Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 7

Plumber Admits He Set Out To Entrap Obama + Info Should be Added to His Article
Wurzelbacher confessed to FamilySecurityMatters.org that he set Obama up with his questions and intended to "catch Obama off-guard".

The plumber also explained that, rather than outright buy the company that currently employs him, he meant to put it on lay-a-way and just make payments on his purchase "for years".

I hope no one thinks I'm trying to "SMEAR" the Plumber (to quote John McCain), but shouldn't we add this topic to the article about the guy, for proper historical context? Also, Joe has a book coming out soon in which he will urge us to greater patriotism (like honesty in U.S. elections, paying our taxes, blah blah blah) so clearly the chapter on this Palin-esque historic figure has yet to be fully written.

Source To Add: http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp 67.40.178.49 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're using a lot of bold words "entrap", "catch off-guard", that Joe himself didn't use. He was asked: "Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?" He replied: "Well that was actually my intent..." Was his intent to surprise or to catch off guard? Is it meaningful if it was? These questions cannot be answered without original research. All we have is a transcript, we cannot infer anything beyond that without a reliable source as to Joe's intent. You're also attempting to provide undue weight to a single response to one of thousands of questions he's been asked without a source that indicates the response to be significant in any way. Oren0 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:SOAP Speculation on the whys and wherefor's of how the media treated Joe's question and Obama's answer is best left to the political chat boards. Dman727 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Public Image & Rapid Decline of Wurzelbacher Due to Lying

 * I would like dialogue (from more than one individual, if possible) about whether the main article can be improved by adding a section that discusses the public image of Sam Wurzelbacher. It would be particularly relevant to the article to discuss the quick and radically negative transformation that occurred with the public image of the man behind "Joe the Plumber" and the subsequent lampooning in the media.


 * It is relevant to suggest improving the main page by adding a section which is neutral in nature, yet acknowledges the many, many, sources, citations etc., that deal with Wurzelbacher’s chronic credibility issues. It is descriptive of how the man in perceived prior to, then post-election, and so on.


 * One cannot research sources, citations etc. about him without coming across a tremendous amount of credible references to the many fabrications and tall-tales he has spun for the public then later at least recanted. The fact that he has been caught publicly in numerous lies, etc. and is now regarded by many as generally “verbally unreliable” is a solid part of his public persona, so I suggested including it in the article. It is astonishingly appropriate for discussions of Wurzelbacher's public image.


 * "Joe the Plumber" started off being depicted in the media as a rather well-off, blue collar, soon-to-be small business owner. Wurzelbacher then began to be increasingly portrayed or revealed as an individual with such a penchant for lies, half-truths and intentional misrepresentation that eventually he became a persistent and lasting target of mockery in the media and to the public.


 * Thanks for weighing in everyone, even if you disagree with my suggestion or etc.

63.226.209.158 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not a debate page. It is intended for actual discussion of improvements to the article. Collect (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, can you clarify why nearly every time I post an article improvement suggestion you delete it before anyone else has a chance to weigh in?

"Collect", can you also clarify why my current suggestion for improving the article is not - in your opinion - "actual discussion of improvements to the article"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.209.158 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Try looking at "history" to see who does what. Some editors take umbrage at being accused of what they did not do. As for "improving the article" read the top part of the Talk page. It has links as to what is, and is not, proper usage of such a page. Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, can you state SPECIFICALLY what you problem is with adding a "Public Image" and/or "Rise and Fall in Media" section to the article? Referring me to the top of the page is not helpful in understanding or clarifying your own viewpoint on adding the sections to the article.

