. Levdr1lp / talk 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp I must not be making myself clear...I never once said anything against the fact that the bridge was named after Harry - that is indisputable. My thing is that the bridge is also viewed as being part of Bob's legacy as well. Named after Harry and considered as part of Bob's legacy. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I don't have a problem noting that Bob Hope is the son of Harry Hope. The "legacy" talk is original research, however. Stick to what the sources actually say. Levdr1lp / talk 19:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp I have added what i think are 4 solid sources which I think show that the bridge not only reflects being named after Bob Hope's family, but also the man himself. Let me reiterate...never denied that Harry Hope was who it was named after, but I think I have shown that multiple credible reference have shown that Bob is also recognized as being honored as well. This was never a case about either Harry or Bob, but both Harry and Bob. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- You are certainly entitled to that view. I'm not necessarily convinced. At the very least, we need more eyes on this. My primary concern is the date of many of these sources. Older sources, which are likely more accurate as they were written closer to when the dedication actually occurred, tend to claim that the bridge was named for Harry Hope (there are other archived PD sources I haven't added yet). Also note that the Cuyahoga County: The First 200 Years book is worded very much like the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History entry; I would not be surprised if that's where the author found her information. So if the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History is wrong, then that book is wrong, too. WP:RSCONTEXT & Age matters both deal with these issues. Levdr1lp / talk 20:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp If we include the Cleveland Historical.org reference into the list below, that would give us 4 that say the bridge was named after Bob, 5 that say it was named after the family collectively (w/ Cleveland Historical added in), and 8 that say Harry only. That means 9/17 (over 50%) say that Bob has at least partial credit as for who the bridge was named after. Hate to sound like a broken record, but I never once disputed Harry's claim in having the bridge named after him, my whole contention was that merely Bob should get a piece as well, and there's plenty of evidence that say that is the case. I would love a 3rd set of eyes to take a look-see and settle this. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I'm still adding sources, but that shouldn't stop you from requesting input from the Cleveland Wikiproject, posting a request for comment, etc. I also dispute your claim that "over 50%" give Bob Hope credit (for one thing, it's 16 sources, not 17, now that you've removed the self-published blog). Did you not see the political cartoon? Honestly, if the PD coverage is any inidication, the new name was kind of a joke for most of the '80s. Levdr1lp / talk 22:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- given the 18 sources below, arranged in chronological order, are you willing to reconsider the wording I proposed? Here it is:

"On September 1, 1983, the bridge was renamed in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped erect the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of famous Clevelander Bob Hope."

If not, then I suggest you consider the following points:

• 10 of 18 sources state that the bridge was named for Harry Hope;
• all sources contemporary to the 1983 dedication, the earliest sources available, state the bridge was named for Harry Hope;
• only 4 of 18 sources state the bridge was named specifically for Bob Hope;
• the earliest source stating the bridge was named specifically for Bob Hope is 2002, and it's a political speech delivered by a politician (so WP:WEIGHT);
• none of the four it-was-named-for-Bob-Hope sources are local, and all were published 19 or more years after the 1983 dedication: 2002 Congressional Record, 2009 Hope Book, 2014 Buffalo.com entry, & 2015 NYBooks.com entry.

And before you say that you never disputed that the bridge was named for Harry Hope, please remember what you first said in this thread:

"... the bridge is viewed as not only honoring his family, but [Bob Hope] himself."

When taking all available sources into account, the most reasonable conclusion is that the bridge was named for Harry Hope. Not the family. Not his son (despite Bob Hope's celebrity).

