Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 26 April 2010

John J. Pershing was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: December 5, 2006.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War I task force Missouri This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

• Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 1

Racism

There were unsourced statements in the article stating or implying that Pershing was racist (against native americans and blacks). Per WP:V (particularly WP:REDFLAG) these types of statements in particular must be verifiable. I removed the statements, if someone wants to provide a verifiable source please do so before replacing them. Seanfranklin (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The source for the statement is the article by Ron Daniels, reproduced here: http://www.northstarnews.com/columns/dr_ron_daniels/article/1214/. "Confined to segregated units and fighting under the command of General Foch of France (American General “Black Jack” Pershing despised Blacks and wanted nothing to do with them as soldiers), Black soldiers, most notably the 369th Infantry, also known as the Harlem Hell Fighters, fought with great valor in a number of battles." Still, I'm not ready to put this material back in the article. Daniels produces no source for his claim. He refers solely to black soldiers' service in World War I, and it's not clear if he's even aware that Pershing had previously commanded black soldiers in America. And the statement that American blacks served directly under Foch contradicts just about every other source I've read, which says that Pershing insisted on keeping all American forces under his personal command. Ergo, I'm not ready to say that Daniels' article is a reliable source. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am especially doubtful about the claim that Pershing relinquished command of black soldiers; as I understand it, part of the point was insuring that Americans fought as cohesive units instead of being committed piecemeal to the front as replacements for French casualties, which belies the reference's claims about black units. --CAVincent (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Error?

I noticed that Pershing's sisters are listed as Ann Elizabeth, Margaret, and May, but later the article states that "Pershing's sister Grace married Paddock in 1890." Does someone have the resources to clarify this apparent discrepancy? 70.169.173.253 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems true: . Apparently the list of his siblings in the overview is incomplete.--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

References

The "Other honors" section has maybe thirty statements, and one reference between them! That is extreme even by Misplaced Pages's usually lax standards of referencing, and I propose that they are removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, tag them as uncited and if after an amount of time, say a week, they are still uncited, they could be trimmed, anything that is uncited and controversial could perhaps be removed quicker. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Dispute over presentation of nickname

Formerly Derogatory Name

Broken up into the three main threads with the vote at the bottom. -OberRanks (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Original Thread (Part I)

I have removed the term "Nigger Jack" from the nickname template which is visible in the info box. This name was used as an insult to Pershing by a fraction of those who knew him; most often by West Point cadets and then as a vile type of slur. The term "Blackjack" was far more widely known and is referenced in many military texts. And, while WP does not censor any info, the info about his n-ggr name is best spoken of in the text of the article, not in the highly visible information box at the start of the article since this was never a widely spoken of nickname and certainly nothing that Pershing ever went by himself. -OberRanks (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread has been created. SGGH 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those at the ANI thread who opined that this belongs in text, with explanation and sources, not in the infobox or lede.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, not in the infobox, as it is clearly derogatory it should be in the body of the text and explained. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It was only the press, during World War I, who dubbed him "Black Jack", as a euphesim for his true nickname, "Nigger Jack". Someone who removes something that has stood for that amount of time should shoulder the burden of proof of a reliable source that this name was not, in fact, widely used.Mk5384 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Nigger Jack" nickname is very extensively documented: , as is the fact that "Black Jack" is a bowdlerized version of it. Whether or not it is derogatory or perhaps distasteful to some readers is irrelevant: it was his nickname, as well as the origin of his later nickname. I think the current way it is presented ("Black Jack" (originally "Nigger Jack")) is utterly appropriate. The exact details of both nicknames are explained in the body of the article. However, I do feel it would be appropriate to add a citation for the nicknames directly in the infobox.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if both nicknames are fully explained in the body of the article then why insist in having them both in the high profile infobox, remove both nicknames from the infobox altogether, it is a fact that the vast majority of people do not read articles at all the check out the lede and move on. Why is it important to have clearly visible in bright letters of a respected soldier a derogatory nickname as a high profile claim to fame? Is it just user dather goose that wants it there? Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(copied from the talk page of User:OberRanks): I would like to point out to you that General Pershing's nickname of "Nigger Jack" has nothing to do with shock value, and has been on the page for a long time. You gave the example of using that word as a nickname for President Obama if an angry soldier were to call him that. Talk about shock value- You're saying that a person having that nickname, and a person being called that name by one person equate to the same thing. As the article states, the nickname was given to Pershing in 1897 at West Point. The press began calling him "Black Jack" as a euphemism during World War I. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. He had that nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack". That name is horrible, but it is correct, and as we all know, Misplaced Pages is not censored. As I have said, that name has been in the box in that article for some time. If you, or other editors wish to remove it, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source saying that the name "Nigger Jack" was rarely used. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010

Actually, per WP:BURDEN, the info would have to be sourced to stay in, not to be removed. That is not the issue here; the issue is the appropriateness of it in the info box. The information is already in the article, so it an issue of WP:CENSOR but rather WP:COMMONSENSE -OberRanks (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that is is documented, but there is no need to have a nickname which is a racial slur in a highly visible intro box. The matter is already discussed in the body of the article. Having a name which is clearly a racial slur in a main info box of a famous military character will draw fire and it most likely be removed over and over again. And this hasn't really been in there for that long (perhaps a few months at the most) and it appears to have slipped through the cracks until now. We could also use a reference note next to "Black Jack" as a compromise. But, for right now, we have 3 users here plus two more on the ANI stating this is not appropriate. I believe we should keep it out per WP:CON. -OberRanks (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed both nicknames for the time being until the matter is resolved. Please note to all concerned that to re-add either would break WP:CON since this is an unresolved dispute. -OberRanks (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have returned them, as they were removed without consensus. On the contrary, to remove them again will break WP:CON. They were in there for over a year. Leave them as they were whilst the dispute is resolved.Mk5384 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it appears to me that the consensus here is quite clearly against retaining this in the infobox. Could you please explain why you disagree? --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the majority of those who have commented so far were in favor of not including "Nigger Jack", but Misplaced Pages doesn't work according to "majority rule" -- majority and consensus are not synonymous. But it doesn't work according to minority rule either.

Policy bashing like this (on both sides) is one of the best ways to ensure that consensus will never be achieved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Before stating that the information has been there "perhaps a few months at best", how about doing some simple research? They have appeared there since, at least September 2008. I don't think that any reasonable editor would consider 19 months to be "a few". Father Goose has provided no less than 62 different sources referring to General Pershing as "Nigger Jack". There are now inline citations, next to the nicknames in the article. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Typing in "Nigger Jack" redirects to the John Pershing article. The burden of proof for keeping the names as they are has far been exceeded.Mk5384 (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My view is that if "nigger" were not an awful, shocking, offensive word, there wouldn't be a debate over whether the nickname should be included in the infobox. Thus I really do think censorship is at play here.

However, I also accept that if we are to have the nickname in the infobox, some context should be offered. "Black Jack (originally 'Nigger Jack')" offers some context; adding a citation for the relation of the two names within the infobox would add more context. What more could be done? I'm open to ideas.--Father Goose (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:OberRanks): I have added the nicknames back to the infobox. Contrary to what you have stated, to remove them is to break WP:CON, as you removed something that had stood for over a year without consensus, or even discussion. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow how you can suggest I haven't been discussing these removals since I was the one who started the thread on the talk page on this very subject! Its a common call of users in a dispute to claim that the other side "isn't discussing" and in this case, that is clearly untrue. IN any event, we've started a vote (see below) and I have readded the mateiral for all to see while this vote is conducted. -OberRanks (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page, Father Goose has provided sixty-two (62) different sources referring to General Pershing as "Nigger Jack". It has been there for over a year; it is well sourced-you have no right to remove something because you don't like it. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The material is already cited in the text. The issue here is not its removal - the issue is whether such an obvious racial slur should be displayed in the main infobox. Noone is saying we should censor the article and remove references to Pershing being called by this name - we are saying there is absolutely no need to have either nickname in the infobox. -OberRanks (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the article now contains inline citations, next to the nicknames in the infobox. There is no longer any grounds for their removal. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, we are not removing the material - it is mentioned in the body of the article where it belongs. We are stating to keep it out of the infobox as there is no need for it there. -OberRanks (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The grounds is WP:DISPUTE and WP:COMMONSENSE. Several users have voiced concern that the addition of a nickname which is clearly a racial slur, cited or not, would draw fire to the article and, by an un-informed reader, would be seen as shocking and vandalism (even if it were not). This mateirla is also already spoken of the text. This is also highly controversial and was removed until all parties agree on a course - re-adding it againt consensus is clearly uncalled for. Furthermore, posting messages to my talk page, instead of voicing them on the article talk page for all users to see, is also inappropriate as we should have all comments about the article in one single place. It also appears we have a single user (Mk5384) insisting that this material be added in to the infobox and, by my count, five or six comments against (including anon ips). The proper course is to keep it out for now until we can reach a consensus. And , like I've been saying, ALL of this material should be mentioned in the text of the article already so it is not as if we are removing the material completely. -OberRanks (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV, NOR, and the "N" word (Part II)

Racial epithets are a difficult issue in the study of United States social history especially in the period between the end of Reconstruction and World War I. Social norms have changed so much that it is almost impossible to set certain matters in context.

Here is one example of how a biographer handled the dilemma: very early in Irving Berlin's career (1904) he got a job as a singing waiter in lower Manhattan.