By the way, is there anyone else online right now, anybody else have an opinion on this? I get the feeling my very valid improvements will also get deleted from JtP "discussion" very shortly, like my other suggestions. 63.226.209.158 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Joe's ineffectiveness as a political celebrity/activist should be clear from the article. I don't think it should have its own section however. (BTW rhetorical and theoretical  questions are common in political discourse.  For instance in an online discussion about terrorism I mentioned my niece who was born in Vietnam (and adopted by my sister).  I said that her parents had been killed by the communists and asked if it would be a good idea for her to go back there and start setting off bombs, rather than getting on with her life. In reality her parents died natural deaths, still I think it was an effective point.)   Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussion about the article, not about the topic of the article. First, we need reliable sources discussing this.  From there, we can discuss whether anything belongs in here for balance.  As to his "public image", we have a section on his tax lien, a mention that he doesn't have a plumber's license, that he's taking this 15 minutes and may use for a congressional run.  What specific language do you want?  The burden is on you to be specific about what you think needs a mention; other people aren't going to be able to say why they don't like something unless you have specific language and specific sources backing that up.  I really don't see the need for it.  What you seem to be asking for is a synthesis of information that says he's generally unreliable, and that's not allowed.  Is there someone out there who has commented what, "Joe is a liar?  Joe is using his fame excessively?  The record deal is idiotic?"  Is there a reason that needs a separate section?  I think it'd be more effective to simply state each problem in each section.  "He claims this.  He's wrong.  The truth is this..."  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If no one else minds, I may just archive this section. I'm guessing that there aren't many here who agree with the sentiment above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Take off infobox
I suggested this above and the more I think about it the more I think it's a good idea. There is no rule that an article has to have an infobox. In this case it adds nothing to the article (the picture could stand by itself), and the information it contains does not really speak to Joe's notability. He is not notable for being a plumber, or living in a certain town, or working for a certain company, or being a citizen of the United States, or even for his name. I think it's better to let the information about Joe come out in the article rather than trying to pin it down with a few words in an infobox. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW "Joe the Plumber" is a label given by Senator McCain, or his speechwriters, not an "other name." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is, is this about Joe or about the handle "Joe the Plumber"? If it is about Joe, then the infobox is needed.  If it is about "Joe the Plumber" and Samuel is a piece of the "Joe the Plumber" cog, then no an infobox is not needed.  To me, Joe W is not notable, "Joe the Plumber" is.  "Joe the plumber" is  (and has been) used as a metaphor for everyday America, and Joe W become the physical embodiment of that metaphor.  BUT, that being said, this article is more about Joe W, in which case the conventions at WP:BIO dictate that the infobox is the standard.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it might be okay to ignore the conventions at WP:BIO in this case? The infobox has been a source of controversy, exactly because having it demands pinning Joe down to, for instance, being a plumber when really his whole identity/importance is rather vague and is better treated at length in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is part of a move to make it more about the metaphor, which I support, then I have no problem. That means relegating Joe W to a section, not the lead sentence.  If this remains an article about Joe W, then I would argue for keeping it.  It boils down to the direction of the article.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is schizophrenic. It really should be more about the phenomenon, and also include information on the person behind it, but currently much of it written as if were a bio about Joe the person. Joe the person is not notable, but Joe the Plumber as a metaphor or symbol is. The infobox is useless as it is, so I agree with removing it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article had the biographical stuff removed, then the infobox would be meaningless. Alas, biographical stuff has been in the article ab initio, and the material on improper use of government computers would arguably not be related to a non-biographical article. With the AfD discussion on Jones-Kelley, the entire topic of her embarrassing behavior would leave WP. Collect (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting removing the bio info on Joe W. Just the (for this article) useless infobox.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting removing the bio info on Joe W either, but to me, Joe W isn't Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber is a larger concept, that predates Joe W, but was reinvisioned in the 2008 election.  An article with Joe W would be incomplete, but I don't think the article should be about Joe W---a section should---perhaps even a large section, but not the whole article.  Personally, I think the focus is backwards.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Joe W. is notable enough for his own article, as a minor celebrity/activist. The notability of a generic "Joe the Plumber" is going to be hard to establish. Certainly public interest in the campaign focused on the former. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I partially agree. I do think that Joe W is notable enough now for his own article given the amount of coverages that has been devoted to him along with the meme surrounding the moniker, especially when combined with snooping scandal of Joe W's records.  I'm not necessarily convinced however, the Joe W exceeds Generic "JTP" in public awareness/notability.  Certainly amongst political junkies this is true, but for the general public, I'm not personally convinced. I suspect it'll be similar to Rosie_the_riveter, where the meme becomes far more prevalent in the public consciousness than the actual person. Nonetheless, I definitely feel there are two subjects requiring wiki coverage: Joe W the person and JTP the meme.  Dman727 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is some consensus to remove the infobox. I'm going to take it off, leaving the picture, and see what happens. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see someone has put the infobox back. I counted myself and Becksguy as supporting its removal and Balloonman, Collect, and Dman727 somewhat supporting the idea.  Nobody spoke out strongly to keep it. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD of related article
Please see: Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection
I have semi-protected this talk page for a short period. I feel that my comments above were quite clear that if the anonymous user wants something changed, they need to make specific suggestions as to what, not general comments about what everyone else needs to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that was the right call. Dman727 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i think the anonymous person had valid points. why would we chase such a person away? arent we supposed to welcome other views? i think it was silly to protect the page from someone who seemed to want to help. Brendan19 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether they had a point, huge posts repeating the same thing and refusals to respond to simple requests for specific details (instead of rants about how everyone else needs to open their mind) are a violation of WP:TALK and generally not helpful. I told him multiple times what he could do and instead the responses are my talk page indicate to me an intentional refusal to actually do what is asked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

