Jump to content

Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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. Durova412 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 [1]. 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 What's up, Doc? 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)

A mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia: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: [1], [2]. 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 [1] 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[1], Nigger Jack[2], with the notes explaining the names. Nicknames [1],[2], 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[1], Nigger Jack[2] 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[1], Nigger Jack[2]". 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[1],Nigger Jack[2]. 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[1],Nigger Jack[2]. 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: [1], [2] or Nicknames: [See Below] 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 Wikipedia 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: [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 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[15]. --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 [other nicknames]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. Infact, I'm pretty sure their use violates it, and 'as has been said many…many times before', Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia's purpose is to give free access to honest information; objectivity and neutrality are among Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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)

I think there is a clear difference between the two. Pershing apparently originally got the nickname because he favored his black soldiers over his white ones. It's a historical fact (going from the cites presented here) that "Nigger Jack" was the original form of his better known nickname, so it makes sense to present them both -- otherwise, you lose important context. As far as "creation myth" goes, it essentially says that many Wikipedia editors have mythology at the heart of their religious beliefs. I understand the argument that "creation myth" is a term of art in the field and doesn't necessarily mean what I've stated above, but it's very easy to read it that way. (That said, as far as I'm concerned, "God took 144 hours to create the universe and then kicked back for 24" is mythology any way you slice it.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The word 'myth', although it has many meanings, can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious legend. Whether Genesis is fictitious/incorrect or otherwise is a matter of your point of view. As Wikipedia is neutral and objective, documenting notable point of views but not presenting them as fact, it would be best to avoid calling the creation story of Genesis a myth, seeing as that word can be interpreted as meaning a fictitious story. While I can't speak for Mk5384's motives, I do not believe he/she is necessarily inconsistent here, but even if he/she was, that wouldn't make any of his/her points on the Pershing article any less or more correct. With that out of the way, WP:TPG; this talk page is for the discussion of the improvement of the Pershing article, not for the discussion of other articles or user conduct.Kind Journalist (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As of now

As of now, we have 5 users; Father Goose (the proposer), me, Slatersteven, 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 What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is edit warring. I haven't edited the article in weeks. Stop trying to stir the pot, Bugs, and stop the personal attacks.Mk5384 (talk) 08:39, 26 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 [16]. 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 [17]; 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)
A 2 to 1 ratio is, indeed, consensus. You can say, "there is no consensus and there never has been" till you're blue in the face. The evidence is right here. Also, I did not miss Sineed and Bugs being against. Both of them have said that they were done with this article. As far as Kind Journalist, I have no idea what the situation is. Auntie E thinks it's an SPA, and maybe it is. But OberRanks' opinion of the account must be summarily ignored. OberRanks' latest nonsense is, "I am totally with Auntie E on this one", as that's what sounds good to him at the moment- that's not what he had to say about it earlier. Usama bin Laden could come here, and post against the inclusion of "Nigger Jack", and OberRanks would run to kiss his ass.Mk5384 (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Since we've now ventured into breaking WP:CIV and WP:NPA, stating I will "kiss Usama bin Laden's ass" (highly insulting since I served a tour in the Middle East as part of Operation Enduring Freedom) it is pretty clear that you will say or do anything to get your views back into this article. We've seen also that includes misrepresenting the views of other editors since edit history has shown that neither Postoak or Slatersteven supported this new "vote". As I said before, you can reinsert this back into the article, but it will be reverted. -OberRanks (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I am unclear as to your position, Auntie E. You have said that you are anti-censorship in this case, but you have said a number of things here, and as I was incorrect about your position on another page, perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that you favour the proposal of: Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack), or are you in favour of some other version? Mk5384 (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say this has gone on long enough. It is clear MK will say or do anything to get these views into the article including lie about the positions of other editors and commit personal attacks. I've reported this entire affair here. I don't plan to engage in this discussion any more since its clear where this is leading. -OberRanks (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is just OberRanks' latest nonsense. Please disregard.Mk5384 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Final comment on this - Disregarding the views of other editors seems to be a common thing here. At this stage, the inclusion of this nickname is a bad idea, but I do not plan to revert it. I will say that there is no consensus here. Slatersteven needs to be taken off the above "list" since nowhere did that user ever state they were in support of this new compromise. Like I said before, the last recorded edit of Slate was this [[18]. Kind Journalist, while perhaps not a sockpuppet, is an obvious single purpose account. As for me, I'm neutral at this stage. My main concern is the growing editor misrepresentation and personal attacks that have taken over this discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose this, so you can add my name to that list. It's a detail that's explained in the article. The public knew him as "Black Jack". That, along with a footnote, is the way to handle it in the infobox, if it even needs to be there given that the article explains it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose it too. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We can all be certain that that will not be OberRanks' final comment. Bugs, too, has reversed himself, after saying that he wanted no more to do with the article. I suppose I'll drop this for the moment, as the others who supported "Nigger Jack" are currently not posting, and the pro-censorship folks have rushed to OberRanks' defence. This is, after all, Wikipedia. If it's OK to say that Seigenthaler killed JFK, I suppose it's OK to pretend that the good general was never known by such a nasty name.Mk5384 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
He was not widely known by that name. This issue has already been settled, and you keep pushing it, for reasons known only to yourself. You need to stop this now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Anonimity is, I suppose, a big part of Wikipedia. For all I know, Bugs may be a supercentarian who was alive during General Pershing's time, and knows exactly how he was known. But it's unlikely. The fact of the matter is, that he was not widely known as "Black Jack", and was only widely known as "Nigger Jack". At the outset of World War I (21 years after he became known as "Nigger Jack"), the press dubbed him "Black Jack". Because it is no longer acceptable to say "nigger", he is now "widely" known as Black Jack. During his lifetime, he was not. Pretending that "the issue has already been settled", and that " I need to stop this now" is extremely childish.Mk5384 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the article is not a 'compromise'. It is simply the way the opposition wants it. Even if it were some manner of compromise, we are not here to make a compromise between following Wikipedia policy and violating it. We are here to document information in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If we won't agree, we require mediation. General John J. Pershing was known (it is not known by me how widely) originally, and within the military during his lifetime, by the original nickname. I don't believe there is any Wikipedia policy suggesting that information is less notable if it may be less 'widely known' by laymen. If Vanilla Ice's birthname is notable enough to be in the introduction of his article, you can bet 'Nigger Jack', Pershing's actual and original nickname, which is the origin of the later conceived euphemism which is mentioned in the infobox, is notable enough to be at least in the infobox with it, if not in the introduction. As for the depiction of Mk5384 as some lone madman, hellbent on getting some dirty word into the top of the article, there are many others who agree, and my points have been made here and elsewhere on the talk page.Kind Journalist (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If articles of this nature rate an "Infobox", and a nickname is warranted, then it should be accurate. That, would be encyclopedic. Excessively Brief (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That source only indicates he was called N-Jack at West Point. That's a given. Show us a source that demonstrates he was widely known as N-Jack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New and radical thought