Located at 12 Pell Street, in the heart of Chinatown, the establishment was officially known as The Pelham Café, though everyone called it by the proprietor's nickname, "Nigger Mike's." (Like "coon," the epithet "nigger" was widely used and not considered shockingly offensive, but make no mistake, it still carried a racist sting.) Nigger Mike was no blacker than Izzy Baline; he was a Russian Jew with an olive complexion."(p. 21)

The biography continues that way on at least fourteen separate pages and even mentions Irving Berlin paying his respects at "Nigger Mike's" funeral. As difficult as it is today to imagine such a nickname as anything other than extreme derision, that actually was socially acceptable to address a white man that way if he preferred it. In detailed biographies of Irving Berlin that moniker is inescapable: the singing waiter job was Berlin's first break in the music business and both the proprietor and his restaurant were universally known by the N word: Google Books returns 263 hits for "Irving Berlin nigger Mike".

Google books also returns 108 hits for "John Pershing 'Nigger Jack'. Interesting discussions are at Enviropop: studies in environmental rhetoric and popular culture, The savage wars of peace: small wars and the rise of American power, and War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars. So it's verifiable and nontrivial, but it's also the kind of nickname that has to be explained in context. Otherwise it will elicit heated reactions and be mistaken for vandalism. Questions to evaluate include:

1. Is this important enough to deserve mention in Pershing's Misplaced Pages biography? (Despite more than twice as many Google Books hits, Irving Berlin's biography does not mention the corresponding moniker).
2. If editors do include the nickname here, what is the proper context? The challenge is to explain the social background adequately without expanding this subtopic beyond its due weight.

The thing to really be on guard against is a juvenile impulse to use the term without context for its shock value, just because it's sourceable. Durova 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Admin Noticeboard (Part III)

A situation is developing on the John Pershing article where a handful of anon ips and one registered user are attempting to place in the biography info box at the start of the article that Pershing was called "Nigger Jack" as his nickname. Pershing was in fact called this name, but it was an insult hurled at him by opponents and some West Point cadets who disliked him. It was never in any a nickname Pershing called himself and by World War I if someone called him that it was a court martial offense. By that point, the majority fo the media and the public were calling him "Black Jack" which is far more commonly accepted as a nickname for Pershing. I believe the motives behind putting the word "nigger" in the info box are for shock value (this info is also already spoken of in the text). It would also be the same as if some angry soldier called Obama by this word, so we put "nigger" in his biography box as a nickname. Clearly inappropriate and downgrading to the article. Its been added twice so far, so this does bear watching and possible admin intervention if it continues. -OberRanks (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and if the nickname is true and appropriately sourced, it should be included.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

His common nickname was and is "Black Jack" Pershing. If the history behind that common name was that he was once called "Nigger Jack" (something i never heard before despite having developed an interest in Pershing when i lived in Mindanao) then that should be mentioned in the text, but not in the info box (since, again, it isn't the common nickname nor the one typically used by historians/quality press today or the military history writers and press at the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting it in the info box creates undue weight, unless there is sourcing of sufficient prominence (not just verifiability) saying that the usage was widespread enough to justify that placement. Otherwise, put it in the text as Bali Ultimate says. For a major historical figure like Pershing, sufficient prominence would mean multiple high-quality sources devoting significant space to discussing the nickname and its usage. An uncomplimentary nickname (e.g. "Tricky Dick" Nixon) can, though, become become quite prominent, maybe enough to warrant infobox placement in some cases. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is reliable and it verifies the text. John Pershing wasn't the only white man who had that sort of nickname, and in another documented pre-WWI instance a white man in New York City preferred the nickname for himself. Social norms have changed enormously since that era. This does not need administrative attention; undue weight is a content issue that can be worked out on the article talk page. The epithet was not vandalism. Durova 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to President Obama is ludicrous. If one angry soldier called the president a name, it would be the same as a General who was widely referred to as that? You can't be serious about that. His common nickname was "Nigger Jack". During World War I, the press began to refer to him as "Black Jack", as a euphesim for his real nickname. It was a detestable epithet, but that dosen't make it untrue. The name "Nigger Jack" has been listed in that box for quite some time, without incident. If someone wishes to remove it, then the burden of proof should fall upon that editor to provide a reliable source that this nickname was rarely used.Mk5384 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The article itself states that the press "changed" his nickname during World War I. General Pershing was given that nickname in 1897. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. Pershing, at this time, was already a decorated general, nearing the end of his military career. He had the nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack."Mk5384 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, its amazing how a nickname that has minor relevance to a persons notability can cause such heated desire. The fact that it has sat in that box for quite some time does not make it correct, that is all this is about isn't it? The desire to have this nickname uneplained in the infobox..I don't support this nigger nickname in the infobox at all, it is fine in the body of the text where it can be explained, it may of been used in some quarters in history in a derogatory manner but he is not known by that name now,the nickname is not part of his notability at all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to also mention this edit in which User:Mk5384 stated I was violating consensus by removing the nicknames and that our discussion is "nonsense". I'll count 6 editors opposed to this material in the infobox, F-Goose appears to be on the fence but respecting what we are saying, and Mk5384 readding this material, over and over again, insisting it be in the infobox. I would submit it is not I who is going against consensus here. -OberRanks (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed state that, and I stand by it. Instead of assuming good faith in the first place, you asserted that it was put in for shock value. Instead of attempting to work it out on the talk page, you unilaterally made the decision to remove the material. Then, when you didn't get your way, you took the ridiculous step of asking for administrative intervention. You have stated that Father Goose is "on the fence", when he was the one who put the name back in the article after you removed it. You have been provided with no fewer than 62 sources referring to General Pershing by that name. The article now has clear inline citations next to the nicknames to support their inclusion. So as I have said, this seems to boil down to a case of "I don't like it".Mk5384 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the full argument. No-one is saying remove the material from the article, we are saying it should not be in the highly visible infobox. We've also started a vote down below in order to get consensus and I have actually re-added the material until the vote is concluded. I suggest you vote as well, so you can get your opinion in the count. -OberRanks (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Misplaced Pages is not a popularity contest. The material is properly sourced; that's what matters. You have continued to be misleading here. I have not put anything on your talk page that I haven't put here on this talk page. Going to your talk page and addressing you personally was a courtesy. You have some nerve to try to turn it into an insult. Instead of posting the entire edit, you were again, misleading when you said that I referred to this discussion as "nonsense". As I have been participating in this conversation all along, I obviously don't think of it as nonsense. What I referred to as nonsense was you feeling justified in removing something with 62 different sources just because it offended you. As I have said, this is not rule by majority opinion. The material is properly sourced and that is what matters. You had no problem with "Black Jack" being in the infobox; only with "Nigger Jack". As I have said, it comes down to "I don't like it". Misplaced Pages is not censored!!!Mk5384 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with not liking it or not censored or that wikipedia is not a popularity content, none of which present any reason as to what value this nickname that is not part of any reason towards his notability just has got to be in the infobox. It is clearly in the body of the article where it is explained and commented on, so that is totally OK. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly in the infobox, where it is cited, and where it has been, so that is totally OK.Mk5384 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because you like it there or because it has been there for a while does not mean that it has to stay there or that is is correct for it to be there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, both nicknames are up for removal and there is now a very straight forward vote going on as to determine keeping or deleting either one. You also appear to be overlooking the fact that, to avoid an edit war and bad feelings, I voluntarily reverted myself and restored this material into the article . We are, at this point, following WP:DISPUTE to the letter by having a consensus vote after a discussion from both sides. No-one is accusing you of anything, saying you did anything wrong, and if you got that impression then I'm sorry. The best thing to do is to take a step back, cool off a bit, and let the vote proceed. We can then keep or remove the material based on the outcome. -OberRanks (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I ask you if you are even reading these policies. WP:DISPUTE- "A survey can not generate consensus." "If you feel that others are ignoring consensus, a survey can not force them to obey what you feel is consensus". For the love of God, read these policies that you are citing.Mk5384 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I

Sounds good to me. -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought it may be splitting hairs, how should one attempt to ascertain consensus? Is not a poll at least a useful tool in starting to move to an end result? Hopefully all parties can continue to discuss, think, and move forward and not just toss around WP links. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I've participated in this poll I do have misgivings about it. Polls and votes aren't the best way of establishing consensus because they tend to shape discussion along certain narrow lines and divide people. A content RfC or a request for mediation would have been better. Durova 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that for a specific, narrow issue such as this, a poll would be a better tool than a usually more complex and lengthy RfC or mediation process. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The vote is split right down the middle, so it is a good indication that this is a deeply divided issue. My main concern for having the vote was to centralize the discussion since the threads were going off in several directions with some of it spilling over onto user talk pages accompanied by some heated remarks. At least with the votes, we know exactly where all parties stand. -OberRanks (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, yet drawing lines in the sand tends to get in the way of consensus. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. Discussion of hot button terminology always runs the risk of degenerating into battleground mentality. On the whole, the editors here are doing remarkably well at remaining collegial. Yet it's a little bit worrisome to see at least one editor reduce the infobox issue to censorship. Censorship certainly isn't what I advocate. It would be better to get a more nuanced discussion going, rather than setting up a poll that forces people to take sides. Durova 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution on addition of nicknames to the infobox section (Vote)

To get clear consensus on this issue, I am starting this vote section. The question is: "Should the "Nigger Jack" nickname be included in the biography infobox at the start of the article?"

