Jump to content

Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Dispute over presentation of nickname

Formerly Derogatory Name

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

Original Thread (Part I)

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

WP:ANI thread has been created. SGGH ping! 13:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those at the ANI thread who opined that this belongs in text, with explanation and sources, not in the infobox or lede.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, not in the infobox, as it is clearly derogatory it should be in the body of the text and explained. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It was only the press, during World War I, who dubbed him "Black Jack", as a euphesim for his true nickname, "Nigger Jack". Someone who removes something that has stood for that amount of time should shoulder the burden of proof of a reliable source that this name was not, in fact, widely used.Mk5384 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Nigger Jack" nickname is very extensively documented: [1], as is the fact that "Black Jack" is a bowdlerized version of it. Whether or not it is derogatory or perhaps distasteful to some readers is irrelevant: it was his nickname, as well as the origin of his later nickname. I think the current way it is presented ("Black Jack" (originally "Nigger Jack")) is utterly appropriate. The exact details of both nicknames are explained in the body of the article. However, I do feel it would be appropriate to add a citation for the nicknames directly in the infobox.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
So, if both nicknames are fully explained in the body of the article then why insist in having them both in the high profile infobox, remove both nicknames from the infobox altogether, it is a fact that the vast majority of people do not read articles at all the check out the lede and move on. Why is it important to have clearly visible in bright letters of a respected soldier a derogatory nickname as a high profile claim to fame? Is it just user dather goose that wants it there? Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
(copied from the talk page of User:OberRanks): I would like to point out to you that General Pershing's nickname of "Nigger Jack" has nothing to do with shock value, and has been on the page for a long time. You gave the example of using that word as a nickname for President Obama if an angry soldier were to call him that. Talk about shock value- You're saying that a person having that nickname, and a person being called that name by one person equate to the same thing. As the article states, the nickname was given to Pershing in 1897 at West Point. The press began calling him "Black Jack" as a euphemism during World War I. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. He had that nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack". That name is horrible, but it is correct, and as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored. As I have said, that name has been in the box in that article for some time. If you, or other editors wish to remove it, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source saying that the name "Nigger Jack" was rarely used. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010
Actually, per WP:BURDEN, the info would have to be sourced to stay in, not to be removed. That is not the issue here; the issue is the appropriateness of it in the info box. The information is already in the article, so it an issue of WP:CENSOR but rather WP:COMMONSENSE -OberRanks (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

And I have returned them, as they were removed without consensus. On the contrary, to remove them again will break WP:CON. They were in there for over a year. Leave them as they were whilst the dispute is resolved.Mk5384 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it appears to me that the consensus here is quite clearly against retaining this in the infobox. Could you please explain why you disagree? --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that the majority of those who have commented so far were in favor of not including "Nigger Jack", but Wikipedia doesn't work according to "majority rule" -- majority and consensus are not synonymous. But it doesn't work according to minority rule either.
Policy bashing like this (on both sides) is one of the best ways to ensure that consensus will never be achieved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Before stating that the information has been there "perhaps a few months at best", how about doing some simple research? They have appeared there since, at least September 2008. I don't think that any reasonable editor would consider 19 months to be "a few". Father Goose has provided no less than 62 different sources referring to General Pershing as "Nigger Jack". There are now inline citations, next to the nicknames in the article. Wikipedia is not censored. Typing in "Nigger Jack" redirects to the John Pershing article. The burden of proof for keeping the names as they are has far been exceeded.Mk5384 (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't follow how you can suggest I haven't been discussing these removals since I was the one who started the thread on the talk page on this very subject! Its a common call of users in a dispute to claim that the other side "isn't discussing" and in this case, that is clearly untrue. IN any event, we've started a vote (see below) and I have readded the mateiral for all to see while this vote is conducted. -OberRanks (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page, Father Goose has provided sixty-two (62) different sources referring to General Pershing as "Nigger Jack". It has been there for over a year; it is well sourced-you have no right to remove something because you don't like it. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The material is already cited in the text. The issue here is not its removal - the issue is whether such an obvious racial slur should be displayed in the main infobox. Noone is saying we should censor the article and remove references to Pershing being called by this name - we are saying there is absolutely no need to have either nickname in the infobox. -OberRanks (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, the article now contains inline citations, next to the nicknames in the infobox. There is no longer any grounds for their removal. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, we are not removing the material - it is mentioned in the body of the article where it belongs. We are stating to keep it out of the infobox as there is no need for it there. -OberRanks (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Located at 12 Pell Street, in the heart of Chinatown, the establishment was officially known as The Pelham Café, though everyone called it by the proprietor's nickname, "Nigger Mike's." (Like "coon," the epithet "nigger" was widely used and not considered shockingly offensive, but make no mistake, it still carried a racist sting.) Nigger Mike was no blacker than Izzy Baline; he was a Russian Jew with an olive complexion."(p. 21)[2]