please do not "fix" what has been duiscussed for ages
Occupation in lede and infobox is "Plumber." This has been settled for a while now. "Plumbing" primarily refers to pipes and is not commonly used to refer to what a person's occupation is. Vide many listed as "businessman" as occupation -- not "business." "Lawyer" and not "lawyering." "Author" and not "writing." And so ad infinitum. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took off the infobox. It would be very easy to remove the words "as a plumber" from the first sentence and end the controversy right there. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * steve, that makes too much sense not to do. and collect, i would also somewhat agree w/ you and suggest you follow your own advice.  s. joes plumbers license (actually lack thereof) is relevant to a man known as joe the plumber.  please dont "fix" something by adding your own spin to it.  there is no debate as to the relevance of his not having a license.  the fact that it has been so frequently mentioned in the press shows just how relevant it is.  thanks.  Brendan19 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that his license status should be mentioned in the article, since it was in the media. I also didn't mean that taking off "as a plumber" would remove all controversy about Joe, just the particular controversy about him being called a plumber or not in this article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anent your claim in an edit summary that it is OR to list union endorsement -- it is found in the very cite used tfor the licensing issue (Washington Post). Per discussion in WP:BLP/N on this, where a fact is found in the same sentence as the claim made, it is neither SYN nor OR. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP/N etc. -- "plumbing" refers to pipes. The occupation of a person who works on plumbing is "plumber." I did not touch the section about his license, the issue is what word is used in the lede and infobox. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's one reason I suggested taking off the infobox. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * wow, sometimes its hard to tell this is a collaboration and not just one persons views. collect, you did touch the section about his license, so why would you say you didnt?
 * also, about the infobox i feel exactly as steve does.


 * as to the rest of whay you said collect, your wikipedia letters (WP:BLP/N)dont always trump logic and truth. see  to see why plumber is not an occupation (its a title) and then see[ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plumbing] to see that plumbing means working as a plumber- yes, it can also mean the pipes.  words sometimes have different meanings, but i doubt anyone would confuse s. joe w/ lead pipes (i realize i am setting up a joke here).


 * oren0, i never tried to invent a consensus, but why dont we try to find the consensus about the infobox? i really dont care if we have an infobox or not, but it does eliminate the pointless back and forth between editors about s. joes title.  why not just say who he works for and let the readers figure it out for themselves what his title should be based on his sobriquet and everything else (including the fact that he has no license because he didnt complete his apprenticeship)?  wouldnt that be fair and accurate?  Brendan19 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing the infobox doesn't solve this problem. People have infoboxes. I feel less strongly about plumbing/plumber but removing an infobox because we disagree is reminiscent of Solomon. Why not just delete the article because we have disagreements? Oren0 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the article is interesting and informative, the infobox is not. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise
The infobox has been a war zone because a few editors insist on their singular definition of what joe's is, or is not. I would argue that forcing a single term for his occupation takes a political stance and becomes spin (either way). So here are some ideas for compromise:


 * 1) Remove the "Occupation" part of the infobox (as if this is needed anyway).
 * 2) If intransigent editors demands a single word, why not have it as "plumbing" which covers both licensed plumbers and others who work for licensed plumbers.
 * 3) A third, dual approach is to have something like "Plumber or Plumber's Assistant" depending on which definition a particular person wants - which will be explained in the article.
 * 4) Keep the status quo of a single word for "occupation" a keep on the constant sniping and edit wars.

Further, I suggest we vote on this. My vote is #1 to remove the occupation line from the box and let the article explain what he does in more than one word. Any others care to participate? (and please no bitching that this violates consensus since that clearly won't happen so why make that the requirement).Mattnad (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Far worse conflicts than this have been resolved by discussion; a majority vote is never going to convince anyone of consensus anyway. Oren0 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oren0, you're relatively new to this talk page, but there's one editor who makes sport of this and will disrupt any move towards consensus should it diverge from his POV. If you can help to convince him (and he'll become obvious soon to you if not already), go for it.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

plumbing for occupation or remove occupation from infobox. i think his title should be plumbers assistant, but i am willing to say that he works in the field of plumbing to compromise with those who want to call him a plumber. Brendan19 (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * remove from info box or plumbing or  plumbers assistant - (or one of the other terms that we have a reliable source verifying) - listed in order of preference --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the 200th time this sort of issue has arisen -- and the BLP/N overwhelming consensus was "plumber" would you like to post it there again? I suggest that the consensus there is unlikely to change. Collect (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not override verifiability - this page somehow slipped off my watchlist but last time out on the BLP notice board, neither you nor anyone else had provided a source that actually identified his occupation as a plumber - do you have one now? And withot a source supporting your posistion, please stop trying to advance it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And there was no consensus anyway.Mattnad (talk)


 * There was a decided consensus on BLP/N - as you are well aware. Collect (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But any source that actually can be used to verify the claim that his occupation is that of a "plumber"? And now we have one, from today even. We will see if they make an errata tomorrow.-- The Red Pen of Doom  05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * doesnt look like collect wants to see others opinions, just more of the same. as mattnad said, there was no consensus then just as there isnt one now.  the following directly refutes collects latest push to call the man a plumber...