• Oppose: There is no need to have a racial slur in the highly visible info box when this material is already cited in the text of the article. I would also say keep out all nicknames from the infobox to avoid favoritism. -OberRanks (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not part of his notability, keep both out of the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support If its a notable nick name (here I do have some doubts, the Nigger appliation was not how he was widely known) then yes it should be in the lead. Other notable officers have thier famous nick names in the lead, just becasue this is racist does not detract from the fact he was widely known as 'Black jack'.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support My reasons are all over this talk page. No need to repeat them here.Mk5384 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No objection to having it within the article text, but this nickname has to be contextualized and infoboxes can't do that. Durova 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate Father Goose's compromise suggestion, but on balance it seems to me that the infobox reference shocks out of proportion to its informativeness. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support The nickname is well-documented in multiple reliable sources. WP:NOTCENSORED. Postoak (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment No proposal to censor. It is in the body.- Sinneed 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it belongs in the infobox. I'm pretty certain we would not be having this debate if the name were not felt to be offensive -- but offense alone is an inappropriate reason to make editorial decisions, as articulated by WP:NOTCENSORED. Nor do I feel it should be omitted on the basis that it was derogatory -- by some accounts, "Black Jack" was also derogatory ().
  We run the risk of rewriting history here by trying to sanitize it. It's true that we're not making the mistake of omitting the name from the article altogether, but if we are to have "Black Jack" in the infobox -- and we should, definitely -- "Nigger Jack" should go with it, in its current form: cited, with the explanation that "Black Jack" is the later, softened form of the original nickname.--Father Goose (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: With a dead split down the middle, it is rapidly looking like this information will indeed by displayed since there is no clear consensus to remove it and it is now cited. It will probably be removed again, at some point, but with this discussion there will be a record that the matter was discussed. -OberRanks (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it were a simple WP:NOTCENSORED question my opinion would be different. The issue here is that a word has undergone radical changes in social use, which modern readers need context to understand. Durova 06:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: No proposal to censor. It is in the body.- Sinneed 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main issue is the shock value of having the word "n*gger" in the main infobox when this matter is already discussed in the body of text. The natural instinct of any uninformed reader, unfamiliar with the topic would be to think it is a vandalism entry and remove it. In fact, that's exactly what happened which started this dispute. So, if its already in the body of text, its already explained, why should we wish to have it in such plain site where it will draw fire? On the flip side, I did like FG's cituations for it and, if it does stay, the way FG did it is the way it should be. -OberRanks (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - " trying to sanitize it" - there is no proposal to sanitize. Please focus on the edit rather than your perception of the motivations of the editors. If your voting to remove it from the infobox would be sanitizing, I understand... but it is not proposed.- Sinneed 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose use in infobox, but support cited use in text of article, as it was the origin of the more-well-known nickname. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a censorship issue, as it's explained in the article. Putting in the infobox makes too big a thing out of it. It's undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support But only if both nicknames are in the infobox, and they are cited, and there is supporting text in the article about the names, and if said supporting text is not in the lead section. Yes, that is quite a few qualifications, but all of which support the previously mentioned concept of explaining without undue shock value and weight due to the change of terminology over time. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: He was only "commonly" known as "Black Jack", and you don't need a lengthy explanation in the infobox, as it's already explained in the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Cover it in the body. - Sinneed 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - at talk:Nigger Jack, an editor noted that textbooks had started using "Black Jack" instead of "Nigger Jack". It may be that this is regional, or otherwise "common" but not common to all editors. If there is reason to believe this is the case... that this usage is indeed common... just not universal... I would have to reconsider my Oppose. Anyone have anything to indicate this besides different memories of a couple of editors?- Sinneed 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per MrDolomite. If the nickname was "Grumpy" instead of the N word, I don't think there'd be any question, it would be in the infobox. Misplaced Pages readers ought to consider such nicknames according to the times, not by 2010 standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be true, if it were a common nickname. Babe Ruth was called "N*gger Lips" by his less restrained classmates at the reform school. That's not in his infobox, though. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would indeed oppose using "Grumpy" if it were not a common nickname. I won't ever have an article, but I have been called "flash"(a parody of my poor ping pong game style), "cabbage head", "moon head", "round head", "brussel sprout" (head like a small cabbage), "charlie brown", "professor", "Sinneed" and "That F***ing Sinneed"... and none would belong, unless they were not just recorded, but how I was known. It *might* merit a mention, as here, in the article, for some reason.- Sinneed 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why deliberately use an offensive term when Black Jack suffices?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it needs explanation, then it should be covered in the text, where context can be provided. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Question- Why is there a need for there to be a nickname anyway? Would it be more agreeable if the section of the infobox was removed altogether, and both names were included, and explained, in the body of the article? Sodam Yat (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support It's how he was known for a considerable period, & ultimately the basis for the bowlderized "Black Jack". For that alone, it deserves inclusion. (BTW, that it was court martial offence in 1918 scarcely pertains; by 1918, Pershing was pretty damn senior, so anything he disliked being called {Shirley, for instance ;p} could buy a court martial for insubordination.) And for the uninformed, who don't know he ever was called "Nigger Jack" (& why), it's a good way to get their attention. I'd also add, it's a point in his favor in re any black readers: he commanded black troops & IIRC considered the Buffalo Soldiers some of the best he'd ever led, & was smeared by association; that is, for not being the same kind of racist bigot as the rest. I suggest that's a good character reference, even if the term offends today. TREKphiler 12:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You make a fair point, and one that occurred to me as well--but I am still concerned that this point cannot be made clearly by the mere inclusion of the name in the infobox, without explanatory text. The concern is not about offending, it's about offending without conveying the intended meaning. Nicknames are included in the infoboxes of many other military biographies, but I do wonder if it might not be better to just leave the nicknames in text here. In any event, I would like to acknowledge, appreciatively, the good faith of the editors who have joined this discussion on both sides.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article comments

I read the posts on the ANI, and responded to them there, and will make another attempt here. First things first; in the heat of my frustration, I made several posts that were completely out of line, and for those, I apologise sincerely. Seeing that OberRanks took my completely sarcastic comment completely seriously, I realized that perhaps he sincerly thought that I was making these edits because I am a racist. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should have erred on the side of caution, and gone further to make that clear. Baseball Bugs said that my 7th edit was to "try to slip 'Nigger Jack' back in". I'll assume good faith, but I'd like to rebut that. I have been interested in Misplaced Pages long before I began participating. I never thought of editing before I realized that someone had listed the wrong year of birth for the beautiful Pilar Montenegro. I felt compelled to correct it, and one thing lead to another. For numerous reasons, I have always been interested in World War I, which has translated into an interest in General Pershing. I was interested in the article long before I began editing. When I noticed that someone had removed the name "Nigger Jack", I put it back. That's all. If the fact that I did that as my 7th edit translates into suspicions of racism or sockpuppetry, I don't know what to say. Let me make another attempt at this, peacefully. I think that we all agree that the nickname of "Nigger Jack" is properly sourced. The problem seems to be, "Why does it have to be in the infobox?". Here's why, IMHO. It was in there, long before I put it back, in January. Type in "Nigger Jack", and you get the John Pershing article. I think that's pretty darn significant, as far as showing just how widely he was known as that. Type in "Old Blue Eyes", and you get the Frank Sinatra article. There, in the infobox, for Mr. Sinatra, are his nicknames, just like the John Pershing article. I think that in addition to the 62 sources that Father Goose provided, the fact that "Nigger Jack" redirects to John Pershing goes a long way towards showing just how widespread the name was. I doubt anyone would have a problem with this if the word in question wasn't so horrible. ( And it is horrible.) But, as I have said, and as we all know, Misplaced Pages is not censored. To include only the name "Black Jack", is IMHO, an attempt to whitewash some very nasty history. To keep both names out, because one of them is a detestable epithet, is IMHO, censorship. So, in conclusion, the infobox should remain as it was, with both nicknames listed. As per Durova's good faith compromise suggestion of a footnote, I respectfully add that footnote probably would not have been suggested if it weren't for the offensive name, and therefore, should not be used.Mk5384 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not the offensiveness that requires footnoting. What matters is that the N-word has changed meaning enormously during the last century. Unless one has studied US social history of the period in depth, an unannotated presentation of the name would be misleading. Durova 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with an annotated presentation of the name.Mk5384 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to record this removal. The text was archived, so the section was not simply blanked. I don't entirely agree with removing these remarks right now, but the editor acted professionally and archived them so I guess that's okay. -OberRanks (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK by me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New compromise suggestion

Would it be feasible to footnote the context at the infobox? See Walter_Raleigh#cite_note-0 and Jean_Desbouvrie#cite_note-0 for examples of the basic idea. Footnotes can contain explanations in addition to source links. Durova 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This article already goes a step further and footnotes the nickname "Black Jack" within the infobox. But footnoting it in the lead and/or the infobox seems reasonable, other than the fact someone is liable to say that footnotes aren't supposed to be in the lead or the infobox. However, since this would be a compromise solution, WP:IAR might figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the suggestion wasn't sufficiently clear. There are two types of footnotes. Source-only notes predominate at Misplaced Pages and that's what this currently have. Another type of footnote is explanatory. We aren't limited to linking within a footnote; footnotes can also summarize the context. Durova 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, link it to the same footnote as the part in the article that already explains it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to construct a footnote that provides context. The main text only needs to link to a source, which means the footnotes should be different. Jean Desbouvrie uses two different notes to the same source: one for straightforward citation, another where explanation is needed.

^ See The Zoologist below: an 1889 report stated that Desbouvrie began keeping swallows when he was eleven and had raised them for over 30 years. That places his birthdate at or somewhat before 1847.

The Walter Raleigh explanatory footnote comes a little closer in subject matter. Durova 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

^ Many alternate spellings of his surname exist, including Rawley, Ralegh, Ralagh and Rawleigh. "Raleigh" appears most commonly today, though he, himself, used that spelling only once, as far as is known. His most consistent preference was for "Ralegh". His full name is correctly pronounced /ˈwɔːltə ˈrɔːli/, though, in practice, /ˈræli/ "rally" or even /ˈrɑːli/ "rahly" are the usual modern pronunciations in England.