The biography continues that way on at least fourteen separate pages and even mentions Irving Berlin paying his respects at "Nigger Mike's" funeral. As difficult as it is today to imagine such a nickname as anything other than extreme derision, that actually was socially acceptable to address a white man that way if he preferred it. In detailed biographies of Irving Berlin that moniker is inescapable: the singing waiter job was Berlin's first break in the music business and both the proprietor and his restaurant were universally known by the N word: Google Books returns 263 hits for "Irving Berlin nigger Mike".[3]

Google books also returns 108 hits for "John Pershing 'Nigger Jack'.[4] Interesting discussions are at Enviropop: studies in environmental rhetoric and popular culture,[5] The savage wars of peace: small wars and the rise of American power,[6] and War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars.[7] So it's verifiable and nontrivial, but it's also the kind of nickname that has to be explained in context. Otherwise it will elicit heated reactions and be mistaken for vandalism. Questions to evaluate include:

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

The thing to really be on guard against is a juvenile impulse to use the term without context for its shock value, just because it's sourceable. Durova412 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Admin Noticeboard (Part III)

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

Wikipedia is not censored, and if the nickname is true and appropriately sourced, it should be included.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
His common nickname was and is "Black Jack" Pershing. If the history behind that common name was that he was once called "Nigger Jack" (something i never heard before despite having developed an interest in Pershing when i lived in Mindanao) then that should be mentioned in the text, but not in the info box (since, again, it isn't the common nickname nor the one typically used by historians/quality press today or the military history writers and press at the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Putting it in the info box creates undue weight, unless there is sourcing of sufficient prominence (not just verifiability) saying that the usage was widespread enough to justify that placement. Otherwise, put it in the text as Bali Ultimate says. For a major historical figure like Pershing, sufficient prominence would mean multiple high-quality sources devoting significant space to discussing the nickname and its usage. An uncomplimentary nickname (e.g. "Tricky Dick" Nixon) can, though, become become quite prominent, maybe enough to warrant infobox placement in some cases. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is reliable and it verifies the text. John Pershing wasn't the only white man who had that sort of nickname, and in another documented pre-WWI instance a white man in New York City preferred the nickname for himself. Social norms have changed enormously since that era. This does not need administrative attention; undue weight is a content issue that can be worked out on the article talk page. The epithet was not vandalism. Durova412 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to President Obama is ludicrous. If one angry soldier called the president a name, it would be the same as a General who was widely referred to as that? You can't be serious about that. His common nickname was "Nigger Jack". During World War I, the press began to refer to him as "Black Jack", as a euphesim for his real nickname. It was a detestable epithet, but that dosen't make it untrue. The name "Nigger Jack" has been listed in that box for quite some time, without incident. If someone wishes to remove it, then the burden of proof should fall upon that editor to provide a reliable source that this nickname was rarely used.Mk5384 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The article itself states that the press "changed" his nickname during World War I. General Pershing was given that nickname in 1897. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. Pershing, at this time, was already a decorated general, nearing the end of his military career. He had the nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack."Mk5384 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, its amazing how a nickname that has minor relevance to a persons notability can cause such heated desire. The fact that it has sat in that box for quite some time does not make it correct, that is all this is about isn't it? The desire to have this nickname uneplained in the infobox..I don't support this nigger nickname in the infobox at all, it is fine in the body of the text where it can be explained, it may of been used in some quarters in history in a derogatory manner but he is not known by that name now,the nickname is not part of his notability at all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to also mention this edit [8] in which User:Mk5384 stated I was violating consensus by removing the nicknames and that our discussion is "nonsense". I'll count 6 editors opposed to this material in the infobox, F-Goose appears to be on the fence but respecting what we are saying, and Mk5384 readding this material, over and over again, insisting it be in the infobox. I would submit it is not I who is going against consensus here. -OberRanks (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