Because the nickname at issue might be construed as derogatory without full context, why not remove all nicknames from the infobox and simply rely on the reader to read the article for any full discussion of the topic? Collect (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was suggested long ago and is actually a very good idea. For some reason, which is the heart of this problem, there has been this crusade like idea by some users that we must have this material displayed in the infobox. It would indeed by a wonderful solution to just cut-out the nicknames section entirely and have this in the text of the article where it can be clearly understood. -OberRanks (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
Logically, it works. It's neutral. The only reason I didn't mention it before is that I believe it is a pussy move made to pacify the knee-jerk reaction. It's not like I believe strongly that the nicknames are so notable that they must be in the infobox or introduction. Just that they are equally notable, or the original is more so. It comes down to a choice between WP:DGAF and WP:BOLD. Which is more important? [EDIT: It would require that the nicknames and their origins be more adequately explained within the text of the article, though.]Kind Journalist (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen, OberRanks was not completely honest about his final post. It is not a good idea at all. It is removing the "good" one to make sure the "bad" one stays out. Killing the host to make sure the parasite is dead is not going to solve anything.Mk5384 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You were advised on ANI to drop it, and you can't. You're obsessed with this issue, and if you keep down this path you will blocked, guaranteed. Pershing was only widely known as "Black Jack", not the other one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You can say that as many times as you want. It will not make it true.Mk5384 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to provide any evidence that he was "widely known" as N-Jack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I've reported you for the "he lied" personal attack and asked them to do something about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
For the love of Christ, grow up.Mk5384 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well MK, I never stated I would never post on the talk page again. I stated my comment above was the final comment regarding MK's new "proposal" and the new "consensus" (which it is). This is a new post started by a new user and I voiced the same view that most of us had weeks ago. I am also with Bugs about all of this, this is getting very tedious, very old, and is heading for blocks and/or a subject ban. At this point, mediation or arbitration would seem the only answer since MK has adopted a policy of repeating the same arguments as many times as possible, over and over again, mixed in with half truths and personal attacks, until this user gets his way. -OberRanks (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Not my proposal. This was Father Goose's proposal. Despite the fact that it is mentioned numerous times whom the proposer was, OberRanks has continued to lie about it.Mk5384 (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're with Bugs. You're immediately with any editor who is against me. And now, we're back to the nonsense about blocks; this time, with a "subject block" thrown in for good measure. Anything to make sure that that horrible, horrible word never appears in your precious info box.Mk5384 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And why are you so obsessed with making sure it does appear? You can't cite any information that it was a widely known nickname. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No fewer than 62 sources have been cited, all of which, you have ignored. Whilst you claim that I am obsessed with making it happen, it is my claim that you, and others, are obsessed with making sure it does not happen.Mk5384 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Show me a source that indicates he was widely known as N-Jack, and by "widely known" I mean outside of West Point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
How is removal from the infobox doing anything of the sort? Collect (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I never said he was widely known as "N-Jack". I said he was widely known as "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to interrupt, but I've been following this discussion as a lurker for a while, and it does seem to me that not listing any nicknames in the infobox makes the most sense. Clearly the issue is controversial and would be better treated in context and at length with good sourcing. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, The facts are just that. If consensus is to include a nickname, it should be "the" nickname that was given, not a politically correct substitute. Excessively Brief (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He was not widely known as "N-Jack". That would be like trying to have Babe Ruth's primary nickname be "Jedge". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am coming from WP:ANI. Having browsed this talk page I see that once again WP:NOTCENSORED is being misunderstood. The N word in 2010 is totally different from the same word as used 100 years ago, and we should make the obvious editorial decision that the nickname of a general is utterly unnecessary in an infobox. The strenuous arguments above for the inclusion of the nickname show a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose (this is not the place to parade 100-year old insensitivity). Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

+1 on Johnuniq's comments. I do not think there is any doubt that there are two nicknames that could be used, the argument has been over which is appropriate or acceptable. Clearly the issue warrants discussion--hardly this much, but some. Collect has suggested no nicknames in the infobox, some of us have agreed with that thought. That is the topic of this section, could we confine discussion to that whether that is acceptable, and seek to achieve consensus? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a huge need for the nickname in the infobox, since it's right there in the first paragraph. "N-Jack" is not acceptable, not for what it is, but for the fact it was not widely known. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with JohnnyQ as well. Have been semi following this drama at ANI for what feels like months, not sure exactly how long it's been going on. I thought sanity would prevailled long ago and the unacceptable almost unknown nickname would have been ruled out for the info box. If this is an attempt at gaining concensus, put me down as voting Hell No for its inclusion in the infobox. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely seeing a pattern here where several users have come out of the woodwork and have suggested a dead-on compromise by removing the entire nickname section from the infobox. To solve this situation and to prevent it from flaring any further, I strongly suggest this is what we should do. This is now the fourth time this has been discussed and, at this stage, all of our discussions and votes are being contaminated by the possible inserting of meatpuppets into this conversation. Its time to put an end to this. -OberRanks (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Excessively Brief (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Plant some pretty flowers; pretend that horrible word was never used; pretend the British never got involved in the slave trade; pretend there was no slavery in America; pretend there was no War Between the States; pretend John Pershing was not widely known as "Nigger Jack"; pretend Wikipedia is not censored. Congratulations!! Just whitewash history, and it will surely go away.Mk5384 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not censored, its in the body of the article. Censorship and white washing is when it isnt mentioned at all, not when you cant repeat it ad infinitum.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure it isn't. And the moon's made of green cheese, too. You win!! You win!! You win!! I surrender.Mk5384 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If both nicknames were removed from the infobox, I would not oppose it. But I feel that I should warn anyone that may take part in this change. Decide wisely. Removing both names from the infobox is neutral, and logically acceptable. But it's a pussy move. Sure, it's not a big deal to have the nicknames in the infobox. But it's not a big deal to remove them, either. If that idea scares you, question your motives. Lie to us all you want, but please don't to yourself. Pussyism is a very slippery slope. Make the crowd pleasing decision, it seems like you're not sacrificing much, but it's just the first step down the dark path. Give into temptation and you risk stifling boldness, stifling the spirit of creativity and freedom. The next time, it won't seem like a big deal to sacrifice a little more. And then a little more the time after that. Nurture and enjoy your ability to think while you're still as in touch with it as you are now. Wikipedia is the battleground on which the war for your soul is fought; make peace with yourself.Kind Journalist (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with "pussyism" as you so delicately put it. He's more widely known as Black Jack, although it ultimately originated from Nigger Jack. Both of which are noted in the body of the text. If one goes in the infobox at all, it should be the one more widely known. Not the other. Just becausde we can put something there for shock value, doesn't mean we should. With democracy, freedom and boldness, also comes the resposibility to use it wisely. It's still in the article, it's not as if it's being "whitewashed" from the article as MK so strenously believes. What next if we opt for duplicating a little known version of the nickname in the info box for shock value, rename the whole article? I heard some pretty harsh names for Bush while he was in office and plenty more for Obama now, can we add those? Yours is the slippery slope, into slipshod shenanigans in the name of free speech and democracy. Wikipedia is not a Democracy, there's an essay or some such you can look for, explains it all. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, note that we are not here to advocate for some spurious free speech movement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, removing both names is assinine. No one has contested "Black Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see no justification for removing Black Jack, it should be re-instated. U&nless an objection is raised I will do so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The objection is made. Collect (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
On what grounds may I ask?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, Slate, there are no grounds. Once again, a clear cut case of I don't like it.Mk5384 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should the nickname "Nigger Jack" appear in the infobox?