"After The Washington Post reported it was unable to find a listing for Mr. Wurzelbacher in the database of the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, reported that Joe the Plumber is an unlicensed employee of Newell Plumbing &Heating.

He is not registered to work as a plumber in Ohio. (my emphasis added- b19)

The newspaper also reported that Mr. Wurzelbacher had a lien against him from the Ohio Department of Taxation in January, 2007, for failing to pay $1,183 in property taxes.

When the president of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors National Association in Washington issued a press release applauding Joe the Plumber for helping small business owners play a role in the debate on the nation's economic future, the business manager of the Toledo local of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters & Service Mechanics issued a statement complaining Joe the Plumber hadn't even undergone apprenticeship training." -

now, any chance we could get back on track and establish a consensus? Brendan19 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe W. does not need a license to work as a plumber under the supervision of a licensed plumber. As he does. He would, however, need a license to operate independently as a plumber for hire to the public. Further, a plumber is someone that does plumbing work, just as a gardener is someone that does gardening work. He works as a plumber, therefore he is a plumber, licensed or not. Pure and simple. Licensing has nothing to do with his occupation as a plumber, only with his ability to work independently. — Becksguy (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is enough to say he works for a plumbing company and is called Joe the Plumber. There is no need for the article to take a stand on the controversial issue of calling him a plumber or not. His employer does also not need to be named on the infobox. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can support Steve Dufour compromise. -- The Red Pen of Doom  07:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * steves compromise seems fine to me, too. so did mattnads.  Brendan19 (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Per RedPen's request, a solid ref for him being called a plumber has been added -- one which is all of a day old, so no one can say it is outdated. I am willing to furnish more cites as needed. Per the WP:BLP/N discussion of Occupation of Joe the Plumber, and the fact this is in WP:LEW, I would trust this disposes of this silliness and attempt to add contentious material to a BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not a compromise - there are other references that say otherwise. We know that collect will brook nothing but "plumber", will actively revert as many times as he want to (per his advanced notice below) so therefore we should consider removing the "Occupation" from the infobox. Collect is clear - no compromise language - his way or the highway - I won't step down - I'll pick a fight for fun - approach. Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now backed SIX separate comproimises. Amazingly enough, each one has been rejected by those who think "plumbers ass" or the like is correct. Amazingly enough, I do not think "plumbers ass" should be viewed as a "compromise." NOR do about 15 or 20 others who have weighed in.  As for attacking editors by name, I do not do so, but some think that is how Talk pages operate.  And your personal attacks are not proper use of any talk page anywhere in WP.  Collect (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So there appears to be common ground between Collect and other editors - lets see if we can start from there. What are the comproomise presentations that you have agreed to, becasue they dont seem to be on this page and have escaped my memory. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And Collect, I didn't see "plumber's ass" in the list of compromise ideas at top of this subsection.  Your hyperbole doesn't advance your position. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Plumber's ass" and "turd-gurgler" were emitted by an IP here -- recally one editor said I was wrong to find such suggestions unhelpful. Perhaps you missed the fact that the talk page was semi-protected for a while? Collect (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * i tried reporting collect to the edit warrior board, but one person seems to say there is no violation. i fear i did not show all the proper evidence.  and collect, when you have at least three different edit wars going on simultaneously you might expect people to mention it.  and no, mentioning it does not constitute an attack.  it is clear that you find anything but plumber to be contentious and there are many others who find plumber to be contentious.  a compromise would be to find a common ground- no occupation, plumbing, etc.  this is what you seem to refuse to do.  Brendan19 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You included me inserting "curly brackets" as a "revision" . The 3RR rule is for "reverts" not for actual general edits.  And again, the BLP/N discussion was quite conclusive, so I failt to see why you feel Joe is pipes .  I listed some of the editors who held that position before -- would you like the list agian? Collect (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, such a line of discussion is unlikely to promote any consensus on article improvements. However a reminder of the six options that are acceptable compromises for you is a likely place for consensus on article improvement. Lets keep discussion focused there. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