First of all, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. The material is properly sourced; that's what matters. You have continued to be misleading here. I have not put anything on your talk page that I haven't put here on this talk page. Going to your talk page and addressing you personally was a courtesy. You have some nerve to try to turn it into an insult. Instead of posting the entire edit, you were again, misleading when you said that I referred to this discussion as "nonsense". As I have been participating in this conversation all along, I obviously don't think of it as nonsense. What I referred to as nonsense was you feeling justified in removing something with 62 different sources just because it offended you. As I have said, this is not rule by majority opinion. The material is properly sourced and that is what matters. You had no problem with "Black Jack" being in the infobox; only with "Nigger Jack". As I have said, it comes down to "I don't like it". Wikipedia is not censored!!!Mk5384 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Its got nothing to do with not liking it or not censored or that wikipedia is not a popularity content, none of which present any reason as to what value this nickname that is not part of any reason towards his notability just has got to be in the infobox. It is clearly in the body of the article where it is explained and commented on, so that is totally OK. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly in the infobox, where it is cited, and where it has been, so that is totally OK.Mk5384 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because you like it there or because it has been there for a while does not mean that it has to stay there or that is is correct for it to be there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, both nicknames are up for removal and there is now a very straight forward vote going on as to determine keeping or deleting either one. You also appear to be overlooking the fact that, to avoid an edit war and bad feelings, I voluntarily reverted myself and restored this material into the article [9]. We are, at this point, following WP:DISPUTE to the letter by having a consensus vote after a discussion from both sides. No-one is accusing you of anything, saying you did anything wrong, and if you got that impression then I'm sorry. The best thing to do is to take a step back, cool off a bit, and let the vote proceed. We can then keep or remove the material based on the outcome. -OberRanks (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Thought it may be splitting hairs, how should one attempt to ascertain consensus? Is not a poll at least a useful tool in starting to move to an end result? Hopefully all parties can continue to discuss, think, and move forward and not just toss around WP links. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I've participated in this poll I do have misgivings about it. Polls and votes aren't the best way of establishing consensus because they tend to shape discussion along certain narrow lines and divide people. A content RfC or a request for mediation would have been better. Durova412 21:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
My thought was that for a specific, narrow issue such as this, a poll would be a better tool than a usually more complex and lengthy RfC or mediation process. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Well yes, yet drawing lines in the sand tends to get in the way of consensus. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Discussion of hot button terminology always runs the risk of degenerating into battleground mentality. On the whole, the editors here are doing remarkably well at remaining collegial. Yet it's a little bit worrisome to see at least one editor reduce the infobox issue to censorship. Censorship certainly isn't what I advocate. It would be better to get a more nuanced discussion going, rather than setting up a poll that forces people to take sides. Durova412 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment No proposal to censor. It is in the body.- Sinneed 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think it belongs in the infobox. I'm pretty certain we would not be having this debate if the name were not felt to be offensive -- but offense alone is an inappropriate reason to make editorial decisions, as articulated by WP:NOTCENSORED. Nor do I feel it should be omitted on the basis that it was derogatory -- by some accounts, "Black Jack" was also derogatory ([10]).
    We run the risk of rewriting history here by trying to sanitize it. It's true that we're not making the mistake of omitting the name from the article altogether, but if we are to have "Black Jack" in the infobox -- and we should, definitely -- "Nigger Jack" should go with it, in its current form: cited, with the explanation that "Black Jack" is the later, softened form of the original nickname.--Father Goose (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: With a dead split down the middle, it is rapidly looking like this information will indeed by displayed since there is no clear consensus to remove it and it is now cited. It will probably be removed again, at some point, but with this discussion there will be a record that the matter was discussed. -OberRanks (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: If it were a simple WP:NOTCENSORED question my opinion would be different. The issue here is that a word has undergone radical changes in social use, which modern readers need context to understand. Durova412 06:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: No proposal to censor. It is in the body.- Sinneed 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: The main issue is the shock value of having the word "n*gger" in the main infobox when this matter is already discussed in the body of text. The natural instinct of any uninformed reader, unfamiliar with the topic would be to think it is a vandalism entry and remove it. In fact, that's exactly what happened which started this dispute. So, if its already in the body of text, its already explained, why should we wish to have it in such plain site where it will draw fire? On the flip side, I did like FG's cituations for it and, if it does stay, the way FG did it is the way it should be. -OberRanks (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - " trying to sanitize it" - there is no proposal to sanitize. Please focus on the edit rather than your perception of the motivations of the editors. If your voting to remove it from the infobox would be sanitizing, I understand... but it is not proposed.- Sinneed 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - at talk:Nigger Jack, an editor noted that textbooks had started using "Black Jack" instead of "Nigger Jack". It may be that this is regional, or otherwise "common" but not common to all editors. If there is reason to believe this is the case... that this usage is indeed common... just not universal... I would have to reconsider my Oppose. Anyone have anything to indicate this besides different memories of a couple of editors?- Sinneed 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I would indeed oppose using "Grumpy" if it were not a common nickname. I won't ever have an article, but I have been called "flash"(a parody of my poor ping pong game style), "cabbage head", "moon head", "round head", "brussel sprout" (head like a small cabbage), "charlie brown", "professor", "Sinneed" and "That F***ing Sinneed"... and none would belong, unless they were not just recorded, but how I was known. It *might* merit a mention, as here, in the article, for some reason.- Sinneed 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why deliberately use an offensive term when Black Jack suffices?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it needs explanation, then it should be covered in the text, where context can be provided. Sodam Yat (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Question- Why is there a need for there to be a nickname anyway? Would it be more agreeable if the section of the infobox was removed altogether, and both names were included, and explained, in the body of the article? Sodam Yat (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It's how he was known for a considerable period, & ultimately the basis for the bowlderized "Black Jack". For that alone, it deserves inclusion. (BTW, that it was court martial offence in 1918 scarcely pertains; by 1918, Pershing was pretty damn senior, so anything he disliked being called {Shirley, for instance ;p} could buy a court martial for insubordination.) And for the uninformed, who don't know he ever was called "Nigger Jack" (& why), it's a good way to get their attention. I'd also add, it's a point in his favor in re any black readers: he commanded black troops & IIRC considered the Buffalo Soldiers some of the best he'd ever led, & was smeared by association; that is, for not being the same kind of racist bigot as the rest. I suggest that's a good character reference, even if the term offends today. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment: You make a fair point, and one that occurred to me as well--but I am still concerned that this point cannot be made clearly by the mere inclusion of the name in the infobox, without explanatory text. The concern is not about offending, it's about offending without conveying the intended meaning. Nicknames are included in the infoboxes of many other military biographies, but I do wonder if it might not be better to just leave the nicknames in text here. In any event, I would like to acknowledge, appreciatively, the good faith of the editors who have joined this discussion on both sides.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article comments