That's in Raleigh's lead, not infobox, if that matters. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion is to adapt this approach for the infobox. Durova 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the infobox, as opposed to the lead? (Or maybe both?) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No one seriously suggests that this is notable enough for the lead. Durova 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't even mention the nickname in the lead, which is interesting, given the broad usage of "Black Jack". Whatever. Footnoting it in the infobox should be good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnoting the infobox, without displaying the actual word, is an excellent suggestion and I think that's the way we should go. -OberRanks (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks obviously ignored the olive branch that I offered below. I have reconsidered retirement, and can assure you that I will put both names back the instant protection is removed. Perhaps this should just proceed to mediation, because I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not backing down.Mk5384 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reported Mk5384 to WP:ANI, as he promises to continue edit-warring as soon as the page protection expires. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I didn't even realize Mk5384 had "returned" when making that post. I was responding to the conversion between Bugs and the others up above. -OberRanks (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, OberRanks, I apologise for not AGF'ing, and jumping the gun. Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion of what I've said.Mk5384 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok; back to what I was trying to do, before false accusations of vandalism left me defending myself on ANI for the past hour. I don't know where you get the idea that consensus is against me. The vote was 8 for, 9 against; nothing even approaching consensus. The material is properly sourced, and extensively explained. Perhaps someone has taken the protection of this version of the article as an endorsement of this version. Admin. Xeno stated clearly that it is not. So if you revert me after I put it back, I will be the one reporting you. And then, as I have said, we can go to mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So you just made your own case: "Nothing approaching consensus". Therefore, neither version of nicknames should be in the article right now until we can get this agreed upon. Mk, you can state all day long that you are going to insert your preferred version over and over again, but I have already stated exactly what will happen. Several other users will revert you, you will most likely be blocked for violating WP:3RR, and the article will probably be protected once again with the matter referred for mediation. If that's what you want, then fine, but it really is not worth the effort. See Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing for further details. -OberRanks (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You have talked ad nauseaum about getting me blocked. You originally wanted me blocked merely for adding the names back. And since then, you have proposed more blocks than I can count. And yet I have not been blocked. That's not bravado on my part; it's just that contrary to your myriad attempts to stultify my character with your ubiquitous contemelious canards, I have done nothing to merit a block. You want me blocked just like you don't want the "n" word in the infobox; because that's the way you feel it should be. How do you feel qualified to tell me exactly what's going to happen when I put the names back? As you have finally admitted, the issue is highly divided. What makes you think that someone who agrees with me won't come along and undo the revert after someone reverts me. Now, of course this may not happen, because unlike you, I don't profess to know the future. In any event, this is likely to wind up in formal mediation. Now, if after formal mediation, it does wind up that your version is the one that gets used, you won't be seeing any more reverts from me, for whilst I will disagree until the end of time, you will have won fair and square. Until that time, I stand by what I said about intending to return the properly sourced information to the article. As you said, we can just agree to disagree until such time as formal mediation takes place.Mk5384 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to confuse this with the above post, but my suggestion is "Nicknames: , " with hyperlinks to reference notes at the bottom of the article that in explain, in full context, the meaning of both "Nigger Jack" and "Black Jack". That to me seems the best possible solution. -OberRanks (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The nick names should be in the infobox, but we a foot note to explain why he had then is also there then I would not oppose that. I would oppose any removal of the nick names on the grounds that they are offensive, even if they were repalced with a foot note.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with inclusion with footnotes. Forgive me if I have made it appear otherwise.Mk5384 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution

With the matter divided down the middle (6 support votes, 7 oppose votes, and 1 "Yes" vote), there is obviously not an overwhelming consensus to either keep or retain the nicknames section. I think a compromise would be to have the nickname section contain only the links to the references for both names. The reference notes can be slightly altered to display the nickname and then the relevant source information. In this manner, it is still in the infobox that Pershing had nicknames, but the shock value aspect is removed. -OberRanks (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would prefer to have the to-my-reading-not-common nickname in the infobox, rather than hide the common name because the uncommon one offends. I truly, TRULY don't care who we offend: taking this information out because people will be offended if it is left in is a completely unconvincing argument to me.
• I don't see the division of support that you present it. I see:

For listing in infobox: It was a nickname, and it is reliably recorded in history, therefore we should list it, no matter how few people identify him that way.

Against listing in infobox: It was not the name he was commonly known as.

The rub for me is the "no matter how few people identify him that way" - I think this bit is wp:OR on my part at least. I see nothing that addresses it to my satisfaction... he may be much better known under "Nigger Jack" than I personally believe... in which case we should certainly have it in the infobox.- Sinneed 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A solution we all can live with

After reviewing the comments of everyone, it seems like we do have one solution that I think will make everyone happy. I come to this conclusion since it is a fact that Misplaced Pages is not censored and it is a fact that Pershing was called the bad n-word as this has been well established by cited sources. So, to solve this, here is what I think we should do: Display all nicknames in the infobox followed by reference note links that expalin the names in thier full context. It would look something like Nicknames: Black Jack , Nigger Jack with the "1" and "2" being reference note links which would explain the completel history about why he was called both of those names. I think that is thte best solution here with the only disadvantage being the article might be vandalized from time to time by shocked editors removing the nickames out-of-hand. But, we can deal with that. -OberRanks (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that he was widely known as "Black Jack". Is there any evidence that he was anywhere near as widely known as "N*gger Jack"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose appeared to have cited the material with good sources. I'm sure we will have more than a few users who will restore the nicknames, the sources just need to be good and context reference notes added right after the names in question. -OberRanks (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how come I never heard of this until a week ago? Sorry, but he was not "widely known" by N*gger Jack. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly did not investigate the references that closely. That's the very core of the matter - are these reliable sources and good references. If they are, then I guess we add these names in the article. I plan to do neither (add or remove) but will let others do the editing once the article is unprotected as I've said all that can really be said on this matter. -OberRanks (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the two references that indicate it was widely known. The way it is right now in the infobox, with his one widely known nickname, and the two footnotes, along with the explanation within the body of the article, seem quite sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

With less than 24 hours to unprotection, still very deep issues about this, along with an outstanding statement from one user that they intend to resume edit warring the minute protection is lifted , it might be best (as you said) to leave this out. If the references and sources are good, then I suppose something like this could in some form be in the article. I would personally like to see it never allowed in, but the regulations about WP:CITE and WP:CENSOR do make a case. I think at this point users should go with what they think is right. -OberRanks (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article! That's what makes Mk's argument about "censorship" so ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. This entire debate seems about the extreme wish of some users to see the same information displayed prominently in the bio-infobox. I can honestly say that I've never seen a debate like this on Misplaced Pages. It boggles the mind actually. Might be best to keep it out of the infobox for the reasons that have been brought up over and over again, the most significant of which is that the information is already in the article. The conundrum here is that it is not a clear violation of Wiki Policy to in fact display it in the info-box at the same time - just unnecessary and bad taste. -OberRanks (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that it's not a commonly known nickname. "Black Jack" is commonly known, of course. But there is no evidence I've seen that "N*gger Jack" is commonly known. Only commonly known nicknames have any business being in the infobox. Otherwise, it's undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence. As I have said above, Father Goose provided 62 different sources. He got that name at West Point in 1897. The first instance of him being called "Black Jack" was 1918.Mk5384 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Black Jack" is what he is commonly known as. Period. The "N*gger Jack" stuff is no longer operative. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With this highly polarized and extremely controversial debate far from resolved, I think the best thing to do would be to remove the entire nickname section (both names) until a version can be agreed upon that everyone is happy with. If it is removed (I don't personally plan to be the one to remove it), I would encourage everyone to respect the consensus building process and avoid edit warring. I have some further ideas on how to reach a conclusion here, but will wait to share them until after the article is unprotected. -OberRanks (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, as when this was proposed above.- Sinneed 15:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that instantly there is one for and one against shows that this still a charged, highly debatable issue with merit on both sides. I'm at the limit of my knowledge here - I've never seen a debate like this nor one this lengthy with no resolution. The thought to remove the material for both names is in my view a way to avoid the article from becoming a battleground. I also think we should avoid any re-votes or repeating the same views over and over again, as Sinneed accurately observed. What to do at this stage is the key question and I will leave that question to more knowledgeable users. -OberRanks (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether "Black Jack" stays or goes is negotiable. "N*gger Jack" is not. It stays OUT. He's not known by that name. To post it in the infobox is undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not known by that name? Then I suppose the US National Park Service is posting false information on a government site. . It's a historically significant name that unfortunately happens to be a racial slur. You can't erase or rewrite history, and trying to remove the name here (if only in the inbobox) is sanitizing history and a disservice to Misplaced Pages. He was known as "Nigger Jack" prior to "Black Jack". Both should remain in the infobox because they are both documented nicknames for Pershing. It would also be undue weight to only include "Black Jack" in the infobox. Otherwise, remove both and mention only in the body of the article. Postoak (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"His nickname, "Black Jack" dates from this service." - From the NPS.