{undent} We appeared to be heading in a positive direction with Collect mentioning several compromises that he supported - lets stick to areas where we appear to be making progress and not go off on tangents - there is much that we do not agree on but we should not let that interfere with us actually getting together on the points that we can all support. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It could also be mentioned that being a plumber has no relationship to his notability. That may give a person more rights under the building codes but it doesn't give him any more rights under the First Amendment to ask a question of a political candidate. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Obama solicited the conversation in Joe's neighborhood as a campaign event. Collect (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's more or less how I understand it. Joe had every right to ask a question, plumber or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a plumber would indeed normally have absolutely nothing to do with his notability, and no relationship to the initial question asked of Obama, except that he's notable as Joe the Plumber, an election metaphor and symbol as well as a cultural icon. Even then, having whatever qualifying term du jour is being applied to him (assistant, helper, apprentice, etc), at the end of the day, he's still a plumber. Or maybe he will transcend that and become something else. After all, Harry S Truman was a haberdasher at one point.
 * I think it's an issue because McCain called him something that others (like the Local Plumbers Union) say he's not. And he also presented hypothetical questions to Obama in a way that suggested he was more of a plumber than he is.  And really, I'm not advocating a binary which prevents us from saying he's a plumber - the article can explain the nuances that he works in the plumber industry etc. etc.  It's that Collect wants the Infobox and Lede to pin down the article with a single term and will not discuss any other approach.  I think what we're trying to do is step back from that absolutism to let the article do its job properly.  So really, I and other don't disagree that some think Joe's  plumber.  The article can and should say that in the body along with the other interpretations of his legal status etc. etc.Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does his occupation even need to be in the infobox? Isn't the obvious solution just to omit it, particularly since the sources simply don't agree on that particular thing? --Minderbinder (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Score one more for compromise. Many editors agree on this point. Mattnad (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

for overeager 3RR warners - posted to WP:BLP/N
Note that 3RR has a specific exception for contentious material in a BLP. Adding the same stuff contrary to consensus and which is considered contentious is not a protected edit. Thanks! O have posted to WP:BLP/N Collect (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * given your volume of reverts and edits to this page i am surprised you think anyone would be overeager in suggesting that you watch your total numbers. just trying to give you a heads up, but if you dont think you need it then disregard.  i would double check that exception if i were you.  i believe your interpretation could lead you into trouble.  Brendan19 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Try WP:CIVIL. Collect (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in this dispute is serious enough to justify going over 3RR for BLP in either direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only one who actually hit the 3RR was -- Brendan19. He posted a formal complaint about me -- including my edit where I fixed curly brackets .  Collect (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Per we appear to have a sock entering into editing the article. Collect (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that's a shared IP. Relax. Mattnad (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The clearly public IPs are strike-outs in the list. Odds, unfortunately, are very high that the person is a sock as that address is not credited with many edits ever otherwise. ".20" has been blocked by Elonka,  and ".40" is listed as a sockpuppet, and all of the edits are in line with the person accused of being the sock owner.  As both appear to be the same person (not really OR), the odds are that the two accounts are the same person in the case instant. Collect (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This line of discussion is also unlikely to generate a point of consensus on the article. However, we are still waiting for Collect to refresh us on what his 6 compromise offers were so that we can begin to build a consensus from there. Can you again remind us of your compromise offers Collect? -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? You asked for it (though I think this is a gross misuse of the Talk page): 1: Supported compromise name change.   2. Supported use of "apprentice" after lede.  3. Agreed to ref in infobox (which is not found elsewhere in WP) 4. supported use of Ohio law (which is a primary source) to explain the intricacies of licensing there 5. supported use of "sobriquet" AND "nickname" as a compromise  6. support use of "paradigm" to end the S/N debate  7. agreed to Balloonman's proposed compromises  and several more.  Now that we have done this, why not actually compromise on stuff we can agree on -- like fixing the lede?   The talk page is not abut editors, but about making the article better. Collect (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair enough.  Now can we discuss compromise on whether we need to pin down the article on his occupation in the infobox?Mattnad (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

relevance tag
The union endorsement of Obama has been tagged with irrel -- and so must the entire licensing issue as it is clear that Joe is not violating any Ohio law by working for a plumbing contractor. If he is not violating the law, then why is it important whether he has a license at all? Seems at this point to be totally irrelevant either to JtP as paradigm of small business, or to SJW as a private individual. Collect (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have added that tag so at least mention that in your statement above. Before we accept this change, please explain why you think the professional union in the state where Joe works, who has commented on his professional credentials, and was reported by multiple reliable sources, is irrelevant. I see this as your attempt to excise anything that would suggest that Joe is anything but a professional plumber. The fact that you now see this as "irrelevant" given the debate about occupation suggests it is indeed very relevant.


 * Furthermore, I request that you participate in the discussion above to find a compromise on how we handle his occupation. You've been asked nicely to provide examples of where you supported compromise in the past so we can start from there.  If you do not want to consider compromise, then just say it so we can move on. Mattnad (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded on the context for that statement. And thank you Collect for identifying a clause that we can all agree is irrelevant. Per your desire, I removed it.  Glad we can agree on something for a change.Mattnad (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