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

It is not the offensiveness that requires footnoting. What matters is that the N-word has changed meaning enormously during the last century. Unless one has studied US social history of the period in depth, an unannotated presentation of the name would be misleading. Durova412 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
As I have said, I have no problem with an annotated presentation of the name.Mk5384 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

New compromise suggestion

Would it be feasible to footnote the context at the infobox? See Walter_Raleigh#cite_note-0 and Jean_Desbouvrie#cite_note-0 for examples of the basic idea. Footnotes can contain explanations in addition to source links. Durova412 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This article already goes a step further and footnotes the nickname "Black Jack" within the infobox. But footnoting it in the lead and/or the infobox seems reasonable, other than the fact someone is liable to say that footnotes aren't supposed to be in the lead or the infobox. However, since this would be a compromise solution, WP:IAR might figure into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the suggestion wasn't sufficiently clear. There are two types of footnotes. Source-only notes predominate at Wikipedia and that's what this currently have. Another type of footnote is explanatory. We aren't limited to linking within a footnote; footnotes can also summarize the context. Durova412 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, link it to the same footnote as the part in the article that already explains it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The idea is to construct a footnote that provides context. The main text only needs to link to a source, which means the footnotes should be different. Jean Desbouvrie uses two different notes to the same source: one for straightforward citation, another where explanation is needed.