"“Black Jack” of the 10th:A Negro cavalry regiment was John J. Pershing’s “home” in the service. From it came his nickname, and he never lost his affection for—or failed to champion—the valorous colored troopers he led"

The sources you list support not including "Nigger Jack" in the infobox... listing "Black Jack" as his nickname, and "Nigger Jack" as an epithet.- Sinneed 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Was is the operative word there. The origin of his nickname is amply covered in the article. He's only known as "Black Jack", regardless of its origin. The Los Angeles Dodgers aren't known as the Trolley Dodgers anymore either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet, "Trolley Dodgers" is included in the infobox: Los Angeles Dodgers. We also mention the nickname The Bums. And there's little controversy about that. It's the word "nigger" that this dispute is about. It is a taboo word these days, and that is leading to attempts here to whitewash it from the historical record.--Father Goose (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet, "It's the word "nigger" that this dispute is about." remains untrue for me. I wp:AGF and assume the same is true for most editors. I am mildly interested to know that the word itself is the issue here, for you. I think that is unfortunate.- Sinneed 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For the very reason Postoak brought up, I say remove both - don't even have a nicknames section in the infobox. This is all covered in the body of the article anyway. That's the core of the debate here - why have it in the infobox when its mentioned already in the article? We've all given our views as to why and why not so no need repeating them, but as we can see there is no agreement at all about whether these names should stay or go -OberRanks (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise. We have other persons with unsavory nicknames only mentioned in the body of the article (ie. Richard Nixon and "Tricky Dick") and not in the infobox. I believe this is the best way to move forward. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Britannica writeup that fails to mention the "N*gger Jack" thing, it only says "Black Jack" came from his advocacy of black soldiers. But they're just Britannica. What do they know? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

and the articles I provided above do include the reference to the name "Nigger Jack". Your point? Postoak (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to what, that it was allegedly "widely known"? Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It stays out? It's non-negotiable? Surley ye jest. As I've said I will return it. If you want to revert me on something cited with 62 different sources, go right ahead. Mk5384 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you'll be blocked so fast it will make your head swim. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not be blocked for returning sourced information to the article. What in the world would give you a silly idea like that?Mk5384 (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, we haven't reached any kind of agreement on this and blatantly saying that you will insert this material against the objections of others is exactly what got this article protected in the first place. You also seem to be repeatedly missing the point that no-one has said anything about removing this material from the actual article, only the info-box. Since there is absolutely no agreement to either keep or delete either nickname in the info-box, the best thing to do at this point to remove the entire section until a firm agreement is reached. If you insist on inserting this material yet again, it will probably be removed by multiple editors and the article will be re-protected. -OberRanks (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk, you aren't proposing to return information to the article. You are stating your intention to restore an edit to the infobox. Very different. I do agree that restoring it, once, won't get you blocked, but it is not a good practice... the article was locked because of this being deleted and readded and deleted and readded... - Sinneed 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have little doubt that it will be reverted. The article being protected again seems unlikely, as I have no intentions of an edit war, and will instead seek formal mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an extremely professional approach and probably is exactly what is needed here. I've never gone into mediation over an article so it should be an interesting project. Will be looking forward to seeing what the results bring. -OberRanks (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Mk5384 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. Seems that we were doing fine until we started the blocking threats which is uncalled for. Look forward to the mediation. Thanks! Postoak (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we were "doing fine" until Mk threatened (both before and after his unblock) to resume the edit war. If he does so, he'll be turned in for it. And no one else should touch it until it's been dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again and again, Bugs has mistaken protection of the article with an endorsement of that version, no matter how many times the protecting admin stated otherwise.Mk5384 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Protection Requested

I've asked for an indefinite protection until this case can go to mediation. It's obvious that there is no agreement here and there is a clear danger of a nasty edit war. Thanks to MK for offering to spearhead the request for mediation. That is exactly what we need at this stage. -OberRanks (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There won't be an edit war if no one edit wars. I already made the only revert on this I expect to make... while I see no reason to include what appears to be "nasty named called" rather than "nickname" as a nickname, I will expect to simply tag it with {{pov-statement}} and leave it in.- Sinneed 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. If Mk re-posts it, report him for resuming his edit war. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And just to make it clear, don't revert him, just report him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea what you intend to report. I've said it here' and I've said it on the talk page of the admin who protected it. The information is backed up with 62 sources, and I will return it. Not only have I not said anything about edit warring; I have specifically stated that there will be no edit war. If you'd like to report me for a baseless charge, go right ahead. But please don't canvass for other editors to do what you think should be done; especially for something as silly as that.Mk5384 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually legitimately thanking MK (just to avoid a misunderstanding). I wouldn't know where to begin to start posting for mediation and contacting the committee and getting a board set up. We could use a dedicated user to make all of that happen and a mutual atmosphere of cooperation will do very well to clear up some of the hostile air in this dispute. -22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I myself, really have no problem with extending the protection of the article, as opinions still seem to be divided, and whilst it won't be from me, there is still some potential for nastiness here. I think we all agree that this has to go to mediation, before it is decided once and for all. I don't think it matters if it is protected in the interim, and it may, in fact, avoid a number of problems. Neither support nor oppose.Mk5384 (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Suggesting mediation

Hi folks, did my best to offer a compromise which apparently hasn't resolved the problem. For people who still have questions about the documentation of the N-word nickname, please see a subsection I wrote higher up on this page. The best course would be to start a medcom or a medcab case before this dispute gets too personalized. Best wishes. Durova 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• It would be good to start by having some sort of statement from the individuals involved as to what is wrong with the article as it stands. The term is there, it's sourced to . I am having a hard time seeing what needs to change and why. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, and I know that this is getting old, it does boil down to a censorship issue. I know that the term is in the article. The problem is that this whole issue began with the name being removed from the infobox; not added. So IMHO, the fact that it is included in the body of the article does not mean censorship is not at play here, with editors not wanting that nasty name in the infobox.Mk5384 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep claiming there are 62 sources asserting that "N*gger Jack" was a widely known nickname. I've seen a couple of sources explaining where it came from, and nothing claiming it was widely known. Evidently I overlooked something. Where are those 62 sources? 12:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They are listed above on this talk page. Father Goose says, " the name 'Nigger Jack' is extensively documented", and then provides the link showing no fewer than 62.Mk5384 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Extensively documented" is not the same thing as "widely known", especially as those sources are all basically saying the same thing. If any one of them asserts that it was "widely known", I'd like for you to point it out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree mediation is the only answer. But all involved parties need to be involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just from my own experience, MedCab seems to be understaffed and backlogged, so I would recommend MedCom. –xeno 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A mediation request has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. It will be necessary for all the users listed as parties to sign your agreement to accept mediation in this section. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello OberRanks, shouldn't all users involved with the discussion above be included in the mediation process? Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If I missed someone, then by all means. I tried to get everyone who has been posting regularly to the talk page. I did not list all users who participated in the vote we had. The danger is the more people, the more likely someone will say they will refuse to participate and then the mediation will be rejected (based on how I understand the process). We've already had User:Sinneed state they will not participate but also said they wont even comment on the mediation(stricken by Sinneed) making me think we can remove that user as an interested party. -OberRanks (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! Slatersteven might also be interested since he mentioned the need for mediation above. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My statement was that I would not Agree, and did not Disagree, and was not required to do either. Very different. I have stricken the statement assigned to me above, and encourage others not to speak for me here. I am present. I will speak here as and if I feel it appropriate and helpful.- Sinneed 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure about that user, hadn't seen a posting in a while. We can add Slatersteven in the list if the user wants to get on board. -OberRanks (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I never expected to have a problem getting people to agree to the mediation, but that seems to be whats happening now on the mediation proposal page. I'm not sure where we can go from here if the mediation doesn't go forward. -OberRanks (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss, and recommend blocks for the edit warriors if they continue, I should think.- Sinneed 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:Dispute resolution may help. Perhaps working on wording for wp:RfC would be worthwhile.- Sinneed 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't think in this case mediation would have worked, I consider myself involved in this issue and would have liked to have been named, I think a few more people could have been named but it is by the bye now really as the case appears to have been refused. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Jack

Whilst I appreciate the willingness to compromise shown by removing both names, I don't think that there has been any dispute over "Black Jack". Therefore, it may make sense to return that one whilst we continue to figure out the solution for "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea (and a very mature one, too). I was thinking to keep both out to avoid any appearance of favoritism. Since mediation was denied, I would not even be opposed to putting both back until we can get this sorted out. I won't revert if that occurs; not sure about others though. -OberRanks (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You were the last one to remove them, so I'll leave it to you to decide, for the time being, whether to return one, both, or neither.Mk5384 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

They can happily stay out of the infobox, they are still in the body of the article and explained there, the reader has lost absolutally nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood and agree to this temporary solution until a permanent resolution is found and accepted by all editors. Postoak (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I said that I have no problem with one, both, or neither being there whilst the dispute is resolved. I did not mean that to endorse leaving them out permenantly. Whilst perhaps it is true that the reader has lost absolutely nothing, the same case then could be made for removing all nicknames from infoboxes across this encyclopedia. This one comes down to removing both because one is offensive. That remains unacceptable as a long term solution.Mk5384 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

mediation

I would like to add that mediation is not a dead issue. The case was declined because one of the listed parties (Father Goose) did not agree to mediation. Whilst he had every right to disagree, that does not mean that we can not try again.Mk5384 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it about six to eight weeks. By then, a lot of people might have moved on and dropped this from their watchlists. -OberRanks (talk)

I'm fine with that. As Father Goose pointed out, we do seem to have gotten some folks who just wanted to see the car crash. I'd much rather only engage with those whose main concern is the quality of this article.Mk5384 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we understand that some editors are interested in the article's quality; they just don't participate in the bickering, unnecessary threats and the edit wars. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree to that.Mk5384 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another vote?

