Talk:Zebulon Vance

message: Regarding the move of this page, Zeb Vance (46%), Z. B. Vance (46%), and Zebulon B. Vance (13%) are the only iterations of Vance's name that constitute over 5% of references to him on newspapers.com. Per WP:INITS, a written-out name is preferable to simply  initials if the written-out version is used by RS. Star Garnet (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mixed feelings about this change. Firstly, newspapers traditionally used shortened versions of names to save space and are, therefore, not a definitive source that should be used in determining a person's common name. Other period sources that would be better to consult include a person's publications, the name they used when performing or running for elected office, and even the name used on monuments and tombstones. In his day, Vance was clearly known by his full name. In the UNC Dialectic Society reference cited in the article, his membership is listed under Zebulon as are eulogies. When his "Scattered Nations" speech was published, his full name was printed on the cover. Even his obituary in the New York Times refers to him as Zebulon, not Zeb. We should also consider the name in current usage by modern historians and historic sites. Because he was a governor and is associated with institutions, place names, and a state historic site in North Carolina, the modern usage has been shaped by what he is referred to by the State of North Carolina--which is Zebulon. Although Zeb was a known nickname in the 19th century, even in his era, Vance was clearly known as Zebulon. It is akin to President Lincoln, commonly called Abe by his contemporaries, but still listed as Abraham in Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I also believe this move was too hasty. Anecdotally, in most written histories I've seen with mentions of Vance, he's referred to as "Zebulon B. Vance" or "Zebulon Vance" (though I do concede McKinney's 2005 biography of him refers to him as "Zeb Vance" in the title). Regardless of the end result here I wish this would have been discussed first. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Indy beetle: Please see and join in the move discussion below. Thanks, Rublamb (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Move to Zebulon Vance. Participants in this discussion agree the previous move was not supported by any prior measurement of page consensus. Further, this brief discussion seems to indicate the subject's middle name is superfluous for disambiguation purposes; this simpler article title best meets both CONCISE and COMMONNAME.  BusterD (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeb Vance →  – Under discussion is the restoration of this article to its former name. The article was moved to Vance's nickname of "Zeb" without prior discussion and based on data from historical newspapers which traditionally shortened names to save space. Zebulon is the name used in his publications, his obituary in the New York Times, on numerous monuments, and in places and institutions named after him. Modern historians refer to him as Zebulan, as does the State of North Carolina which manages his birthplace as an historic site. Rublamb (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

text: How about just Zebulon Vance? A little more WP:CONCISE and also the most WP:COMMONNAME per Google Ngrams.  (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with either that or Zebulon B. Vance. I agree that his full name is not needed as there is unlikely to be someone else with this name. Rublamb (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Then I support the alternative Zebulon Vance (and mildly oppose Zebulon Baird Vance) for the policy reasons I stated.  (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 July 2023 

message: Again this ridiculous newspeak aiming to somehow show extra righteousness. The family didn't 'enslave people', they bought slaves. Whoever first violently captured the individuals or their ancestors and started treating them as slaves was the one who enslaved them. That was most likely some African chieftain from a rival tribe. 'Enslaving people' would mean something like raiding people's homes and abducting them (or, in many pre-modern jurisdictions, legally acquiring ownership of their persons in compensation for forfeited loans given to them). That's not what the Vances did. It is not the case that every person who acquires an already enslaved person 'enslaves them' again. I am talking about the established distinctions and definitions that have been used for millennia, since the times of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when enslaving people was standard practice in Europe and the Near East (quite irrespective of the victims' race), and people did feel the need for clear language to refer to it. But no, this has to be ignored. 'I'm so brave, radical and controversial as to oppose slavery! You others may technically oppose slavery, too, but I really oppose slavery, in the right way, including by using non-standard and confusing definitions of words!' Reminds me of how the word 'rape', which used to mean having sex with a person clearly against their will, by using force, is now increasingly used solely based on the age of the person or the degree of power the other person had over them. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary's page for enslave provides the following definition: "To make subservient; to strip one of freedom". Note that capturing, transporting, buying or selling is not part of the word's definition. Thus, the word "enslaved" is used correctly in the sentence in question. If you still have questions or concerns, the article Slavery talks about terminology. Rublamb (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite possible that promoters of the newspeak in question have already managed to prescribe their word usage as correct and appropriate in the article on Slavery, but as for the Wiktionary entry, it does not justify it. The person who originally 'stripped the slaves of freedom' was the one who captured them; whoever bought them after that couldn't 'strip them' of something that they had already lost. As for 'making subservient', that's metaphorical usage. In any case, it's a definition written by amateurs and hardly authoritative. Merriam Webster is much better: 'to force into or as if into slavery'. Again, the person who forced them into slavery was the one who originally captured them; from that time on, they were already in slavery and didn't have to be put back into slavery again. As for buying not being part of the word's definition, your use of the word is the one that presupposes that every time a slave is resold and purchased is a separate instance of 'enslavement'. The whole idea is really to emphasise that we in retrospect don't consider the legal status as a slave to be legitimate and moral, so every second of treating someone in accordance with that status is formulated as new and active violence against them - which is just silly exceptional treatment, since most of the political, social and economic institutions of the past are illegitimate from the standpoint of present-day values.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "enslaved" was already in use at historic sites by the mid-1990s, with scholars, state historical preservation officers, and museum professionals preparing the exhibit text and site interpretation plans. As a historian and museum professional, my recollection was that we were trying to be more inclusive with site interpretations. Along the way, there was the realization that slavery was not a career choice but something that was done to the individual. Through the use of the word "enslaved", we were able to more accurately convey the dehumanizing relationship between those who owned slaves and those who were forced into slavery. This was around the same time that the people-first language was becoming common for individuals with disabilities. In both cases, the intent is pretty much the same and is, in part, about looking at things from a different perspective. Since you are making a nuanced argument about who first brought these individuals to slavery, my short answer is that it was the Vance family. When Zeb Vance was born, the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade had been abolished in the U.S. for more than twenty years. Census records show that when Zeb and his wife moved to Asheville, two-thirds of the slaves they brought with them were under the age of ten, with the other third being young women. Since Zeb inherited his slaves, rather than buying them at auction, these individuals were born into slavery as property of the Vance family. Thus, even by your definition, it was the Vance family who enslaved them. Rublamb (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'the family enslaved as many as eighteen people.'