Levdr1lp / talk 22:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think some acknowledgement has to be made to the fact that there is a lot of sources who include the bridge as part of the collection of other buildings, etc. named after Bob. If we add to the end of your new wording (who has also been credited as being honored by the bridge's renaming) - or at least something to that effect, that would cover all bases. And when I said "not only honoring his family", that included Harry - family means collectively. I'm sorry because I didn't mention Harry specifically you got the wrong idea, but family meant the collective unit. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- "A lot of sources" say the bridge was named after Bob Hope? It's only 4 of 18, all 4 of which are non-local and were published 19+ years after the 1983 dedication. Do you suggest we ignore the majority of sources which state the bridge was named for Harry Hope? Again, I have no problem noting that Harry Hope is Bob Hope's father. It's the leap to "the bridge is named for Bob Hope" or "the bridge is part of Bob Hope's legacy" that I can't support, partly because there are conflicting sources, mainly because when considering the date and context of all 18 sources, it's pretty clear that the bridge was named for Harry Hope. Levdr1lp / talk 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- To reiterate one of my earlier points, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that the multiple stories (& one political cartoon) from the local Plain Dealer newspaper at the time of the September 1983 dedication which specifically state that the bridge was named for Harry Hope, that those sources are more reliable than any of the later sources. To quote WP:IRS:

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing."

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was arguably pandering in his 2002 speech delivered 19 years after the dedication. The 2009 book, from a Boston publisher, is a Bob Hope biography (unlike the older PD sources which cover the bridge dedication specifically). And both the 2014 Buffalo.com & 2015 NYBooks.com links were written more than three decades after the dedication, and by non-local journalists. Did either Jeff Simon (Buffalo.com) or Frank Rich (NYBooks.com) report on Cuyahoga County Engineer Thomas Neff whose idea it was in the summer of 1983 to honor Harry Hope? No, that was Paulina Thoma & Tom Feran & others of the Plain Dealer in 1983/84 (if he's not named in the quotes below, then I will gladly provide additional quotes... trust me, he's mentioned repeatedly). Ditto for the Associated Press story from 1983.

Levdr1lp / talk 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp I think sometimes we get too caught up in the weeds of things, where we leave ourselves absolutely no wiggle room. I don't think it can be disputed that Bob Hope has (at minimum) a tangible connection to the bridge. All I'm asking for is an acknowledgement that he is a part of the bridge's history. To say he has absolutely no ties to the bridge is wrong. Never did I say that the bridge was named for him and him alone...but to say he has no connection to it is completely shortsighted. There are enough sources to show that there is a connection. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- You are certainly free to think that "we get too caught up in the weeds". I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. You still have not addressed any of the points I've raised regarding the reliability of these 18 sources. Until you begin to address those points, I just don't see this discussion going anywhere. Levdr1lp / talk 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronological source list

In the mean time, I will add sources below as I find them (and I encourage others to do the same). Levdr1lp / talk 18:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added a gray background to sources which claim the bridge was named specifically for Harry Hope. Levdr1lp / talk 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Now I've added a vanilla background to sources which claim the bridge was named for the Hope family (which leaves the standard plain white background for sources which claim bridge was named specifically for Bob Hope). Levdr1lp / talk 20:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gray background = Harry Hope; Vanilla background = Hope family; Standard white background = Bob Hope