OberRanks proposed, as "a solution we can all live with", displaying the names with footnotes. To the best of my knoweledge, the only one who opposed that was Baseball Bugs, whom has said he no longer wants to be a part of this debate. I know that I had no objection to OberRanks' proposal. Perhaps the best way to move forward with this debate is to start with another vote, just to see where we stand. Mk5384 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It would look something like Nicknames: , . You would then click on the link and it would take one to a reference note at the bottom of the page that explained the nickname in full context. I think that would be the perfect solution. Great memory there, MK! -OberRanks (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, both names fully referenced in the infobox or no nicknames in the infobox would work for me. Postoak (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I could support that, one link might be better to a para about the two names as they are connected. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to link to John J. Pershing#nickname for the "context note", since it is already fully explained in that paragraph within the article.--Father Goose (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the actual nicknames black jack and nigger jack would not appear in the inobox under this proposal, just ..Nicknames Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. What I'm saying is that we could approach this "link to the explanation with context" in the infobox by putting see below in the Nicknames entry. The existing paragraph on the nicknames has both context and references, no need to duplicate the same information in a footnote.--Father Goose (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I had thought that the proposal was: Black Jack, Nigger Jack, with the notes explaining the names. Nicknames ,, is still, in my opinion, keeping it out because it is offensive or likely to cause controversy.Mk5384 (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Idea. To see why your statement is not useful, consider this reflection "Nicknames: Black Jack, Nigger Jack is still, in my opinion, keeping it in because it is offensive and likely to cause controversy." I believe that such a statement would be untrue of every editor here, as I believe the one you made is also untrue. It really is better to focus on the edits, and leave all such speculation about the motivations of other editors out. We wp:assume good faith... that if we disagree it is not because the other editor is stupid, foolish, or acting against the goal of writing an encyclopedia, but simply that we disagree.- Sinneed 09:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look; I have said nothing about stupidity, foolishness, or disingenious motives. And I do realize that we disagree. But the fact that some editors are against it because they feel there is no need to have an offensive name in the infobox can be found all over this talk page.Mk5384 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ec2. I agree with Sineed here.I also think that Father Goose's idea seems to have some support. Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly has support. All I have said is that I disagree with it, and why. It's fine that you agree with Sineed, but please explain why it is that you agree. You, yourself have said that there's no need to have an offensive name in the infobox. And I respect your opinion and your right to hold it. But it seems to contradict agreeing with what Sineed said.Mk5384 (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely. "See below" is the best idea that has come up so far. -OberRanks (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So if the proposal is to have:Nicknames(see below), that does seem to indicate both agreement that both nicknames meet notability standards, and that it's less controversial to do it that way, does it not?Mk5384 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

All it is is a sugestion as to what to do in this case with this disputed situation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. It has been my assertion that the purpose for this is the fact that some editors feel uncomfortable with an offensive name in the infobox, which is unacceptable, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Sineed has asserted that I am wrong. So if the reason for not displaying the actual name is not the fact that it is offensive, then please tell me what the reason is so that I can better understand. Also, you said that you agreed with Sineed about that, and I've asked you to explain why it is that you agree, when you have said that there is no need for an offensive name in the infobox. You may have changed your opinion since then, which is certainly your right. But please give a little more detail. The more we all understand each other, the easier it will be for us to resolve this.Mk5384 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that both names should be thefer and that we have a link or foot note explaining them "Nicknames: Black Jack, Nigger Jack". To a casual reader (as an extream example) reading the sugested idead might think that his nicknames were "1 & 2". I can see no reason why his nicknames should be left out of the infobox. It seems to me that if no valid reason (otehr then I don't agree) can be given then there can be bo real objection.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The objections to have the nicknames unexplained in the high profile position in the infobox are littered all over the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are, but the main objection seems to me (and I know that Sineed disagrees) is the offensiveness of "Nigger Jack". Rob, I've asked you to please clarify your objection. Is it because of the offensiveness, as you have said, or is it, as Sineed states, something else. If so, then what?Mk5384 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I an not objecting to having foot note. I am objecting to not have the nicknames in the lead. Just having the links without the name is just daft, you don't have footnotes for blank text (which is effectly what is being susgested), you have foot notes to explain or expand upon text. Now rather then have (for example) any new readers having to wade thru old discusions why not read list the objection to having both nicknames in the lead repeated here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have misunderstood me. I was asking Off2riorob to clarify his objection. I, myself have no objection to displaying the names with footnotes.Mk5384 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

But, yes; that is along the lines of what I proposed at the top of this section-OberRanks proposal of:Black Jack,Nigger Jack. I thought a vote on this would be helpful as a starting point. You and I are in favor of it. Off2riorob seems against it, though I don't want to speak for him. OberRanks proposed it, but I'm not sure how he feels about it now.Mk5384 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the indentation I was reply to Off2riorob, perhaps I should have made myself more clear.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I see it now. My fault.Mk5384 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so back to Black Jack,Nigger Jack. Is this acceptable to everyone?. Sidebar: check out how we handled the nickname at Houston, not the same situation but an example of a single link. Postoak (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good solution to me, we can actualy see what the foot note is for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Black Jack Pershing By Richard O'Connor "First his own company and then the whole corps took to calling Pershing "Nigger Jack" well out of hearing. ... The whole army adopted it". So thus was a nickname in usde throught the army, later softend to Bakc by the press.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have many references that support this, I can add if needed. Postoak (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that the currency of "Black Jack" is vastly wider than that of "Nigger Jack" (in sources plus Google gets 73,000 vs. 1,300 hits, a good general indicator). I am concerned that giving parity is WP:UNDUE when the former seems to be orders of magnitude more common and the latter mainly a footnote of minor historical interest. No dispute that Nigger Jack is verifiable, but it is not widespread and certainly nowhere near as well-known or widely used as Black Jack. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the key word there is "currency". Of course he's not known as "Nigger Jack" in today's world. But, as is discussed above the LA Dodgers have not been called the "Trolley Dodgers" for a very long time, yet the name is still listed in the infobox. "Nigger Jack" has virtually no currency. And yet it was what he was called from 1897-1918 (and, to a lesser extent, later). I don't see how that is undue weight.Mk5384 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One view: "Called" vs. "Is known as." - Various homosexual men are called "That Fucking Faggot" now, but none are known by that "nickname", and it doesn't belong in their articles now, nor will it ever in the future.- Sinneed 13:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true. However, General Pershing was both called, and known as, "Nigger Jack". Just as OberRanks made the example about President Obama earlier in this debate. I'm sure the president has been called that word. But I've never him heard called, or heard of instences of him being called, "Nigger Barry", or something of the sort. Someone may have called Rock Hudson "a fucking faggot", but I don't know of widespread use of that name for any man, gay or straight. It was the press that finally had to bowlderize the name. Of course, IMO, the fact that General Pershing was caucasian adds to the auspiciousness of his being known as "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have multiple reliable sources that document the nickname was given for a specific reason, then yes, you would include it in the article. WP:NOTCENSORED. Postoak (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We appear to be spiraling back into the same conversation and debate that has already been had over and over again. What this comes down to is two points of view here, both of which the other side is not happy with. That is to either a)display nicknames in the infobox or b)remove them entirely. Since it is clear that no amount of discussion will ever have one side or the other saying "I see now, you’re right, go ahead and add/remove them" we *must* come up with some kind of compromise or this will go on forever. It has been suggested that we state Nicknames: , or Nicknames: with 1 and 2 hyperlinks and "see below" a link to the article portion that explains these nicknames in full detail. If everyone can agree to that, then this is what we should make happen. I myself will be off Misplaced Pages for about 2 weeks starting tomorrow, so I will not be the one to make those changes, but someone else can. That is what I think we should do. -OberRanks (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I support that idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support also. Postoak (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not support it if it means not displaying the actual names. Guy has weighed in, with the opinion that "Nigger Jack" does not belong because that it is giving it undue weight. I disagree with that, but it is a different opinion for not including the name. Including it, but not displaying it, again comes down to WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the debate at this point should focus on whether "Nigger Jack" was widely known enough to warrant inclusion. If it is, then I see no valid reason for including it without displaying it. If it is not, then it is a moot point.Mk5384 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If we do agree that it merits inclusion, another possible solution (which I think may have been mentioned) is having a footnote, rather than just a link, next to "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, the entire point is that it is very clear, we will *never* reach agreement on either displaying the nicknames in their full form in the infobox or removing them entirely. Drawing a line in the sand like that only puts us back to the very first day of the debate. Having the infobox showing links to the material which is already covered in the article detracts nothing from the content, removes the "shock value" aspect, and also is not censored since the links are pointed directly to the cited information that has been mentioned. I think this is a good compromise and so do two other editors. Will you join us on this one? -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've enacted a test edit to show what this compromise would look like. As one can see, the nicknames are only a click away with the "See below" link. -OberRanks (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having a tough time with that one. It seems that the only reason that the nicknames are a click away, rather that right there, is to make the infobox appear less offensive.Mk5384 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MK: I think we all understand that if you removed them from the infobox, that would be your motivation. We are not you. This is not about you. It is not about us. It is about writing an encyclopedia. Please focus on the content, not on the motivations of other editors.