While it looks like he hasn't violated Ohio state law, some of the sources say that city and county laws require licensing. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And no one has been charged -- I am sure that if Newell were violating the law that someone would have complained. It appears that no laws are being violated. If no laws are being violated, how is the entire subject relevant? Seems that it has no relevance for that entire section in such a case. Collect (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're raising this issue of illegality. Your whole line of reasoning seems like a  red herring argument. This section mentions he's not licensed to work as a plumber.  It covers aspects of his professional credentials and is part of understanding the sobriquet of Joe the Plumber.Mattnad (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If nothing is illegal about him not having a separate license, what is the purpose of stressing the lkicense issue? Ohio law does not require him to have a separate license if he is working for a contractor.  And I thought we dismissed both "sobriquet" and "nickname" finally. Collect (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not be illegal for him to work, but it is relevant to his claim as "Joe THE Plumber".  Sounds like he is a hired hand under the supervision of a plumber, but he isn't a plumber himself.--P Todd (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe is a plumber and he can work as a plumber. He just can't hire out to the public or operate as an independent plumber. His work has to be supervised by a licensed plumber, as he is doing working for Newell. But he still is a plumber regardless. — Becksguy (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So I think you agree this sectiom is relevant?Mattnad (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. — Becksguy (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is about Collect's opinion that Joe's licensing (or lack there of) is not relevant. Your comments re-stated part of article under discussion. You were not clear on whether you agree, or disagree with Collect, but since you felt it was important to repeat points the article, I guessed you were in favor of keeping it in.Mattnad (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article MUST be clear and straightforward in presenting that there is no suspicion that SJW has ever violated any laws or codes regarding operating without the licensure required. The article MUST be absolutely clear and straightforward in presenting any accusations that SJW may have acted in violation of any laws or codes regarding operating without the licensure required. Such implications must be from sources of the highest reliability. As long as that is clear, the article should also (based on the overwhelming verifiability) note that SJW is not a certified registered "plumber" under Ohio state and local laws. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the sourced content removed in this edit it appears there are reliable sources suggesting that SJW has not necessarily operated completely within Ohio's regulations. So I have adjusted my comment above. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Detailed Comment
I think I now understand Collect's tit-for-tat approach - he feels that if the union endorsement of Obama is irrelevant, then he wants the whole section related to Joe's licensing removed. Hence his somewhat tortured logic suggesting his objection to this section is about whether or not Joe can legally perform plumbing tasks. There is no debate about that, and the section covers that detail already.

By contrast, one can readily understand an editorial position that the view of Local Union on professional licensing is separate from the National Union's endorsement of Obama. We can disagree on whether these should be linked, but we're not inventing an issue.

Other editors have pointed out that Joe's licensing is about the credibility of his claim that he might take over the business some day, as well as a relevant juxtaposition to McCains's sobriquet of "Joe the Plumber". Also, it's part of the objection to calling Joe a "plumber" (which could be what Collect is really after). I'll do some work on the article to make that context clearer since Collect has misunderstood the purpose of that line of exposition.Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of personal attacks on why I feel the whole section is irrelevant is improper use of the Talk page. As we have finally taken the occupation out of the lede by pretty clear consensus, the rationale for discussing the now irrelevant occupation is moot.   As for using the term "certified plumber" -- that term does not exist in Ohio, hence is also irrelevant.  Thanks!  (the post to which this was a reply was moved above after this was posted) Collect (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect, I'm allowed to frame my points and you're the editor that made his licensing an issue. Not personal at all. And I think Red Pen of Doom really meant to write "licensed plumber" if that helps you out. Also, I'm wondering why you still insist that we put Plumber in the infobox given what you've just written above.  I'm just so confused by what you write, in so many places, that I just can't get your position straight.  So what's your point? Again?  Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We now have under "Plumbing career" statements which, taken as a whole, say that Joe does not have an Ohio license, and that he does not need one to work as a plumber for Newell. Is that a fair statement?   Collect (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that's an incomplete summary. See my detailed comment at the top of this subsection section regarding the broader relevance of this topic. As mentioned, when I have more time I'll tweak the section to make it crystal clear.  OK with you?Mattnad (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the mention of the national endorsement -- it was in the single sentence in the Washington Post article -- it is not SYN or ROR, it is part of what was cited directly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not Syn or ROR. Still may not be relevant, but I'll leave it.Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying that he does not have a plumbing license but also saying that he does not need one while working for Newell is fine with me. Since there was press coverage of the license issue and since the union's comments on it, although not very relevant in the greater scheme, was covered by reliable sources, I guess it can stay in the article (although I'm not enthusiastic about it). Basically I'm fine with presenting both sides of any of the issues that are sufficiently notable. Personally I think that all of us (including myself) have spent way more time on this entire article, and certainly on these particular issues than it's worth, so if we can finally cone to some kind of a compromise consensus, let's go for it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed: Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a separate license as a plumber in Ohio, nor does he need one as he is employed by a licensed plumbing contractor. Place under personal, and delete "plumbing career" in toto. Collect (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Too narrow - seems designed to eliminate elements that other editors have felt relevant about Man and Meme.  This is an article in part based on the story of man, who wants to buy a plumbing business as part of his career development, his interaction with Obama over the impact of proposed tax polity, and is then transformed into a political message around "Joe the Plumber" - why on earth would you want to eliminate context around his plumbing career and related licensing? Mattnad (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly because all the long section boils down ot "He has no separate license, and he does not need one." Collect (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's how you boil it down. That's your prerogative but as you can see on this talk page, other editors differ.Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that, in fact, mine is not a minority view. As for adding really contentious material, as one did, that seems designed to elicit a breakdown of the consensus which was present. Assertions that Joe is violating the law are incorrect, and violative of WP:BLP. Assertions that the cites of the Ohio law are "OR" when the same "research" is found on other sites are incorrect and contentious.  Please note that NO actions have been taken against Newll or JtP for operating under the Ohio laws concerning plumbing contractors. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling Good Faith edits "vandalism" does not work. Collect (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect, these are reliable sources, Newsweek, MSNBC, and Toledo balce that you are eliminating without justification. That's vandalism in my book.Mattnad (talk)
 * You DELETED all the information about Ohio law. Without any consensus. Then you add massive amounts of contentious material. Without consensus. When the material is deleted per WP:BLP, you call the good faith edit "vandalism."    Sorry -- you need clear consensus to ADD material contentious material. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ohio law was brought into the article by you. As it turns out, you are not an expert in how it applies. Initially, we trusted your interpretation, but it seems that with some research, we find news reports that local officials say he's working illegally.  Therefore your interpretation of the law is incorrect, the section is meaningless given the context, and to include it is WP:OR (and bad writing).