Should the name "Nigger Jack" appear in the infobox of the article? –xenotalk 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (Disclosure: Past participants notified [19]) –xenotalk 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • No - Not widely known; undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes As I mentioned above, I think that if his better-known nickname, "Black Jack" is included, "Nigger Jack" should be shown as the original form of the nickname -- it gets the derivation across quickly. However, I don't really agree with the action of removing both nicknames as a compromise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No - The information is covered in the text of the article and requires a detailed historical context to fully understand why he was called by this names. To display the name out of context in the infobox causes great misunderstanding and makes the article a target for constant reverts and edit wars. -OberRanks (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No Why deliberately use an offensive ethnic slur when he was commonly known as Black Jack Pershing? I have never heard him referred to by any other name. I think we should just keep Black Jack in the infobox and leave out the other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I do not think it would take historical context; people know that in earlier times the use of that word was not uncommon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Its true it was (and appears to have been widely used enough for the press to know of it and want to change it (and to come up with stories as to how he got it, the aforementioned context) the name by which he was known within the US army prior to about 1917. Its also true to say that it is not the one he is widley known by today (becasue of the above mentioned press activites). So I would argue that it should be there (after all what is an encyclopdia for if not to impart knowledge?). As to it being offensive, I was not aware that censorship was a valid reason for exclusion, moreover the fact that edds have never heard of it does not make it unkown or unused.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If (as some are claiming) he was widely known by this name then to lerave it out of the lead is censoring the lead so as not to be offensive.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No - That the nickname *may* have originated with the epithet does not make it his nickname: the/a name he was known by. My only concern with leaving NJ out is that there may be regional variation: one poster had heard only the appellation "nigger jack" and thought the "black jack" was spurious, while I only learned "black jack" in school. I am sympathetic to the concerns that this might b either "whitewashing" or "political correctness gone wild" or such, but I don't agree, in this specific case: that certainly isn't my objection.- Sinneed 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No There is no need, in fact, for any nicknames to be in an infobox. In the case at hand, the value of the name in the infobox is negated by connotations, and is better handled in the corpus of the article, where it currently resides. Collect (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC).
    • 'NOTE I have a large encyclopedia set from 1959, which has a page and a half of detailed information about Pershing, and never once mentions anything about a nickname. So maybe neither one should be in the infobox after all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • My 1917-1922 World Book also has no nickname mention... but I am not sure that is germane.- Sinneed 16:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • 'NOTE I have a copy of The great Pursuit, it has Black Jack as his nickname. Also Life (1948) says he was known as black Jack by his men (the artciel is in the way of an orbit). An artciel in the rotarian (1920) calls him by the same name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No - As Bugs: Not widely known & undue weight. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, per Collect's reasoning. No need for unnecessary controversy. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No it should not. His widely known nickname was and is "Black Jack." No need for either nickname in the infobox, but wouldn't care about black jack.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes That it changed from "Nigger Jack" is significant, so the original belongs. Also, not using it has a whiff of revisionism TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:03 & TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No-Not widely known, Undue weight, and is included in text. Would be fine with having Black Jack returned to info box, as he became widely known by that nickname. As I've stated above somewhere, it's not whitewashing if it's still in the article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No Undue weight, unnecessarily offensive. Fairly obvious. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Undecided Both nicknames should be given equal documentation. Supposed 'offensiveness' is not recognised by Wikipedia. Consensus only holds as much water as the consensus in question. As Mk5384 said, many people are offended by the depictions of the Prophet Muhammad displayed on Wikipedia. Actually, the Muhammad article is currently deemed a WP:good article, while it is still highly controversial, much more than the Pershing article could hope to be. The argument that it wasn't his actual nickname at all, but a lot of people didn't know that, shouldn't be treated as valid. If both nicknames are removed from the infobox, I will not oppose it, because I'm not confident that they're super notable. But we all know that's not why it would be removed. While I don't feel strongly about their notability, I'm not interested in pacifying the biased, either. As long as both nicknames are treated equally, I WP:DGAF.Kind Journalist (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • They're not equal. "Black Jack" is widely known, the other is not, and it's not wikipedia's place to try to "change" that fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Exactly. It's not about pacifying the biased, the info is still in the article. Its about not giving undue weight to a little known nickname so we can have Nigger in an info box. The only anywhere near valid reason thats been offered for its inclusion is WP:NOTCENSORED, and that falls flat because it's still in the article, just not in the infobox. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No. It's undue weight. Black jack, maybe, as this was very much more widely used, but the present discussion of the origin of that name is quite sufficient. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes It was his primary nickname. "Black Jack" was a bowlderized version of it, and it was not how he was widely known.Mk5384 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Already provided 62 of them.Mk5384 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please list even one that indicates it was "widely known". And being known at West Point does not qualify, sorry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Mk has been stating this number 62 for quite some time; however the article itself only has 20 reference notes - I am unsure exactly where this number comes from. I am certain that there are references out there which state the name "Nigger Jack" and I would even say one could indeed find 62 sources that say this. But, what percentage of the total Pershing literature is this? 1% 2%? It is indeed the scope that counts. Saying "62 sources" means little without stating what they are, where they came from, are they accredited, and of what percentage of the total Pershing literature do they consist. -OberRanks (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
MK, why do you willfully misunderstand the question put to you, by several of us now? No one is arguing the sources do not exist for the use of the name, I want a cite that says it was widely used outside of West Point. Your "62" don't matter otherwise. Do you have one? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, you and Bugs,and the like seem to think that it is up to you to decide what sources count. Wikipedia has an article that is, quite appropriately titled "Criticisms of Wikipedia". One of these criticisms is that "consensus" trumps truth. No matter what the facts, if a phalanx of users gang up, and pretend that something is not true, then that is how it is recorded here. Please also note, the numerous users here, who have supported inclusion. Of course, I have gotten no apology from those who have, in a manner most silly, said that I am the only one who feels this way. Let me guess- there all socks, right?Mk5384 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No one is pretending the name wasn't true and no one is arguing to remove it completely from the article. In fact almost everyone seems to think it should be included in the body of the text. I'm also not arguing for concensus to rule all. I think it doesn't belong in the infobox because it wasn't a widely used name and including it in an info box for shits and giggles is WP:UNDUE. I never accused you of having a sock or meatpuppet, didn't and don't think you did, so don't expect an apology from me on that point. Now, can you provide citations that would prevail against WP:UNDUE? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time back, there was another editor who had found 62 links on the subject, presumably by Googling it. Trouble is, they were all really the same info, copycatted, and saying that he was called N-Jack at West Point and "later" (when and where not specified) this was changed to "Black Jack". If it was only known at West Point, that does not constitute "broadly". George "Babe" Ruth was known as "Jedge" or "Jidge" to his teammates, but that doesn't make it a "common" nickname. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess we could always settle this wiht a fight... Guy (Help!) 05:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
HAHAHAHAHAHA...lol, nice. Thanks for the giggle. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Whatever has been verified as being historically true, which appears to be both something that doesn't appear satisfactorily concluded before this vote was taken. I propose selecting each only only based on their historical accuracy, without any kind of 'offensive' or 'WP:SNOTCENSOREDSOIKEEPTELLINGYOU' coming in to it, IMO. SGGH ping! 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No Whatever is historically verified (and useful) should be in the article. An infobox is a blunt instrument; the issue is properly covered in the article. The UNDUE argument presented above also shows that "no" is the appropriate response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Drop Nickname from infobox. Excessively Brief (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (User blocked as sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
  • No - Dropping "nickname" from the infobox is a silly solution, which does a disservice to the article. What's next, will we remove "Vinegar Joe" from Stillwell's article, "Hap" from Armold's, or "Ike" from his? When a military leader gets a nickname that the general public latches onto, it becomes part of his identity, and "Black Jack Pershing" is most certainly his identity. Both the lede and the infobox should carry "Black Jack", the only nickname by which Pershing was known to the general public and to posterity, with an explanatory footnote giving the etymology of the name. That's all that is really needed. "Nigger Jack" makes for an interesting footnote, but it's hardly a major issue, and certainly not important enough to have generated this amount of brouhaha. It should be in the article, but not in any major way, and certainly not with the prominence that going into the infobox would give it. Again, though, removing "Black Jack" from the lede and the infobox is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No - "Nigger Jack" ? Ridiculous, this was a minor pejorative, not something widely-known or used. Certainly not to the extent that necessitates inclusion in an infobox of all places. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The nickname "Black Jack" should be in the infobox and the lede since that is the name he is most known by. The "Nigger Jack" nickname should be discussed in the prose. Adding the little known nickname to the lede and infobox gives undue weight to the name. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Side discussions