1. Associated Press (August 27, 1983). "Buses to return using the Lorain-Carnegie bridge". Associated Press via The Plain Dealer. p. 15-A. The bridge's name has been changed officially to Hope Memorial Bridge in memory of Harry Hope, father of comedian Bob Hope, who was one of the stonecutters for the four decorative pylons on the bridge.
2. Plain Dealer staff (August 31, 1983). "Lorain-Carnegie bash heralds span reopening". The Plain Dealer. ... grand reopening ceremonies tomorrow as Hope Memorial Bridge to honor former Clevelander Bob Hope's father, Harry, a stone cutter on the stone's pylons.
3. Thoma, Pauline (September 2, 1983). "Lorain-Carnegie span is new Hope". The Plain Dealer. The ceremony drew a large contingent of the family of Bob Hope's father, Harry, one of the stonecutters who created the four gigantic pylons, and the man for whom the bridge is now named.
4. "Bob Hope's Father's Bridge" political cartoon - The Plain Dealer (September 15, 1983)
5. Feran, Tom (January 1, 1984). "Great and Grating Moments of 1983". The Plain Dealer Magazine. p. 9.  'The Harry Bridge' just didn't sound right - The reopened Lorain-Carnegie bridge was renamed by County Engineer Thomas Neff the Hope Memorial Bridge, in honor of the late stonecutter Harry Hope – whose son in comedian Bob Hope
6. Von Glahn, Michael (December 31, 1995). "Bringing a City and Its People Together". The Plain Dealer. The structure was renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge to honor Harry Hope and other members of the family who used to live in Cleveland. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
7. CWRU (June 1, 1998). "Hope Memorial Bridge". Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. Upon reopening, it was renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge, in honor of the family of entertainer Bob Hope, who were Cleveland stonemasons.
8. Congressional Record (May 21, 2002) - Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The city of Cleveland claims [Bob Hope] as one of their favorite sons and has named a major bridge after him..."
9. Snook, Debbi (December 2, 2002). "Bridges [sic] of Hopes". The Plain Dealer. ... the county decided to honor comedian and former Clevelander Bob Hope through his father, Harry, who was part of a stoneworking team on the bridge.
10. Dawidziak, Mark; and Feran, Tom (July 29, 2003). "Bob Hope: Entertainer always had a place in his heart for Cleveland". The Plain Dealer. He did not return in September 1983 for ceremonies re-dedicating the renovated Lorain-Carnegie Bridge as the Hope Memorial Bridge, in honor of Hope's father and other stonemasons who carved its massive stone pylons and eight 'Guardians of Traffic' figures.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
11. Cleveland, 1930-2000 (2005 book) - "... it had been renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge in honor of the father of the entertainer and Clevelander Bob Hope. His father was a stonemason who worked on the bridge."
12. Hope: A Life in Comedy (2009 book) - "... bronze, steel, and cement monuments and memorials bearing the Hope name in various parts of America: ... the Hope Memorial Bridge in Cleveland, Ohio...
13. Amherst (2010 book) - "... was renamed in 1983 for William Henry Hope, stonemason and father of Bob Hope."
14. Cuyahoga County: The First 200 years (2011 book) - "... renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge in honor of the family of comedian and actor Bob Hope, who were Cleveland stonemasons."
15. Rotman, Michael. "Lorain-Carnegie Bridge". ClevelandHistorical.org. Archived from the original on July 15, 2011. The bridge was renamed at this time, becoming the Hope Memorial Bridge, in honor of actor Bob Hope and his family... William Henry Hope, Bob's father, was a stonemason who worked on the construction of the Guardians in the 1930s.
16. Buffalo.com, "The Definitive Biography of Bob Hope" (November 8, 2014) - "Memorials to [Bob Hope] are proliferated across the American landscape...cross the Cuyahoga River across the Hope Memorial Bridge in Cleveland..."
17. Hope: Entertainer of the Century (2015 book) - "... later renamed the Hope Memorial Bridge in [Harry's] honor..."
18. NYBooks.com, "How He Captured America" (March 19, 2015) - "The many official monuments to [Bob Hope's] name... a bridge in Cleveland..."

Observations

It's pretty clear what happened in the bridge naming, from what the sources say, which is that the Hope name comes from the famous comedian and his not-famous father who helped build the bridge. It's not like they picked one of the stonemasons at random to name the bridge after. So we ought to represent that in the article; surely we can converge on a wording that is not contradicted by the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon- For obvious reasons, I don't have an issue with noting the Bob Hope connection, and I have already indicated this at least twice in the above thread. Also, please note that while I have proposed a wording from which to start, Vjmlhds has yet to comment on it. Levdr1lp / talk 15:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon - Which is what I did before Levdr quickly reverted it. My wording: "The bridge was closed from 1980-1983 for renovations, In 1983 during a reopening ceremony, the bridge was officially renamed for William Henry "Harry" Hope, a local stone mason who helped build the "Guardians of Traffic" sculptures.. Harry Hope is the father of actor/comedian and longtime Cleveland resident Bob Hope. Hope's family was present at the reopening/renaming ceremony. In recent years, the bridge has also been referenced as honoring the entertainer, as well as honoring his family's stonemason roots." Everything there has been verified amongst the 18 references listed above. 1. bridge on record as named after Harry, 2. as the years have gone on, the bridge has been credited as part of Bob's legacy (vis a vis all the buildings and what not named after him all over the country). 3. bridge considered to encompass the Hope family collectively - both the stonemason roots AND the celebrity status of the famous "hometown boy done good" (Bob). My wording encompasses all these variables. To say the bridge was merely named after Harry and leaving it at that seems shortsighted. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not oppose noting the Bob Hope connection. How many different ways can I say this? By the way, given the lack of outside input (Dicklyon aside), I've opened a RFC. Feel free to weigh in. Levdr1lp / talk 15:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- By the way, I'm still waiting for you to comment on the wording I've proposed- here on this talk page. (strike after rereading Vjmlhds' previous comment) I'm willing to work with you, but not if you insist on discussing this through edit summaries. Levdr1lp / talk 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - not trying to be unreasonable. There's plenty of fruit on the tree. The difference between you and me is that I can see space for the apples, oranges, and lemons, while all you want is the apples, and are excluding the oranges and lemons. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- If we're going to use fruit analogies, then you've certainly been cherry-picking. I am more satisfied now, however, that you have revised your original proposal based on all of the 18 sources (& not just the 4 that support your original view), even if reluctantly. Levdr1lp / talk 16:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a revised proposal based on Vjmlhds' post above:

"On September 1, 1983, the bridge was officially renamed in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope. In the years since the dedication, however, sources have differed as to who exactly the bridge honors. Some now claim the bridge was renamed specifically for Bob Hope; others the entire Hope family; and still others claim it recognizes Harry Hope along with the other workers who helped erect the giant concrete pylons."

I removed the info on the family attending the ceremony as it seems trivial, especially since Bob Hope himself was not present. And I cannot find a second source to verify the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History claim that Hope family members other than Harry were stonemasons. The info on the renovations can be dealt with separately in the preceding sentence. Levdr1lp / talk

Levdr1lp I'd soften that up just a touch. First sentence is fine as is, 2nd sentence - "In the ensuing years since the renaming ceremony, the bridge has gone on to be cited as also honoring Bob Hope, as well as the entire Hope Family (noting their roots in the city of Cleveland and in the stonemason profession)". The way you worded things make it sound like there was something dubious afoot, which isn't the case. I go back to my main thesis...this isn't either/or, and there's plenty of evidence to support all claims regarding who has "credit" (for lack of a better word) for who is being honored by the bridge - Harry (who helped build the bridge), Bob (the big celebrity), and the entire family (noting city and professional ties). This isn't a "dispute" as much as it is noting that there's all kinds of tentacles wrapped around the subject. Life always isn't just plain old cut and dry "X is right, Y is wrong". Vjmlhds (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I'm glad we agree on the first sentence. As for the second sentence, you can't just blend all of the differing sources together- that's synthesis. I know you might prefer a more unified explanation for the name, but content is determined by coverage, even if it's internally contradictory. Do you not agree that the sources differ from one another? Levdr1lp / talk 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp We can go round and round all day and get nowhere...I put in my proposal, you put in yours, so let's see what unbiased eyes have to say. I can live with whatever happens. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I thought that was obvious, but with one key difference: we need to start building toward a single version in the RfC section below. I think our agreement on the first sentence in my proposal is a good place to start. Levdr1lp / talk 19:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp There's no reason to disagree about the first part. The bridge was closed for renovations for several years, was reopened in '83, and with some pageantry was renamed in honor of Harry Hope...all certified indisputable facts. Another thing we both seem to agree on is acknowledging Bob Hope's connection to it...there's no way a big celebrity like that with obvious ties to the bridge can be ignored. Our only real difference of opinion is how to present that connection. I think it's safe to assume when the bridge is mentioned, the first "Hope" the average Joe thinks of is Bob, and not necessarily Harry. And there's enough evidence to show that others around the country have the same way of thinking. It's finding a way to best present this real life view people have is where we're stuck. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- 14 of the 18 sources say otherwise. While all 18 sources obviously note the Bob Hope connection, 14 very clearly state that the bride was built to honor Harry Hope, the whole Hope family, or Harry and his fellow stonecutters. Most (10) are specifically for Harry. I do not deny there are 4 sources which support your view, but you are conveniently overlooking the 14 which do not. Levdr1lp / talk 20:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- Though it should go without saying, any further discussion on this really belongs in the RfC section below. Levdr1lp / talk 20:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on renaming the bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At issue is how to describe the renaming of the bridge which is the subject of this article, from "Lorain–Carnegie Bridge" to "Hope Memorial Bridge". There are conflicting sources (see list above): while all sources acknowledge a connection to Bob Hope, some sources state the bridge was named in his father Harry's honor (a local stonemason who helped construct the bridge); some for Bob Hope; others state the bridge was named for the Hope family; still others Harry Hope and other stonemasons; etc. Please read the sources for yourself, or if you can, find additional ones. Levdr1lp / talk 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to start with competing concrete proposals from the individuals who have been working with this, so we can see how close or far they are, and tweak from there. Otherwise people who come to this RFC will have too hard a time getting started toward understanding the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Vjmlhds proposal

