Off2riorob (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 427: | Line 427: | ||
As of now, we have 6 users; Father Goose (the proposer), me, Slatersteven, Postoak, Kind Journalist, and SarekOfVulcan, in favour of: Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack). Opposed, we have 3; OberRanks, who has, at least, attempted to discuss it, Off2riorob, who has simply said, "off to the next article", and Auntie E., who has openly stated that she is "pro-censorship". Let's see what happens over the next week.[[User:Mk5384|Mk5384]] ([[User talk:Mk5384|talk]]) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
As of now, we have 6 users; Father Goose (the proposer), me, Slatersteven, Postoak, Kind Journalist, and SarekOfVulcan, in favour of: Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack). Opposed, we have 3; OberRanks, who has, at least, attempted to discuss it, Off2riorob, who has simply said, "off to the next article", and Auntie E., who has openly stated that she is "pro-censorship". Let's see what happens over the next week.[[User:Mk5384|Mk5384]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
:Yawn, this repeated, I am not going away until I get the consensus I want is tiresome. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Your more than welcome to stick around. And if you do get the consensus you want, (whilst unlikely) more power to you.[[User:Mk5384|Mk5384]] ([[User talk:Mk5384|talk]]) 19:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:43, 25 April 2010
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Racism
There were unsourced statements in the article stating or implying that Pershing was racist (against native americans and blacks). Per WP:V (particularly WP:REDFLAG) these types of statements in particular must be verifiable. I removed the statements, if someone wants to provide a verifiable source please do so before replacing them. Seanfranklin (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The source for the statement is the article by Ron Daniels, reproduced here: http://www.northstarnews.com/columns/dr_ron_daniels/article/1214/. "Confined to segregated units and fighting under the command of General Foch of France (American General “Black Jack” Pershing despised Blacks and wanted nothing to do with them as soldiers), Black soldiers, most notably the 369th Infantry, also known as the Harlem Hell Fighters, fought with great valor in a number of battles." Still, I'm not ready to put this material back in the article. Daniels produces no source for his claim. He refers solely to black soldiers' service in World War I, and it's not clear if he's even aware that Pershing had previously commanded black soldiers in America. And the statement that American blacks served directly under Foch contradicts just about every other source I've read, which says that Pershing insisted on keeping all American forces under his personal command. Ergo, I'm not ready to say that Daniels' article is a reliable source. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I am especially doubtful about the claim that Pershing relinquished command of black soldiers; as I understand it, part of the point was insuring that Americans fought as cohesive units instead of being committed piecemeal to the front as replacements for French casualties, which belies the reference's claims about black units. --CAVincent (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Error?
I noticed that Pershing's sisters are listed as Ann Elizabeth, Margaret, and May, but later the article states that "Pershing's sister Grace married Paddock in 1890." Does someone have the resources to clarify this apparent discrepancy? 70.169.173.253 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seems true: [1]. Apparently the list of his siblings in the overview is incomplete.--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
References
The "Other honors" section has maybe thirty statements, and one reference between them! That is extreme even by Wikipedia's usually lax standards of referencing, and I propose that they are removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that, tag them as uncited and if after an amount of time, say a week, they are still uncited, they could be trimmed, anything that is uncited and controversial could perhaps be removed quicker. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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 [16]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I agree mediation is the only answer. But all involved parties need to be involved.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just from my own experience, MedCab seems to be understaffed and backlogged, so I would recommend MedCom. –xenotalk 14:53, 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)
- 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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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'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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
(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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (edit conflict) Absolutely. "See below" is the best idea that has come up so far. -OberRanks (talk) 11:44, 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)
- No, I see it now. My fault.Mk5384 (talk) 14:43, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support also. Postoak (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I support that idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
::::::"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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
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[30]. --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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- Did you mean to say, "It does not say why"?Mk5384 (talk) 06:28, 22 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User Text
Just to note it here, I removed the entire post by Aunt Entropy that discussed my posts on the talk page at "Genesis Creation myth". It was misleading, and in no way germane to this conversation, and did not belong here.Mk5384 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- MK, unless the post is completely off-topic or contains vandalism, you should not ever remove another user's talk page comments. The original post should stay (I did some minor syntax changes to prevent a screen error with the web link) -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is completely off topic, and it does not belong here, archived or not.Mk5384 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked the admins to look into it since this is now causing an edit war on the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly hope that they do. It never should have been here.Mk5384 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As of now
As of now, we have 6 users; Father Goose (the proposer), me, Slatersteven, Postoak, Kind Journalist, and SarekOfVulcan, in favour of: Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack). Opposed, we have 3; OberRanks, who has, at least, attempted to discuss it, Off2riorob, who has simply said, "off to the next article", and Auntie E., who has openly stated that she is "pro-censorship". Let's see what happens over the next week.Mk5384 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yawn, this repeated, I am not going away until I get the consensus I want is tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your 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)