You've already expressed your opinion in this RfC, as well as elsewhere on this page and at AN/I, so probably it would be best if you cease making this kind of comment here -- it's inappropriate and only leads to more bad feelings and hardening of positions. So, I suggest that you refrain from commenting again, unless you've got something positive and original to say, or are responding to a direct question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your point, but please try to understand mine. An outright lie was told, in an effort to bolster a false accusation against me. Why don't I have the right to point that out here?Mk5384 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is the last recorded edit by Slatersteven prior to this new vote [20]. In that edit, he supported the consensus version which was in the article as part of the last compromise proposal. The fact that Slav now wishes to state a new opinion has nothing to do with what he stated before which is what I was referring to before this vote was taken. Glad we cleared that up. -OberRanks (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As a neutral party with no stake in you two's "tiff", in the interest of getting the matter at hand settled, I'd like to politiely ask you both to refrain from commenting to and on each other, at least until the matter at hand is conluded. I think your feelings for each other are having a detrimental effect on this discussion. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a wonderful idea and I agree. I do hope the above edit was not seen as directed towards MK. I was honestly answering the question about Slavs earlier support. He did support the compromise version, now supports something different. Good for him, we're all welcome to change our minds. -OberRanks (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It was directed equally towards you both, and to anyone else who finds themselves spending more time commenting on other editors than on the matter at hand. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, directly misleading. That was in response to my proposal to put "Black Jack" back, whilst the other was being debated. He did not support that version. Why is OberRanks permitted to continuously lie here? Look at that edit. It's just not true. Lies are being told, and then repeated about me, and I don't appreciate it.Mk5384 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As the subject of this perhaps I should make my position clear. I voted for the compromise as a compromise, an attempt to end this dispute.I was not entirely happy with it buit felt it was the only way forward. This new vote is unrelated to that and makes no mention of the compromise (which I would still be happy with, if it will stop the fighting) I assumed this vote its about (as the articel does at the moment) the lead containing no referance whatsoever to Nigger jack (even as a foot note or link). It is this I oppose totaly. I have not changed my vote, as this is a new vote on an old subject I will approach it in the same way. A proccess of negotiation untill we come to a compromise that everyone accepts (even if no one is happy with it). Nor do I see why this is needed as I thought we had reached a compromise. I now this that this was started up again by an apparent attempt to remove Black Jack, despite a compromise being reached for its inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the RFC that is the parent section of this subsection, no, it wasn't started because of an attempt to remove Black Jack. It was started because of a proposal to change it to "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)", and a disagreement as to whether this had consensus. The current RFC is worded quite plainly, and only covers "Nigger Jack" and doesn't speak to whether Black Jack should be included in the infobox or not. –xenotalk 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me I should have said the latest edit war that this RFC seems to be the result of seems to have been started by an attempt to remove Black Jack against the compromise I agreed to. I also did not see anything about your text ("Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)")in the opening of this RFC, and so associated with the discusion imidiatly above it (which seems to be the cause of this current edit war). Also as it seemed that the compromise had in fact been rejected I saw it as only fair to vote on what was being susgested, independaly of a rejected compromise, as if it was a new vote irrespective of previous agreements. Now if we can return to the origional compromise I will support that, but not the absolute removal of all referance to Nigger Jack.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The RFC specifically addresses the infobox only. Nigger Jack (presumably, unless editorial consensus were achieved otherwise) would still be in the body. –xenotalk 14:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Again I appoligise for not making my self clear I of course meant all referance to Nigger jack in the info box. Now this may not be what is intended, but it seems to me reading then responses that this is indeed what some Edds intend the result of this to be (and it seems to me was the cause of this RFC).Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of those whose only concern is expresssing an opinion in this RfC, I've moved this side discussion into a sub-section, and urge that it remain there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take a big reconciliation step here and sequester myself from this article until after July 4th of this year. That's over two and a half months away and by then most of this will have blown over. The vote is going fine and I'm sure everything will work out. MK is becoming a little bit too fascinated with me for everyone's good. The most recent horse to ride are increasing statements that I am lying about being a member of the United States military which i find very distasteful and personally insulting. So, sorry this is off topic, but I wanted to advise everyone where I was headed off to. See everybody after Independence Day! -OberRanks (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Note, that it is I becoming fascinated with him; not the opposite, of course. It's never his fault.Mk5384 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up. The fact that I have been exonorated at the SPI, and no action is being taken against those who falsely accused me proves what a joke this is. You're right, indeed. Nigger Jack was not known as Nigger Jack. I'm through with this. 2+2=5, Winston.Mk5384 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I move this to "side discussion". The RfC is not about you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Dont be so disengenious MK, I dont remember seeing where one person has denied he was known by that name while at West Point. What is in contention is how well was he known by that name afterward and how widely and does it bear enough weight to be included in an info box. Get over your persecution complex. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Persecution complex? What would you call the SPI investigation?Mk5384 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I call that how the system works here. Some editors had doubts, a CU thought there was enough evidence to look, the suspicions involving you turned out to be wrong, you were vindicated. They weren't "False Allegations", which would imply that they were made by editors who already knew they were false. They were allegations that turned out not to be correct. If it had been me who made them, I would have apologized to you afterward if I had been shown to be incorrect. The other users have chosen not to, possibly in an effort to disengage from the steadily brewing confrontation and left things simmer down a bit. If they are pursuing this avenue I commend them. I personally think things have gotten way to heated and recriminatory on this page. At least one of the other editors have stated that they wish to disengage from the mess, would you like to do the same? We're still seeking consensus or evidence on the matter at hand on this page, maybe we should all stick to that from now on? I don't mean to offend you and hope I haven't, I merely have a differance of opinion on the inclusion of the one name over the other in the infobox. But it has gotten tiresome that half the posts on this page are concerning the squabbles of a small group of the editors, myself included. I apologize to the rest of the community for part in it. I'm now going to try and disengage from this issue entirely and let matters here take their coarse. Sincerely, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