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

The Walter Raleigh explanatory footnote comes a little closer in subject matter. Durova412 17:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

That's in Raleigh's lead, not infobox, if that matters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The suggestion is to adapt this approach for the infobox. Durova412 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the infobox, as opposed to the lead? (Or maybe both?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No one seriously suggests that this is notable enough for the lead. Durova412 17:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't even mention the nickname in the lead, which is interesting, given the broad usage of "Black Jack". Whatever. Footnoting it in the infobox should be good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

OberRanks obviously ignored the olive branch that I offered below. I have reconsidered retirement, and can assure you that I will put both names back the instant protection is removed. Perhaps this should just proceed to mediation, because I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not backing down.Mk5384 (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reported Mk5384 to WP:ANI, as he promises to continue edit-warring as soon as the page protection expires. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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

If that's the case, OberRanks, I apologise for not AGF'ing, and jumping the gun. Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion of what I've said.Mk5384 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok; back to what I was trying to do, before false accusations of vandalism left me defending myself on ANI for the past hour. I don't know where you get the idea that consensus is against me. The vote was 8 for, 9 against; nothing even approaching consensus. The material is properly sourced, and extensively explained. Perhaps someone has taken the protection of this version of the article as an endorsement of this version. Admin. Xeno stated clearly that it is not. So if you revert me after I put it back, I will be the one reporting you. And then, as I have said, we can go to mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Not to confuse this with the above post, but my suggestion is "Nicknames: [1], [2]" with hyperlinks to reference notes at the bottom of the article that in explain, in full context, the meaning of both "Nigger Jack" and "Black Jack". That to me seems the best possible solution. -OberRanks (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The nick names should be in the infobox, but we a foot note to explain why he had then is also there then I would not oppose that. I would oppose any removal of the nick names on the grounds that they are offensive, even if they were repalced with a foot note.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem whatsoever with inclusion with footnotes. Forgive me if I have made it appear otherwise.Mk5384 (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution

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

  • I would prefer to have the to-my-reading-not-common nickname in the infobox, rather than hide the common name because the uncommon one offends. I truly, TRULY don't care who we offend: taking this information out because people will be offended if it is left in is a completely unconvincing argument to me.
  • I don't see the division of support that you present it. I see:
For listing in infobox: It was a nickname, and it is reliably recorded in history, therefore we should list it, no matter how few people identify him that way.
Against listing in infobox: It was not the name he was commonly known as.
The rub for me is the "no matter how few people identify him that way" - I think this bit is wp:OR on my part at least. I see nothing that addresses it to my satisfaction... he may be much better known under "Nigger Jack" than I personally believe... in which case we should certainly have it in the infobox.- Sinneed 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A solution we all can live with

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

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

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

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

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

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

With less than 24 hours to unprotection, still very deep issues about this, along with an outstanding statement from one user that they intend to resume edit warring the minute protection is lifted [11], it might be best (as you said) to leave this out. If the references and sources are good, then I suppose something like this could in some form be in the article. I would personally like to see it never allowed in, but the regulations about WP:CITE and WP:CENSOR do make a case. I think at this point users should go with what they think is right. -OberRanks (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