My proposal - "From 1980-1983, the bridge was closed for renovations. On September 1, 1983, the bridge was reopened, and during a ceremony was renamed in honor of William Henry "Harry" Hope, a stonemason who helped build the "Guardians of Traffic" sculptures. Harry Hope is also the father of actor/comedian and longtime Cleveland resident Bob Hope, and in the ensuing years since the bridge was renamed, the entertainer has also been cited as having the bridge being named in his honor, and likewise the entire Hope family (noting their roots both in the city of Cleveland and in the stonemason profession)." This isn't about one or the other, as there's plenty of evidence to show that everybody has a piece of this pie. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Levdr1lp proposal. See below. Levdr1lp / talk 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"On September 1, 1983, the Lorain–Carnegie bridge was officially renamed the "Hope Memorial Bridge"; initial reports claimed the bridge was renamed in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope. In the years since the dedication, however, sources have differed various claims have been made claims have varied as to who exactly the bridge honors. Some have claimed the bridge was renamed specifically for Bob Hope; others the entire Hope family; and still others have claimed it recognizes Harry Hope along with the other workers who helped erect the giant concrete pylons."

References

RfC Responses

• Comment Responding to RfC I prefer the second proposal by Levdr1lp as a basis, partly for reasons of brevity, partly because in this instance, the local contemporary source seems more likely to be reliable. However, it could be made more neutral by moving 'in honor of William Henry 'Harry' Hope, a local stonemason who helped build the 'Guardians of Traffic' sculptures, and the father of comedian and former Cleveland resident Bob Hope' to after the 'claims have varied as to who exactly the bridge honors'. That is, moving from 'truth' to 'principal claim'. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

A good point I hadn't considered. Let readers judge for themselves without implying the 1983 reporting is any more accurate than the later claims. Levdr1lp / talk 19:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool with me. This way no one claim holds any more weight than the others. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete- Do you have any further comment? If not, then I will withdraw my question and close the RfC. The original dispute was between Vjmlhds and myself, but the two of us now appear to agree with you on the same wording. The issue can always be revisited at some point in the future, but I think we can move on for now. Levdr1lp / talk 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Close ahead. That was easy!Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

While not exactly what you suggested, Pincrete, I have edited my revised proposal above in an attempt to address your point. Satisfied? If yes, I will close. Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Boldly closing. Levdr1lp / talk 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