Polls are evil

Voting is evil, as has long been said on Wikipedia, and for good reason. Polls turn things into an up/down vote on a question that itself may be wrong.

I proposed a compromise a month ago in this thread which was implemented here. Unfortunately it was short-lived, but I still stand by it as the best way to accommodate the views of the two camps that are commenting here. The current binary "include it or don't" poll is just digging same damn trench deeper that we've been arguing for two months now, and believe me, it's not going to resolve the issue.--Father Goose (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FG, I remember. I tried to get a vote going on your proposal, which I clearly labeled as Father Goose's proposal. This proposal was then summarily, and thereafter referred to as "MK's new proposal". This situation is all but hopeless. A number of editors simply will not stand for the word "nigger" to be used (for Nigger Jack, mind you), and they will say or do anything to make sure it stays out. I've largely given up here.Mk5384 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like for either one of you to show me where, in FG's famous "62 sources", that it says this nickname was widely known other than at West Point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. Provide a source that trumps WP:UNDUE or leave it to rest. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This "widely known" business is arbitrary. "Nigger Jack" is widely documented, and that's why we mention it in the article itself. I am focused solely on the historical record here, and whether we present it in a responsible fashion. You are focused on something else.--Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Responsible fashion? It is responsibly discussed in the body of the article and given its Due Weight. To include it in the info box would give it Undue Weight, and would merely serve someones perverse desire to write Nigger in the infobox. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you're even paying attention, because I'm proposing something that would not put the word "nigger" in the infobox.--Father Goose (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
We are arguing over such a microscopic point here -- do both of you realize that? We are arguing over whether something mentioned in the article which everybody seems to agree should be in the article should also be mentioned in the infobox. The way I see it, the best way to bypass this dumb argument is to have the relevant portion of the infobox link to the related portion of the text.
Would you care to comment on that, not just repeat arguments over how important the microscopic distinction is to you?--Father Goose (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To quote from WP:UNDUE in case you havent read it in awhile: "Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories." Emphasis mine. Care to discuss why this isn't the cas here?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a comparison: When Babe Ruth was a youth at the industrial school, the kids all had nicknames for each other. He was of somewhat swarthy complexion and had a large mouth and lips. The other kids called him "Nigger Lips". That is well-documented. Yet you don't see it in his infobox, because it was not widely known. To the world he was "Babe". That was his nickname. There's no question where "Black Jack" Pershing's nickname came from. But it's not widely known, and it's not wikipedia's place to try to "fix" that fact by slamming it in the reader's face in the infobox. As for the claiming that 62 sources make it widely documented, many of them were merely copying from each other, as is common on the internet. There's no reason for that obscure nickname to be in the infobox. The public knows him as "Black Jack". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Bugs is saying that it is undue weight. Whilst I disagree with that, it should be given pause as a legitimate argument. But I have a really big problem with Rowe's contention that it would "merely serve someone's perverse desire to write nigger in the info box". Please explain what evidence you have to show that anyone is not interested in improving the article, and instead has a "perverse desire".Mk5384 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
But the argument the two of you are continuing to make here is that it is undue weight to have the "nicknames" portion of infobox link to a paragraph describing his nicknames in depth.
That doesn't make sense.--Father Goose (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
If you read the above quote from WP:UNDUE, both emphasized parts, you'll see my position. It is not just having it in the info box that would violate undue, linking to it would as well. Why call attention to it? It's in the article, if someone cares to read the article, they will find the subsection about the name and where it originated. Does a link to that name really deserve to be in a list of positions held, battles fought, honours won, and other accomplishments? It is in the article. No one that I can remember is denying that it is factual, it is not being scrubbed from the article. Why do you FG and MK feel like we should remark on it numerous times? It is not the most notable thing about him. Explain to me why you feel this issue defies Undue and I'll drop it, because you have yet to do so. It is not a matter of two opposite positions, it's a matter of one being backed by policy and the other failing to meet the burden for inclusion in such a prominent place. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Pershing is well known as "Black Jack". He is not well known as the other one. It is not wikipedia's place to try to "correct" that situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Outwardly, you appear to be trying to "correct" that Pershing was ever called Nigger Jack in the first place. You are offering a selective reading of NPOV to achieve a specific outcome in line with your views.--Father Goose (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Why can't we do this? What logic is available to say that an uncontroversial part of the article becomes controversial if we link to it from within the infobox?--Father Goose (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Controversial? No. Argument I see is that it breaks: wp:UNDUE. Some argue wp:POINT in both directions. I see it as a classic example of "a tempest in a tea pot".- Sinneed 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In 2010, he's not well known as "Nigger Jack". During his lifetime, he was primarily known as "Nigger Jack".Mk5384 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
...and we still have no source that says that. And in response to the many-times-repeated "there are 62", please provide a quote that says he was primarily known as Nigger Jack in his lifetime.- Sinneed 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
MK and FG are continually unable to provide any evidence that he was ever "widely known" by that other name. In fact, farther up the page, FG essentially admits that he wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To everyone who hasn't participated in this subthread yet, be aware that after the above poll is closed, I will be opening a new poll on whether the compromise proposal is acceptable. Because I think the original poll is flawed.