My argument is that it's not a commonly known nickname. "Black Jack" is commonly known, of course. But there is no evidence I've seen that "N*gger Jack" is commonly known. Only commonly known nicknames have any business being in the infobox. Otherwise, it's undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is plenty of evidence. As I have said above, Father Goose provided 62 different sources. He got that name at West Point in 1897. The first instance of him being called "Black Jack" was 1918.Mk5384 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"Black Jack" is what he is commonly known as. Period. The "N*gger Jack" stuff is no longer operative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, as when this was proposed above.- Sinneed 15:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Whether "Black Jack" stays or goes is negotiable. "N*gger Jack" is not. It stays OUT. He's not known by that name. To post it in the infobox is undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He's not known by that name? Then I suppose the US National Park Service is posting false information on a government site. [12]. It's a historically significant name that unfortunately happens to be a racial slur. You can't erase or rewrite history, and trying to remove the name here (if only in the inbobox) is sanitizing history and a disservice to Wikipedia. He was known as "Nigger Jack" prior to "Black Jack". [13] Both should remain in the infobox because they are both documented nicknames for Pershing. It would also be undue weight to only include "Black Jack" in the infobox. Otherwise, remove both and mention only in the body of the article. Postoak (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
"His nickname, "Black Jack" dates from this service." - From the NPS.
"“Black Jack” of the 10th:A Negro cavalry regiment was John J. Pershing’s “home” in the service. From it came his nickname, and he never lost his affection for—or failed to champion—the valorous colored troopers he led"
The sources you list support not including "Nigger Jack" in the infobox... listing "Black Jack" as his nickname, and "Nigger Jack" as an epithet.- Sinneed 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Was is the operative word there. The origin of his nickname is amply covered in the article. He's only known as "Black Jack", regardless of its origin. The Los Angeles Dodgers aren't known as the Trolley Dodgers anymore either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And yet, "Trolley Dodgers" is included in the infobox: Los Angeles Dodgers. We also mention the nickname The Bums. And there's little controversy about that. It's the word "nigger" that this dispute is about. It is a taboo word these days, and that is leading to attempts here to whitewash it from the historical record.--Father Goose (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And yet, "It's the word "nigger" that this dispute is about." remains untrue for me. I wp:AGF and assume the same is true for most editors. I am mildly interested to know that the word itself is the issue here, for you. I think that is unfortunate.- Sinneed 21:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree with this compromise. We have other persons with unsavory nicknames only mentioned in the body of the article (ie. Richard Nixon and "Tricky Dick") and not in the infobox. I believe this is the best way to move forward. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a Britannica writeup [14] that fails to mention the "N*gger Jack" thing, it only says "Black Jack" came from his advocacy of black soldiers. But they're just Britannica. What do they know? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
and the articles I provided above do include the reference to the name "Nigger Jack". Your point? Postoak (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference to what, that it was allegedly "widely known"? Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It stays out? It's non-negotiable? Surley ye jest. As I've said I will return it. If you want to revert me on something cited with 62 different sources, go right ahead. Mk5384 (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Then you'll be blocked so fast it will make your head swim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not be blocked for returning sourced information to the article. What in the world would give you a silly idea like that?Mk5384 (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
MK, we haven't reached any kind of agreement on this and blatantly saying that you will insert this material against the objections of others is exactly what got this article protected in the first place. You also seem to be repeatedly missing the point that no-one has said anything about removing this material from the actual article, only the info-box. Since there is absolutely no agreement to either keep or delete either nickname in the info-box, the best thing to do at this point to remove the entire section until a firm agreement is reached. If you insist on inserting this material yet again, it will probably be removed by multiple editors and the article will be re-protected. -OberRanks (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Mk, you aren't proposing to return information to the article. You are stating your intention to restore an edit to the infobox. Very different. I do agree that restoring it, once, won't get you blocked, but it is not a good practice... the article was locked because of this being deleted and readded and deleted and readded... - Sinneed 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have little doubt that it will be reverted. The article being protected again seems unlikely, as I have no intentions of an edit war, and will instead seek formal mediation.Mk5384 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That's an extremely professional approach and probably is exactly what is needed here. I've never gone into mediation over an article so it should be an interesting project. Will be looking forward to seeing what the results bring. -OberRanks (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good.Mk5384 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree also. Seems that we were doing fine until we started the blocking threats which is uncalled for. Look forward to the mediation. Thanks! Postoak (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, we were "doing fine" until Mk threatened (both before and after his unblock) to resume the edit war. If he does so, he'll be turned in for it. And no one else should touch it until it's been dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Again and again, Bugs has mistaken protection of the article with an endorsement of that version, no matter how many times the protecting admin stated otherwise.Mk5384 (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Protection Requested

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

Oppose - There won't be an edit war if no one edit wars. I already made the only revert on this I expect to make... while I see no reason to include what appears to be "nasty named called" rather than "nickname" as a nickname, I will expect to simply tag it with {{pov-statement}} and leave it in.- Sinneed 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's needed. If Mk re-posts it, report him for resuming his edit war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And just to make it clear, don't revert him, just report him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No idea what you intend to report. I've said it here' and I've said it on the talk page of the admin who protected it. The information is backed up with 62 sources, and I will return it. Not only have I not said anything about edit warring; I have specifically stated that there will be no edit war. If you'd like to report me for a baseless charge, go right ahead. But please don't canvass for other editors to do what you think should be done; especially for something as silly as that.Mk5384 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

I myself, really have no problem with extending the protection of the article, as opinions still seem to be divided, and whilst it won't be from me, there is still some potential for nastiness here. I think we all agree that this has to go to mediation, before it is decided once and for all. I don't think it matters if it is protected in the interim, and it may, in fact, avoid a number of problems. Neither support nor oppose.Mk5384 (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Pershing/Archive_2&oldid=1136849992"