 * Now, let's get to the nub of your vandalism. You just can't say something is contentious.  You may not like that local officials say he's working illegally (as reported by RS), but it's not contentious. You'll have to explain why it's contentious.Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was NOT the one who first cited the Ohio law. And if a local police force says he is violating the law, I would have suspected someone whould have been arrested by now. NO ONE HAS.  Assertions therefore that he is "illegal" are worthless.  As for stating the folks who BY CONSENSUS found the Ohio law germane, you are saying you have a veto over prior consensus. Get a new one if you wish, but do not make wrong assertions about any editors.  As for your misues of the word "vandalism" -- read what it is in WP before making statements you will have to strike out.  Per WP:BLP, contentious material must be included by CONSENSUS else it stays out.  I consider a statement that a person is violating the law to be "contentious."   Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Breaking the law does not mean you get arrested. Let me provide just one the quotes your removed without justification. This from Newsweek "Reporters working on profiles soon discovered that Wurzelbacher didn’t actually have a state or local license to work as a plumber in the Toledo area, and despite Wurzelbacher’s insistence that he didn’t need one, local officials and building inspectors in Toledo insisted he did. On Friday, those officials said a letter was being mailed to Wurzelbacher’s employer warning him to get into compliance with city codes or face the loss of the company’s license."   Mattnad (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Financial information
Is a 2008 D&B copyright report more accurate on the financial state of the /Newell Corporation than comments by SJW? I submit that removing a cited D&B report with a 2008 copyright is improper, as it is a "reliable source" under all WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When you have multiple sources, does it make sense to pick one that's the most credible? The copyright (which covers the full database) doesn't mean it's accurate.  Let's put it this way, do you really think Joe is so stupid to be unable to count how many people work in Newell?  Or perhaps,  he's more current than D&B on the actual size of the business since he's there on a day to day basis? If you had to pick a source for reliability and accuracy - is it Joe or D&B.