I regret to have to approach it this way, because as I've said, polls are evil, but a poll regarding a compromise is less evil than a poll that compels people to embrace one of two uncompromising positions.--Father Goose (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Careful, FG. You may be accused of being a sock of MK5384.Mk5384 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Wise-guy remarks like that, and you wonder why no one apologizes to you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't wonder why no one apologises. I wonder why no one was held accountable for falsely accusing me.Mk5384 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Because it wasn't known by the rest of us to be false until the checkuser determined that it was false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The RFC won't preclude an alternate compromise that doesn't include the words "Nigger Jack" in the infobox. –xenotalk 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I misread what Father Goose wrote. –xenotalk 15:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the poll now "closed" because it was flawed, or because people voted roughly 3 to 1 not to include it in the infobox? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You may have misparsed Father Goose like I did. The RFC is still live. –xenotalk 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, missed the "after" in the post. Thanks Xeno, and apologies FG. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't read through this whole mess, but wanted to add my two cents anyway, for what it's worth. As far as I know we generally don't include things as "nicknames" in infoboxes when they are/were merely slanders used in the press etc. We could include "Monkey" for Bush (though maybe not until after he dies) if that were the case (extreme example, but you get the idea). Include the name in the article as part of the history of public and media opinion on the man, but including it as a nickname in the infobox doesn't make sense to me. Equazcion (talk) 23:07, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Bad example. "Nigger Jack" was not a slander by the press. "Black Jack" was an attempt by the press to make his actual nickname into something printable.Mk5384 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"...press etc". Even if it was a slander used by the public, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Name-calling doesn't mean "nickname" in the sense that an infobox is intended to show those, even if some technical argument could be made. A nickname in the infobox sense is a name that a person goes by willingly, not a name that someone who doesn't like them calls them out of spite. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Mk5384, if the example is bad, then shrub for Bush. Clearly in widespread usage, found in reliable sources, yet still not appropriate for an infobox for G W Bush. And in regard to Pershing, assuming you're right, the press succeeded admirably well since that is really how the man has been known during my lifetime. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We have had the vote and Nigger is out (but Black Jack is in) so lets drop it now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Timing

OK, here's some things we know:

  • Pershing started as an instructor at West Point in 1897.
  • While there, he got the nickname "Nigger Jack". This is indisputable, and has the famous 62 sources to confirm it.
  • We do not yet have any source that shows that this nickname had wide currency
  • According to Vandiver, vol 1., the press began to soften the name to "Black Jack" during the Spanish-American War, not as late as World War I.
  • Pershing received a brevet commission for the Spanish-American War in August 1898
  • In other words, there's a period of about two years, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, when "Nigger Jack" existed before it began to shift to "Black Jack".

So, we're talking about a name that had currency for two years, maybe three at most. By World War I, Pershing is universally knwon as "Black Jack" by the public. I have no doubt that there were still people in the military, and buffs, that still referred to him as "Nigger Jack", but that was not well known. (People have repeatedly asked for any cite which shows that it was, and nothing has been provided.)

"Nigger Jack" is a legitimate fact, it should be in the article, we should not censor it, but for a name with such a limited range, in both time and population, to be given any particular weight would be unreasonable. "Black Jack", on the other hand, is part of his name -- Black Jack Pershing. It should be in the lede, it should be in the infobox, and the derivation of it should be explained in the article. There's no need to link from the infobox to the article, that gives the other name undue weight. Readers of the article will come across it in context, as they should, and anyone looking for that specific piece of information can search on the phrase and find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sources say that he kept the NJ nickname into World War I [21] [22]. Postoak (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The more credible of the two, the American Heritage article, simply supports what I wrote above, that "some old timers still called him" NJ, which means that non-old timers (i.e. everyone else) didn't. The other source is a National Parks Service informational leaflet, and doesn't quite have the weight of the standard 2-volume biography of the man -- so when Vandiver says that the name began to change during the S-A War, I think we have to go with that, as opposed to the anonymous, unreferenced government pamphlet saying that it started to change in WWI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Neither source provides references, both are in conversational style. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This article from the New York Times in May 1917 refers to him as the "famous Black Jack of the regulars". No article in the Times archive (which goes back to 1851) refers to him as anything except "John J. Pershing" before that. There is no "Nigger Jack" in any Times article, but that is to be expected -- the question is not whether the nickname changed because of the intervention of the press, but when it happened. It looks as if his conduct against the Moros in the Phillipines is what really brought him into public attention, and by 1917 he was already "the famous Black Jack of the regulars". The name was even used in a sub-headline, which means that it was already well-known at that time. (It wasn't introduced in the article as if it was new information, but rather as bringing to the reader's attention something he already would know.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is just speculation, but it's worth considering: If you think about it, giving him the name N*gger Jack really doesn't make sense by itself. It's not obvious why the West Pointers would come up with that... unless it was a play-on-words for Black Jack in the first place. Someone might have made the connection that Jack is a nickname for John, and N*gger was another way to say Black ("black" being more of a pejorative then than now, basically a put-down) and of course there's a card game called Black Jack which is centuries old and well-known. There are various other Black Jacks listed on the disambiguation page. I'm suspecting it was the generic term "Black Jack" that inspired the limited-audience term "N*gger Jack". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I think it makes perfect sense from their POV. Pershing had served with the black 10th Calvary, and I'm sure that the cadets would have referred to them by the n-word. "Jack" is a nickname for John, and you've got the convenient template of "Nigger Jim" in Huckleberry Finn - I think that moves them pretty directly to "NJ". If it went the other way, we'd need some reason for him to have been called "Black Jack" - a swarthy complexion or a fondness for cards, but I don't think anything like that has come to light. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha! Huckleberry Finn was certainly in the public consciousness. It could have been a little of both. In any case, it's been amply demonstrated that he was neither widely known by this name nor for a very long time except in certain circles. "Black Jack" is a common expression by itself, so it worked well. Even today you have ballplayers called "Black Jack", including Jack McDowell and Jack Morris. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Appears to only come from the pejorative + the nickname for John? [23]. Not that it matters, here's another source that mentions that NJ was used into WWI [24] Postoak (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesnt say it was used in WWI, says West Point before Spanish American war, and no one is contending it wasn't used then and there. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Oops, didnt notice second cite, which does say was softened in WW1. Still doesnt say it was widely used or known. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Still, the NYT 1917 article I cited above - which was all about Pershing being the guy who was going to lead the troops into battle -- shows that the transition had already been made by then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here's another tidbit to muddy the water up some more: according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1981) "Black Jack" was also the nickname for an earlier American general, John A. Logan (1826-1886), given because of his dark complexion and hair -- so the name was "in the air" in military circles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and get this in before I am railroaded out of this discussion. At West Point, Pershing's 10th calvary regiment consisted of entirely black soldiers. Pershing, a general of very high standards, was quite fond of these men. None of the other units of soldiers under his command measured up to the 10th. The white soldiers under Pershing's command became quite upset that they were constantly being belittled by the general, whilst he continued to praise his black troops. It was here that the name "Nigger Jack" took hold. It came from the jealousy of the white soldiers who hated the fact that they were being unfavorably compared to "coloured soldiers". Whilst it was not a very nice name, it took hold, and Pershing was, from that point on, known as "Nigger Jack". This was, mind you, in 1897. In 1918, when the States entered World War I, the press, unwilling to print "Nigger Jack", began to refer to him as "Black Jack". "Black Jack" was a bowlderized version of his actual nickname, "Nigger Jack". Now because (quite rightfully so) the word "nigger" has become less and less acceptable to use over the years, the term "Nigger Jack" has been used less and less. That doesn't change the fact that he was, originally, known as "Nigger Jack"."Black Jack" was never his true nickname, but merely one that was deemed acceptable to use.Mk5384 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that Pershing commanded the 10th Cavalry while at West Point? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That can't possibly be correct. Pershing commanded the black troops on frontier service before he went to West Point as an instructor, where the cadets, knowing of his background and contempuous of African-American soldiers, gave him the nickname. And your statement that the press started diluting it in 1918 is provably false, since the Times in 1917 called him "the famous Black Jack of the regulars" and implied that "Black Jack" was already part of common knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me try to get this before you pretend to be railroaded out of this discussion. At West Point, some bitter whites referred to Pershing by the epithet of "nigger jack". This was never his true nickname, but simply intended as an insult. He was and remains (see many sources you cite) known as "Black Jack".- Sinneed 14:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not pretending at all. Check the ANI. That's what someone is trying to do.Mk5384 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I wrote a long-winded response, but "Not so." or silence seems better, and I can't go for silence.- Sinneed 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The Times article from 1917 is about the United States' imminent involvement in World War I, as it discusses the fact that Pershing was to command the U.S. forces in Europe. The article is consistent with my statement that the press began referring to him as "Black Jack" when the U.S. entered WWI.Mk5384 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No. The fact the media called him "the famous Black Jack of the regulars" at the start of WWI indicates that "Black Jack" was already well-established when WWI began. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) @Mk5384: No, it is not, because a close and attentive reading of that article shows that the name is not introduced as a new piece of information unfamiliar to the readers, it's clearly there as a reminder to them of something they already know. That's the only reason they would use it in the sub-head. So, far from supporting your opinion, it is a clear indication that the transition for NJ to BJ was complete or near-complete by 1917, not just starting, as you would prefer it.