In the previous section, Vjmlhds and I already did agree on the first sentence in my proposal. For whatever that's worth. Levdr1lp / talk 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for adding your versions above. To attract comments, it's best if this RFC doesn't look like just a bunch of squabbling, so I collapse this bit. Let's pause and wait for the requested comments to come in. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest adding the supporting citations, and a reflist-talk template just below each version to segregate their sources (or put just one reflist-talk if you prefer). Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon- I have added a {{Reflist-talk}} template to my proposal per your suggestion (incidentally, I'm not demanding that you "man up" and pick one proposal over the other). Levdr1lp / talk 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp In your version, if you replace "sources have differed" with "various claims have been made" and "and still others" with "while others", I think we'll have this thing nailed. Your version sounded too much like "Wiki-ese". I think these modifications will make the article sound more in line with how regular people talk. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Better to say what the sources support, rather than talk about the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the "sources" phrasing in my proposal per Vjmlhds' suggestion. Levdr1lp / talk 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr's revamped proposal looks good to me, I say we run with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon- If like Vjmlhds you're satisfied with my revised proposal, I'm willing to withdraw and close this RfC. Levdr1lp / talk 16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just let the RFC run. If you guys can agree on a version in the mean time, don't hesitate. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon- I'm not sure you follow. As the editor who posted this RfC, I plan to withdraw the original "question" posed here (how to deal w/ the renaming of the bridge) and close this RfC, given that Vjmlhds and I are now in agreement. If, however, you prefer to provide additional input, then I will "let the RfC run". Otherwise I think this matter is settled. Levdr1lp / talk 02:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp I take this as him saying let the RFC run to see if others want to chime in, but that since we have agreed on how to proceed, it's OK to go ahead and edit the article accordingly, which I have done (I think I have it right, if not, feel free to tweak it). Vjmlhds (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- If Dicklyon chooses not to provide any additional input, then as the editor who opened this RfC, I plan to close it as we appear to have reached an agreement on the wording in question. Levdr1lp / talk 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp "Don't hesitate" = if we agree to changes (which we do), go ahead and implement them. In other words if you're satisfied, and I'm satisfied, then we have the green light to do the deal. The RFC being open is more a courtesy than anything else (let's be honest...someone would have responded by now if they really wanted to). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I'm not sure what exactly Dicklyon meant by his last post. Either we've reached consensus or we haven't; if we have, then I don't see much point in keeping this RfC open (we have settled the original dispute, haven't we?). It's not as if the issue couldn't be revisted in the future with another discussion, or even another RfC. In any case, I would ask you, Vjmlhds, to please wait until this RfC has actually closed before making any changes to the content in question: "Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved." Levdr1lp / talk 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp Yes, we have reached consensus. We hashed it out, and came to a compromise We both put forth proposals, we made suggestions, and met in the middle. We took your proposal, tweaked it a little, and came up with something we can both live with. As far as I'm concerned, we have come to an agreement. Since we were the ones who were "fussin' and feudin", and were able to work it out amongst ourselves (with Dicklyon essentially acting as referee), there's no need for the RFC. Since you were the one who opened the RFC, you are within your rights to close it when you see fit. And because we have settled our differences (regarding this issue), the need for the RFC is now nil. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- This RfC remains open, and I do not support making changes until Dicklyon clarifies his last post. If he either supports my revised proposal as you do, or remains indifferent, then I will withdraw the question I posed (how to word the renaming) and close this RfC. Until that happens, please leave the last stable version prior to our dispute in place. Levdr1lp / talk 15:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - I think Dicklyon's silence speaks volumes. Don't you see - he was trying to get us to figure it out ourselves and come to an agreement...which we did. It's quite clear to me, that the only reason he involved himself to begin with was to turn the temperature down in the room a bit, and get us to quit our usual routine and hash this thing out. The fact he isn't responding tells me that he believes that we have done what we needed to do, and has moved on with his life. I'm really starting to get the vibe that you are holding out because you thrive on keeping the conflict going, and only want to end it on YOUR terms, as if I have to be submissive to your whims. We worked out a compromise, so there's no longer a dispute over content. Now it's just a matter of me wanting to get this done so we can move on, while you are holding out as long as you can so YOU can have the final say. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- You do realize that a fourth editor had now weighed in, don't you? This is precisely why I'm asking you to let this RfC play out. This isn't a race. Levdr1lp / talk 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion between the opposing editors, not germane to the RFC