The wording does not belong because it was not, as I read the sources, a nickname, but an epithet, and does not belong in the infobox.- Sinneed 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the compromise version. Both nicknames are referenced in the body of the article. Neither BJ or NJ is given preferential treatment in the infobox. Postoak (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional nickname sources: Postoak (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said that there is a difference between not wanting it there because it gives undue weight, and not wanting it there because it is offensive and/or controversial. OberRanks says, just above, that keeping it out of the infobox "removes the shock value". Then a comment about my focusing on the motivations of other editors? The editor has clearly stated his motivation.Mk5384 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sineed, I'm not sure we're reading the same page here. OberRanks said that it shouldn't be there because leaving it out "removes the shock value". Then, I said, "OberRanks has said that it shouldn't be there because it 'removes the shock value". How is that my opinion of what he said, when I copied what he said?Mk5384 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you have stated your opinion of his motivation. OberRanks is doing the *same thing you are doing*, and you should both stop, and focus on the issues, if any.- Sinneed 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly am I doing? I suggested a compromise, two other editors completely agreed and I implemented the solution. I suggest we really move on away from this. Mk has actually acted very professional and didn't revert the change since there was a majority of editors who wanted it. -OberRanks (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest we really move on away from this." - over and over, I suggest you "really move on away from this".- Sinneed 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (added quotes) - - Sinneed 16:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your motivations are, you're welcome to them, but please refrain from telling other editors to get lost from an article. In this case though, it doesn't matter since I'm off on a trip for two weeks. We'll see what others come up with by then. -OberRanks (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::"please refrain from telling other editors to get lost from an article" - I have not seen this happen. Who did it, where?- Sinneed 16:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is the version that is going to be used, it dosen't make much sense to me to even include the word "nicknames" in the infobox.Mk5384 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that we have just links in the nickname section makes no sence. It might be a compromise but its one that that just looks daft (His nicknames were not 1 and 2). Multiple sources have been provided showing that this nickname was in use, and in nuse thruout the army. What more do you want? This now needs to be talken to arbitration in my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The compromise was "See Below". I also think an RFA would be a bit excessive here. Noone has really done anything warranting sanctions or anything like that. A mediation request was already turned down. -OberRanks (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The mediation request was turned down because all parties did not agree to it. As I have stated above, that does not mean that we can not try again. I would definately like to have another go at it. As OberRanks will be away for 2 weeks, I think we should wait that long, and then see if we can get it started once again. I do agree with Slatersteven here, but it's obvious that there are plenty who disagree with me, as well. To start any mediation at this point, would be, I feel, unfair to OberRanks, whom is certainly an interested party. We can still work this one out guys.Mk5384 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

A large chunk of text was just added by an anon, without a citation. However, in looking over the coverage on this individual I read or skimmed a large number of words. The wording of the addition sounds strikingly familiar. I have left it in, but am concerned that it is not a rewrite, but a copy. Not sure at all, though... - Sinneed 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The text appears to be substantially similar to the text of Battle of Hamel#American involvement, but without the footnotes included there which link to Bean's history, which can be found on-line here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Black Jack" Pershing

I would just like to mention again what I have stated previously, and that is that we are doing a disservice to everyone by leaving "Black Jack" out of the infobox. And as I have said, I do certainly appreciate the willingness to compromise by removing it as well as "Nigger Jack". But it dosen't make sense to me. Some editors, myself included believe that the name "Nigger Jack" should be in the infobox. But whilst I can't speak for anyone, I do think that everyone believes that "Black Jack" should be there. Leaving out "Black Jack" to make sure that "Nigger Jack" stays out seems like killing the host to make sure the parasite is dead. Would anyone have any objection if I were to return "Black Jack"?Mk5384 (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to having Black Jack . seems to me that no one has ever susgested that he was not know as (and widely known as Black Jack). It might be better if someone else did this in order to make sure that you are not blocked again.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As no objection has been raised I have takenb the liberty of alerting it to the above version.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. I think that I have done everything that I can to impress upon everyone that I have no intention of being disruptive or breaking any rules. I can't let fear of being blocked stop me from making appropriate edits in the future.Mk5384 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front?

As no one has had much to say here recently, I guess everyone is OK with it the way it is. It is still, in my opinion, not the best solution to this, but if everyone else is happy, I'm willing to move on.Mk5384 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

By the letter of the law, a case can be made for inclusion of both nicknames in the infobox and, should anyone wish to pursue it, they can re-file for mediation and go through the whole process. It is true that Misplaced Pages policy states we do not censor things so, in theory, there would be nothing wrong with showing it in the infobox. But, as has been said many…many times before, it is perhaps a very bad idea. Thinking on this subject, it would be as if, on the rape article, instead of that pretty oil painting that is now in the article, someone uploaded a big picture of a penis being rammed into a screaming woman’s – well, you know. Such an act could be defended by stating Misplaced Pages isn’t censored, the article is about rape, the picture is of someone being raped and (so long as the license on the photo is good) the photo would have every right to be displayed as an on-topic aid to the article but – would that really be wise. Kind of the same thing here. But, like I have said, a case could be made and if someone wants to pursue it I think that wouldn’t be a bad idea. -OberRanks (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still interested to know where others stand here. I suppose everyones' silence equals content, and if that's the case, then fine. But whether or not "Nigger Jack" is displayed in the infobox, it just dosen't look right to me the way that it is. Thoughts?Mk5384 (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the current situation lame. Instead of saying "other nicknames" (when there's only one "other nickname"), we could say "previously "Nigger Jack"" or something along those lines.

The current situation is structured around making sure the name "nigger jack" does not appear in the infobox, but fails to do it in a way that makes sense to me from an article-structure point of view.--Father Goose (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If further disputes exist, it might be best to refile for mediation, this time inviting only those who honestly wish to participate in it. Last time we had some people torpedo the effort by stating they wished for mediation, but then posted to the mediation page that they would not participate. If someone wants to refile, I would be open to that. -OberRanks (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, fair enough, fair enough. I've criticized and run -- that's a dickish thing to do. Unfortunately right now I can't devote my time to seeing this issue through. I would nonetheless like to state that I'm not especially happy with the "other names" approach -- it strikes me like keeping the "good nickname" on display but the "bad nickname" behind a curtain. But I'll have to return to the issue at another time.--Father Goose (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe both nicknames should be included in the infobox (or introduction, but I doubt they'll move back there, and I'm fine with that, though not with the motivations behind it), and the article should probably be put under protection. Both nicknames are notable; 'Nigger Jack' being the original nickname and likely the only one that would have been used within military circles during his lifetime, 'Black Jack' being what a journalist claimed was his nickname, which has since been popularised among the public and since his death. If anything, 'Nigger Jack' is more important to note than 'Black Jack', but that is hard to say. The only arguments I have seen against the original nickname's inclusion or increased 'visibility' are that some people might be offended by one of the words in the nickname, or that it is 'vile' or a 'slur'. Now, these would be perfectly valid arguments, all but for the fact they are not acknowledged as valid by Misplaced Pages policy. Infact, I'm pretty sure their use violates it, and 'as has been said many…many times before', Misplaced Pages is not censored. I've seen the relevance of this disputed, however, because (to paraphrase) the disputers do not wish to censor the whole article, just the infobox. There are probably a number of people in the world who would be/are offended by the images of women without veils over their faces displayed on Misplaced Pages, but I'm pretty sure that Misplaced Pages policy does not acknowledge this as grounds to remove those images or reduce their 'visibility'. A person could just as easily be offended by the inclusion of 'Jack' as 'Nigger' in the nickname, if they were raised and/or associated in a society where 'Jack' was seen in a similar way. If you think offended people editing the article might be an issue, as I said, the article should probably be protected. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to give free access to honest information; objectivity and neutrality are among Misplaced Pages's highest ideals.Kind Journalist (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I may have originally argued against including "Nigger Jack" in the infobox (don't remember which way I argued, and don't care to review the history atm), but over the past couple of weeks, my family and I have been watching Roots and Roots: The Next Generations. This pushes me in the direction of including it right up top after all. The phrasing I'd like to see is "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong info on "Nigger Jack"

I don't think that the reason he was called by that name is accurately described. General Pershing was constantly praising his black soldiers of the 10th calvary regiment, whilst belittling his white charges, and constantly telling them that they didn't measure up to his black soldiers. Pershing's black soldiers were the only ones who lived up to his high standards. It was because of this that the white soldiers under his command began calling him "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The way it's worded in the article currently sort of makes it out like some soldiers got mad and that was the first thing they could think of, then it indicates it's a reference to his service with 'the 10th cavalry' without really explaining what that means.Kind Journalist (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the pages of discussion previously held on this issue, I think its safe to assume that all of these angles have been discussed, rediscussed, and batted around from every angle. The current version is best described as a "cease fire" compromise. I would suggest we do NOT repeat all the debate points about why these nicknames should or should not be in the article. At this point, if there is any strong protest still remaining, it should be forwarded to mediation. -OberRanks (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks makes a good point about this subject having been debated from many (whilst not necessarily all) angles. However, I do think that some of those who were previously involved were just here to witness the car crash. Debating the matter again may indeed, prove to be fruitful. Fist of all, for the reason listed above. Secondly, as things got heated, we all perhaps became a tad over-zealous. All of us having taken some time away from the article, a fresh round of civil debate may just do the trick.Mk5384 (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This part of it has nothing to do with the compromise. I'm saying that the reasons given for the nickname seem to be incorrect. And to be honest, I have to accept a certain amount of blame, as far as that goes. I was so caught up in the drama, that I completely overlooked it. Whatever happens or doesn't happen as far as displaying the names, the correct reason for its inception should be used in the article. The information currently used is dubious at best, and to a degree, incorrect.Mk5384 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This particular point is valid, and not simply a rehash of the nigger-versus-black jack problem. More should be said about his favorable attitude toward black soldiers somewhere in the article -- this is important background regarding both nicknames, and of interest generally.