I suggest that you should entirely drop this issue at this time, because I believe that you have lost the ability to effectively and accurately evaluate the available information, and that your previously engendered interpretation has become an idee fixe for you. If you persist in pushing this issue, I shall be compelled to consider that your purpose in doing so is somewhat less than honorable. Please, stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I.e. if I don't agree with your opinion, you'll be compelled to consider my purpose as something less than honourable. In the first place, your statement there is completely out of line. Secondly, there was no "complete or near-complete" transition. The transition was instant. Third, I'm sure that you already feel that my purpose is less than honourable. Telling me that I'm compelled to agree with your interpretation of something, along with outright childishness, like "please stop", is just pathetic. TAKE NOTE THAT I HAVE MADE NO EDITS TO THE ARTICLE ITSELF.Mk5384 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are unable to see the impression that your insistence about this issue is creating -- and that's giving you every ounce of AGF I can muster. It is your continued behavior, not your disagreement with me (and consensus), that would compel me to re-evaluate your motivations, since it's already passed over the line into disruption, and is coming perilously close to trolling.

I'd ask you to change your mind and allow the majority of this page to be archived, leaving behind the RfC poll and any threads not connected to this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob apparently lives in the magical land of make believe. The issue is over? Sure looks like it, doesn't it? This is something that Off2riorob likes to do, wherever there is the slightest bit of controversey. On Jimbo Wales' talk page, (the article, that is) in response to the minor controversey over Wales' correct birthdate, Riorob came up with the brilliant suggestion, "Why can't we just remove both dates from the info box, and be done with it?"Mk5384 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for him, but my opinion is this rut is circular and just getting deeper. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I not only respect your opinion; I both understand it, and sympathize with it. However, many users, on both sides of this debate (whilst admittedly more against than for) have weighed in here. The few times Riorob has posted, all he has said is don't say nigger. For him to waltz in here, and declare the issue to be over is an affront to everyone who has weighed in here, regardless of their position.Mk5384 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you see, the page is now 218K. It's hard to edit at this length. The RFC is still open, but in my opinion this particular section and a few others would be worth archiving. I am certain the, let us say, "light hearted banter" will continue. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you object to archiving and closure, fair enough but there is no need to personally attack me, there are a couple of threads at noticeboards that are attracting support that you appear to be unable to drop this stick and I only was attempting to help you move on. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive this

On the question of whether to include the name in the infobox, I count 14 "no" and 4 "yes", and that only includes those who "voted" with a bold yes or no in the first section of this RFC. Consensus seems clear, unless I missed something. Equazcion (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is little more that can be said (if anything) and everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath. We do have a majority that do not wish Nigger to be included in the info box and this must be accepted. We also appear to have a majority that think Black Jack should be, so that must equaly be accepted. If you wish to have others to obey votes then you have to obey them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I just archived the top of the page, cut it down by about a third. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I probably wasn't clear. I meant I think this RFC should be closed. Tensions seem to be flaring and there's talk at AN about topic-banning Mk5384 for being the lone perpetuator of this issue. Unless anyone thinks there's a real chance of the tally changing drastically, closing this discussion might be the smartest thing to do. Equazcion (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you are correct that positions are entrenched, and further discussion is not likely to change them. The only question is whether the RfC poll would attract any additional !votes. No one can be sure of that, but it certainly looks as if things have tapered off in that respect. I haven't seen anything here, or on the various noticeboard discussions connected with it, to indicate that there are a lot of people out there who, if they were to come and vote, would signficantly change the balance of what now stands.