I have edited the article in a way I feel that respects Levdr's viewpoint, but in a less "controversial" tone. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Levdr1lp We need to face facts...we are pretty much talking to ourselves here. No one is going to come here because quite frankly, people are just plain old ignoring us, because they're sick of us ("Oh, God...Vjm and Levdr are at it again?!?!"). Waiting for anything to happen here is like waiting for a bus that will never come. And as usual I made an edit, and you were right on my heels reverting, and the wheels on the bus keep going round and round. This is why people disregard us...it's the same darn thing over and over again, and it always goes the same way...no matter what I try to do, you always seem to have an issue with it. Nobody wants to deal with us. You really do need to learn how to back off a little bit. Nothing I have done here has violated any Wiki policy, and you are coming off as someone who doesn't want to give an inch on anything unless they are forced to do so. It's sad that making a simple edit on an article has to be such an agonizing endeavor, because some people feel as though they have to mark their turf and prove a point. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Let's just pretend someone will come, and I will be your audience alone if they don't. In the mean time, stop the edit warring and let's discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Once again I have restored the stable July 19 version following edits made by Vjmlhds. I ask that Vjmlhds please refrain from making further changes related to the bridge's renaming until consensus is reached here, and/or this RfC is closed. Levdr1lp / talk 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Better yet, I have restored the version from July 15 prior to any of my contributions to this article, bridge renaming or otherwise. Levdr1lp / talk 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Dicklyon Not edit warring, just trying to make a simple edit. If anybody is edit warring it's Levdr, who has a "my way or the highway" approach, as if I have to clear it with him before I make any edit (seriously...he is always on my back, and going right behind me undoing any edit I make). Forgive me if I sound exasperated, but I've been dealing with this guy for 5 years...it's like what do i have to do to have some peace around here? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Levdr1lp Once again you have declared yourself judge, jury, and executioner..."Thou must clear it by ME before thou can proceed" Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC) I have restored my previous comment here after it was removed by Vjmlhds, probably by mistake. Levdr1lp / talk 23:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) My God...this talk page went from literally nothing to all of this in just a couple of days, because of basically one editor's obsession with giving me a hard time. You know what, I'm done arguing about this article...the juice is clearly not worth the squeeze if I have to go through all of this freaking hassle just to make a simple edit. You can take this article, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways, and stick it....somewhere. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Vjmlhds- Wow, I hate break it to you, but my concern has to do with your edits (specifically those regarding the renaming of the bridge which is the subject of this article), not you! I would think that all of the sources I found, and all of the reasoned points I've made on this talk page would be some indication of my good faith effort to get the right information out there. I'm sorry to say it, but I think you're more likely lashing out with this paranoid nonsense because you're not getting your way. Let me be clear: I have no problem whatsoever if your version, or something like your version, is what we ultimately decide on here... but there must be consensus for it! You aren't even trying to come to a compromise on this talk page. No, you would rather force through your changes in the article itself, in the absence of support from other editors, and hope that we will just reluctantly accept them. I am very much willing to work with you, but not through the article, and not through edit summaries. Now let's hash out this content dispute, right here in this RfC. Please. Levdr1lp / talk 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Levdr1lp "Paranoid nonsense"...please. what is nonsense is the way you always are on my heels. And how can anything get decided if we are the only ones debating?!?!? You can go on ahead and put in the version you laid out...I am done arguing and fighting over this article...you win. It's people like you that turn people off of Wikipedia. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Vjmlhds- RfC's can run for 30 days, so other editors may very well find their way here if the discussion runs that long. But I see no reason why the 3 of us can't reach consensus ourselves. There's always other options, too: contact other editors who have made significant contributions here (neutrally); reach out to other relevant Wikiprojects; reach out to the Village Pump; etc. Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Levdr1lp That is just complete and total BS. Let's go...right here, right now and end this. I have my version on record, you have yours. Since Dicklyon was gracious enough to be the 3rd voice, we'll let him decide, his word is law, and I'll accept whatever his decision is, good, bad, or indifferent. There is no need for bureaucratic nonsense and red tape. Just make a decision, put it to bed, and move on with life. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the future has passed

"The inaugural Guardian Mile road race will be run across the bridge on August 11, 2018" Did it happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:8C49:EC89:C30B:AADF (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Guardians of Traffic" vs. "Guardians of Transportation"

The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History entry for the bridge (citation in "External links") calls the statues the "Guardians of Traffic"; a no less credible source, the Cleveland State University Center for Public History, calls them the "Guardians of Transportation", a name which has been reverted from the WP article in the past. Interestingly, the former cites the latter. The only difference that I could see between them is that the latter is a blog entry, and there's a chance that the author may have misspoken. Mapsax (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Retracted the "dubious" template, although the Ideastream source that I added quotes one of the editors of the ECH so there's an outside chance that this might be circular. Mapsax (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)