On a separate note, as I've said before, mediation is not a magic bullet. It requires all editors who are involved to be willing to discuss and compromise. If we can't accomplish that on this page, nothing magical will happen that will cause us to cooperate during mediation. If it's arbitration you're looking for, be aware that on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom only arbitrates conduct disputes, not content disputes. Since nobody here is acting inappropriately -- we just have a civil difference of opinion about how the article's content should be presented -- ArbCom would not take the case.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For the particular point of why he was called "Nigger Jack," I've reviewed the source listed and it only says the cadets called him that. It does not say why. I've inserted a "citation needed" on the "why?" phrase. Hopefully, this is simply a search for references; no need for escalation. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to say, "It does not say why"?Mk5384 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. Correcting. Thanks. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

It seems that we now have a good number of users in favor of "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)". Perhaps we can solve all of this now. Is anyone opposed to this?Mk5384 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think clear consensus was reached about that and that such a change will probably upset people. I don't personally plan to revert it, but it will probably be reverted. -OberRanks (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just asking if anyone opposes it. I don't care, nor should anyone else, about upsetting people. I'm not saying that to be crass; that's just the way it should be. If you take a look at the online petition, a whole lot of people are upset that Misplaced Pages displays images of Muhammad. The images have remained, because upset users is not a criterion to be used in something's addition or removal. If people have a problem with it because they feel that it decreases the quality of the article, then certainly we can discuss that.Mk5384 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't care about upsetting people? See Talk:Genesis creation myth and bring your argument there. Oh, I see you already brought the opposite argument there. You are against the title because it offends you personally. You care to qualify that statement? Auntie E. (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That is both incorrect and unrelated.Mk5384 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose suggested the compromise proposal of "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)". This has been supported by MK5384 (me), Postoak, Slatersteven, SarekOfVulcan, and Kind Journalist. Does anyone oppose this?Mk5384 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has now been unopposed for 3 days. If it remains unopposed, come Monday, I will make the change. We have a good number of editors in favor of this version, and, so far, none opposed. That seems like consensus to me. Again, if anyone is opposed to this, please let me know. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to that change since I feel there are major unresolved issues with this. Although, if such a change is made, I do not plan to revert it. -OberRanks (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what we can do to work through this. What are those major issues?Mk5384 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The unresolved issues appear to be mainly with other editors. I would recommend giving this a week at least - maybe even two weeks or, if you wanted a rock solid case - a month. Then you could very clearly state that you opened the floor for several weeks and no-one protested. If, however, you make the change after only three days, there could be cries that this was too soon and that a deliberate attempt was made to push it through quickly so there wouldn't be enough time for anyone with a serious point to voice it. We've seen this before on several WP:FAC cases, where a group of editors while get together, all vote "Support" in a 24-48 hour time period, and then ask an admin to quickly endorse it. I stress I do NOT believe that this is what is being attempted here - only that other users could see it that way. -OberRanks (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's 2 weeks or a month, I couldn't say that no one's opposed it, as you have already opposed it. If your reason for opposal, however, is other editors, you do appear to be the lone dissenter here. Others who were opposed to it seem to have gone away, or changed their votes. This is not an FAC, and there has certainly been nothing quick about this. It has, in fact, been several weeks since the article was unprotected. Right now, we have 6 in favour, and 1 opposed, and your reason for opposal is "unresolved issues with other editors", which I don't see here. I don't think that the floor needs to be opened for another several weeks, and I don't think that it's necessary that "no one protests". If we have consensus, there's no need for it to be unanimous. Furthermore, if it is changed, and someone disagrees, they can always change it themselves, per BRD.Mk5384 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There were at least 5 or 6 editors who voiced very strongly before that they were opposed to putting the word "nigger" in the infobox. There is no requirement to contact them over a talk page discussion (unlike a formal process such as AFD or Mediation); however, if this is inserted so soon after such a major dispute then we will have reverts and we are back to where we started. Also, is there really any harm in waiting? Even giving it a week is better than 72 hours - some users don't check the site often. Like I said, I don't plan to revert it and some of the others, like Bugs, might have departed with a loss of interest in this article. So, it might be okay, but I have a sneaky suspicion that the minute it goes back in someone will arrive to revert it. -OberRanks (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And they're more than welcome to revert it. This is Misplaced Pages, not Soviet Russia! I'm not stating, by any means, that I propose that no one be allowed to revert me. My point is, that the people who opposed it, are, at this point, not posting on this page, or, as in the case of SarekOfVulcan, changed their votes. If anyone is opposed, they have had plenty of time to voice and support their opposal. And, again, if someone does come in and revert it, I'm OK with that. If it is reverted with no explanation, that's one thing. But if it's reverted in the spirit of BRD, then that can only help us move forward. If you feel more comfortable with a week, then I have no problem waiting a week.Mk5384 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I also wish to stress that being opposed to putting the word "nigger" in the info box, does not hold weight here. If they have a reason that it dosen't belong there, then we can absolutely discuss.Mk5384 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people do get fed up with the endless circular discussion but the issue is not with them not being here but the issue is the endless repeated discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something Mk5384 said recently about incendiary terms on the wiki:

"This is a debate that surely will not cease as long as the word "myth" remains. Is it really absolutely necessary? Yes, I know that "creation myth" is a scholarly term and it is not the same as "myth". It is nonetheless always going to be seen as somewhat incendiary to certain people; particularly observant Jews and Christians. On one hand the term "creation myth" can be viewed as linguisticly correct, and therefore has every right to be used. On the other, leaving it in place is certain to provide debate, reverts, edit wars, and perhaps even vandalism ad infinitum. My opinion is that for the greater good of Misplaced Pages in general, the word myth should not be used here."Mk5384 (talk) 3:32 am, 17 February 2010, Wednesday (2 months, 7 days ago) (UTC−6)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Genesis_creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=344583238

Now, substitute the word "nigger" for myth above, and consider that argument. How can you have two completely different opinions about censorship? I don't see how myself. Auntie E. (talk) Readded on 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That is deliberately misleading, and has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Interesting substitute: "Genesis Creation nigger", and "myth Jack". We can discuss it on my talk page, or yours, if you wish. However, I am not going to debate "Genesis Creation myth" on the John Pershing talk page. Apples and oranges!!Mk5384 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes , this has been endlessly discussed and the solution that is in the article is totally acceptable as per the discussion, there was no consensus to include the nigger nickname in the infobox, so no consensus to include and off to the next article to improve. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between the two examples. Both include a controversial word in a prominent place. The arguments used in favor and against are pretty much identical. Anyone on this page please review Talk:Genesis creation myth for a similar discussion. I honestly can't think of a better analogy that exists on this wiki. Heck, the discussion on that page actually turned me a little pro-censorship, and it was the anti-mythers side (which you support) that did so. Auntie E. (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference, toots, then I can't help you. Openly stating that you are "pro-censorship" will make your case to revert all the weaker.Mk5384 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed, consensus. Even if both of you are formally against, (which neither of you have stated) that would still make it 6 to 3, in favour of including his nickname in the infobox. If someone wants to revert and discuss, then fine.Mk5384 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think it's helpful for you to condescend to me with namecalling? You seem to be trying to bait me. I don't appreciate it. Auntie E. (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? What namecalling?Mk5384 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Toots." Auntie E. (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all just the tedious, tiresome, circular discussion on this talkpage. The discussion before editors got bored and went to sleep was against inclusion. What a waste time all this to add nigger jack in the infobox, if it wasn't so funny it would be really sad.Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have shown below, there is consensus. Still, I'm waiting to see what others have to say.Mk5384 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User Text

Just to note it here, I removed the entire post by Aunt Entropy that discussed my posts on the talk page at "Genesis Creation myth". It was misleading, and in no way germane to this conversation, and did not belong here.Mk5384 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, unless the post is completely off-topic or contains vandalism, you should not ever remove another user's talk page comments. The original post should stay (I did some minor syntax changes to prevent a screen error with the web link) -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is completely off topic, and it does not belong here, archived or not.Mk5384 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the admins to look into it since this is now causing an edit war on the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that they do. It never should have been here.Mk5384 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As of now

As of now, we have 6 5 users; Father Goose (the proposer), me, Slatersteven, Postoak, Kind Journalist, and SarekOfVulcan, in favour of: Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack). Opposed, we have 3; OberRanks, who has, at least, attempted to discuss it, Off2riorob, who has simply said, "off to the next article", and Auntie E., who has openly stated that she is "pro-censorship". Let's see what happens over the next week.Mk5384 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, this repeated, I am not going away until I get the consensus I want is tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to stick around. And if you do get the consensus you want, (whilst unlikely) more power to you.Mk5384 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus and there never has been. The version that is in the article right now was a compromise worked out after weeks of discussion. The strategy here appears to be returning to the original argument and repeating it as many times as necessary until an appearance can be concocted that somehow there is now a "new" consensus. This is misleading and not the case. One also has to wonder why there is such a never-ending campaign to insist on including this vulgar name in the info box when the material is already spoken of in the article. At this point, this is a pretty sad situation. I will not be the one to revert this material if it is restored, but it will almost certainly be reverted. -OberRanks (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It remains a mystery as to why Mk5384 is so obsessed with this, but these things happen. I've seen edit warriors drag things out for years on wikipedia, including after they've been indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not openly "pro-censorship", only when the racket gets so intense that it shows that ignorance will prevail despite what is correct. On the creation myth page, it has been shown that the title would not edify despite what the dictionary says. I'm disappointed that a perfectly fitting word is being discarded, but you can't stop the English language. But if you have consensus, go for it. Although you missed Sineed and Baseball Bugs being against. And I think Kind Journalist is a driveby SPA whose opinion should be given due weight. If you want my vote, you got it. I am anti-censorship in this case. Just think about what I said, and I hope you promote your anti-censorship ideas in more areas of the wiki than just this one. Auntie E. (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page, I don't see where User:Postoak all of sudden starting supporting MKs new position. In fact, the last line I could find that Postoak wrote was "I support the compromise version" which is what is in the article now . It is true that Postoak originally wanted the name in the article, but later agreed to the compromise; probably should let PO post for himself if he supports this "new" consensus. And as for Kind Journalist, I am totally with Auntie E. on that one- it appears to be a single purpose account which made an edit to support this new position and then never was heard from again; users are welcome to draw what conclusions they want from that. No, very clearly, there is no consensus here and this most recent "vote" can not be called any sort of new agreement reached by all users concerned. -OberRanks (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Here also is the last recorded edit of User:Slatersteven ; again, going with the compromise that was reached and not appearing since then to endorse this new consensus vote, of which MK states 6 editors are a part of. It looks like the only user who really joined in with this was Sarek, who stated the nickname was okay after watching "Roots" (which I can respect). -OberRanks (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Mid-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• Unassessed Missouri articles
• Unknown-importance Missouri articles