I think I'm saying that closing the RfC and archiving this entire discussion would be OK. It would be nice to have a clean slate here for everyone to start over fresh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular need to archive the RFC -- just let it run its full course, and be done with. It's not likely anything will change by leaving it open, but having the full length will provide closure on the topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense, any objections to archiving everything but the one RFC section, including all side discussions? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
"Everything" seems a bit drastic, but I archived several more sections. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Archiving is, IMHO, a fine idea. I was objecting to one user coming here, and "closing" the issue for all of us. I have no objection to archiving anything here.Mk5384 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, please note that contrary to what many seem to think, if the majority of users think that "Nigger Jack" should be excluded, then I agree. I will continue to disagree about the notoriety of the name, but if this encyclopedia is to work, then the minority have to get out of the way from time to time. I have no objection to "Nigger Jack" being excluded from the info box, if that's what intelligent consensus and robust debate have come to. My objections were to users attacking me, putting words in my mouth, and assuming, as it was so colourfully put, that my "raison d'etre" was to get the word "nigger" into an info box. I also objected to the many users who simply wanted it excluded for the sole reason of its offensiveness. Father Goose has said that he will open another poll once this one is concluded. Whilst I intend to vote, I have no intentions of carrying this on by myself. Peace, shalom, as-salaamu alaykum, and all that good stuff.Mk5384 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC).
No thank you. Please get a life.Mk5384 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, methinks you need it more than I do, seriously. Jokes aside, all I see here day-in-and-day-out is you harping on this Nigger Jack nickname issue, and if this attitude of yours isn't WP:CPUSH, I really haven't any clue what is. And I think I speak for some people here when I say this: "ENOUGH! Our patience with you is wearing thin". BTW, just answer what Slatersteven is asking you below, any other snide remarks or reply from you is really not warranted or requested. Please, keep it to yourself. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's very true, Dave. You really haven't a clue.Mk5384 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Though I wouldn't have used those words, I have to agree. If the guy you're arguing against actually agrees to bow to the majority it's probably best not to continue suggesting an ulterior motive. Dave might want to give WP:AGF a good read. Thank you. Equazcion (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Lets all stop talking about personalities and susgesting motives and concentrate only on the articel. I will now ask a straight up question (and will ask all users to AGF)
User Mk5384 do you accept that consensus is for the exclusion of Nigger Jack amd do you agree to not attmept to re-insert it and that you will stop asking for its re-isertion as long as this matter remains closed (and that you agree not to re-open it)? A simple yes or no will suffice. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The same would go for Father Goose if he intends to open a new RfC without any new evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Third. Another RfC to change or get new concensus would be a waste of time and done merely because the other polls so far didnt come to the conclusion wanted. Even MK above seems to indicate he's willing to abide by the one reached. It should stand until someone finds overwhelming and compelling evidence that it should change. Can we all now agree that this matter is over? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The RfC is only a few days old. Someone may well bring forward new sources, or spot something in an existing source, that sways opinion. The RfC runs through, what, May 27, and it is now the 3rd? The article is stable and not in a disastrous state even for those who disagree with it as-is, I think. I plan to follow it all the way through and don't think it is time to close off consideration of any ideas.- Sinneed 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. The RfC should be allowed to run its course, with comments limited to constructive additions. Actually, I propose that from now forward comments on the RfC and its subsections be limited to the actual RfC till it has run it's course. We can all discuss everything else after its over. This should limit the drama from here on out. Anyone who agrees with my proposal should voluntarily not post here(except adding new evidence and for weighing in on new evidence) till its over. It's what I plan on doing from here on out. Any takers? Acknowledge by no longer posting here til the 27th. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This post intentionally left blank, in support of the Heironymous Rowe proposal. - Sinneed 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Vandiver biography

I've just gotten ahold of Frank E. Vandiver's two volume Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing (1977), the standard work on the subject, which has this to say on page 171:

Unpopularity [as a member of the tactical staff at West Point] won a nickname for Pershing, one born in racist contempt. The cadets knew he belonged to the 10th Calvary and so began to call him "Nigger Jack." In time it softened to "Black Jack," but the intent remained hostile.

The expression "in time" might raise some doubts about the timing of the "softening", were it not for the footnote to this paragraph, which I quote verbatim:

See Smythe's elaborate reconstruction of stories about the nickname "Black Jack," ibid., pp.48, 52, n. He weighs testimony of several surviving members of Company A and concludes, convincingly, that the nickname originated during Pershing's tour at West Point.

The source being cited is:

Smythe, Donald, "Pershing at West Point. 1897-1898." New York History 48 (Jan. 1967).

and "Company A" refers to the cadet company that Pershing was in charge of.

So, here, finally, is the authoritative source that we have been looking for. Not only did the original nickname "Nigger Jack" originate while Pershing was at West Point, between 1897 and 1898, but the "softening" of it to "Black Jack" came during the same time period. So it was not the press which euphemized it for World War I, but the cadets themselves, or the West Point community, which transmuted "Nigger Jack" to "Black Jack". By the time that Pershing really came to the public's attention, at our entry into the First World War, he was already "Black Jack of the regulars", as seen above.

I hope this now permanently puts this issue to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it puts it seems reasonable to consider it so, unless a conflicting and reliable source presents itself. I would point out that even if the press did it... taking an epithet from West Point and turning it into a widely known nickname... the known name would remain "Black Jack". I remain more concerned that the name may have been regionally known then, or later... but that too would need solid sourcing, IMO. - Sinneed 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me but I thought it had been agree to drop this topic? A user was anied for not letting this go, and would n ow ask that as it has been agreed that Nigger Jack remains out of the lead that this is droped by all parties, and that the baiting stops.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't approve of referring to the above as baiting. The remark certainly seems inappropriate for a talk page.
In any event, BMK has introduced new changes to the body here. Because of the contentious nature of the subject, discussion of the edit here seems to be a good idea, and not wp:baiting.- Sinneed 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As 'the issue' had been put to rest I fail to see why old wounds needed to be re-opened. I agree that any controvesal changes should be discused, but I do not see any on this subject (the question was allways the info box, not the body of the text). So there was in fact no issue to lay to rest regarding the text of the articel. I have now registerd the fact that I dodnot bleive this issue should have been re-opened. I shall say no more other then to point out its a closed debate.Slatersteven (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well... I read this, and it seems to be directly related. But YMMV. Also... the wp:RfC remains open, so no, my remark is not correct either: calling the discussion before the RfC closes is not appropriate. My bad too.- Sinneed 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) I'm baiting nobody, simply bringing to light additional information from a definitive source which had not been considered before, and notifying the interested editors here that the changes I was about to make in the article were based on that source. Fixing factual errors in an article should never be off-limits, especially when the correction is based on a well-regarded reliable source, such as the standard biography of the subject of the article. Please, let's not make "thing" about this, my intent was straight-forward, and my presentation of the material was neutral and in no way "aimed" at anyone or designed to make a point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If I have mis-understood your actions I appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Pershing/Archive_3&oldid=1143536937"