 * Having been in private companies and seen the related D&B reports, I can tell you from personal experience D&B is not as accurate for private companies as they are for public entities that publish their information. In one of my businesses, over 10 years, D&B contacted us once to check.  Things have changed, but their report hasn't. Mattnad (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And D&B is a reputable RS. Dated 2008. Collect (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't fight you on this, but it's not the best approach. I guess you do think Joe is too stupid to count. Mattnad (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Joe is not above misleading people for his own purpose. D&B has a lot more established reliable demonstratable integrity than Joe. Proxy User (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan  &#124;   39  23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. Now they have to work it out on talk and meet in the middle (what I usually consider the best way to go).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, not so much in the middle as where the preponderance of evidence is. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict, reply to TMC) Clearly you haven't been following along this whole time. This is the ninth time the page has been fully protected, mostly due to Collect and Mattnad. In all honesty, they should be getting warnings for edit warring and eventually blocked (if they persist); locking down the page because two editors can't agree is probably unfair. But, it's a complex page full of stubborn editors with nothing better to do. Tan   &#124;   39  23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I was and am following that page but stay away when it comes to editing it for reasons you just laid out. sigh.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in my defense Tan39, when I saw that Collect was determined to revert, I took it to the talk page. And while I don't expect you to comment on the RFC here, take a look at it. What would have suggested I do differently. I suppose I could have avoided directly dealing with Collect, but when there's a content dispute with no meaningful dialog - what should we do?  I tried his talk page and it was not fruitful.  Mattnad (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See you all in late December, when these same issues will inevitably come up again.
 * In the mean time, I am again going to explore options to stop editors whose only contribution is deleting.
 * Let me know when the fight starts again. Inclusionist (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * protection expires on christmas, so im letting you know now that it may start then. hope not, but im employing the wait and see approach.  Brendan19 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't look forward to another edit war and rather try to talk it out to solve at least part of the problem ASAP. Consensus can change so here is everybody's chance.Good luck.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to create a workshop page and invite an editor or two to work on improvements then invite others to comment while the article is in lockdown? We may be able to settle some disputes prior to the re-opening of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen that work well, and since this article is locked down, it's a viable suggestion, and the only one available now. If we reach consensus, then either editprotected or unlock the article, depending. — Becksguy (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that one of the two persistent edit-warrers on this page, Collect, has made no effort to discuss anything during the page lockdown. This is very telling, and will be given due weight if edit wars continue. Tan  &#124;   39  17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Temporary workshop page per above suggestion and WP:SUBPAGES created at subpage of this talk page Talk:Joe the Plumber/Temp since since no one else didit. Contains the single section entitled Plumbing career and licensing and references. I suggest we work on one section at a time and this seems to be a contentious one. — Becksguy (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Becks. Are you sure this is the section that needs editing during the block?  I can see us wanting to trim it down, but really only two editors out of many have expressed concerns about the content. I'm a little concerned that we're potentially opening up another front on the edit wars (so to speak).  Mattnad (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure it's the best place to start. But it's the section that had the most edits just before the current full protection and it has an open RfC. And much of the debate has been about whether Joe is, or is not a plumber and about the licensing issue. I'm open to discussing anything on the subpage that may lead to a resolution, so if you or others think this section is not the best place to start, we can always change it. If editors are willing to thrash out their differences on a temporary workshop page, that has to be better for the article, as we can change content there as much as we want until we are happy with it. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this - why don't we wait until the RFC on this section is closed and then we can work on it. I'm all for trimming it down, but as you can see above in the RFC section, there are still a couple of editors trying to find ways to exclude content that states, in one form or another, that JWS is not a real plumber.  I'd like that process to play itself out so that we don't have two sets of debates on the same topic.  I'm a bit new to this wiki-legal process, but how does an RFC conclude?Mattnad (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll - two articles for 2 topics?
Has Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher's notability extended beyond "Joe the Plumber" to the point that it makes sense to create separate articles - one a biographical article about the living person SJW and one about the "concept"/"meme" 'Joe the Plumber'? Would such a division help stabilize the article(s)? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey RPoD, you swiped my idea from two months ago. LOL.  I think it would be a good idea, and yes, it would definitely ease the pressure on the BLP article.  Besides, the meme is more interesting.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * heh heh - take good ideas where you can get them! I am not sure that this is actually the basis of the continued disagreements, but if other editors feel that a content fork (and not a POV fork) is the root of our problem here, well, then lets take out the problem. However, I would not want to create another article to simply have fights split over two articles rather than one, and I am not convinced myself that SJW currently does have notability outside "Joe the Plumber" or that "Joe the Plumber" has extended notability outside of its relation to this particular person, but I am willing to be convinced. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. So this makes it not a caveat emptor, maybe a caveat canes, or better still caveat lupos.  In any case you are correct.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have always thought that this article should be more about the symbol or icon than about the person behind the metaphor. The existing Joe the Plumber article is clearly notable now and does not seem to be vulnerable to a deletion discussion, but is Joe Wurzelbacher sufficiently notable away from that persona to be a separate article? Forking the article would take the fight about his plumbing license and other contentious issues out of Joe the Plumber article and move them into the Wurzelbacher article. There would also be a fair amount of overlap and I can see future motions to merge them again or even for an AfD. So this may not eliminate the disputes, just move them to a new article. On the other hand, maybe people won't care nearly as much about a Wurzelbacher article. I know I won't. — Becksguy (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can find a way to decisively separate the two, and then be vigilant about topic creep (see Helen Jones-Kelley) this might now be the time to start. Mattnad (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone is serious about this, then they should suggest a proposal (our an outline at the least) accompanied by a list of reliable sources concerning "Joe the meme." Apart from the Obama/McCain debate, most recent coverage on JtP has been on the person and not the metaphor. Since the debate, the ongoing discussion has been on Wurzelbacher the person - whose background was searched by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, who started the watchdog group Secure Our Dream, and who is now out on a book tour to campaign for his book, Joe the Plumber - Fighting for the American Dream. The title of this book suggest that the name of S. J. Wurzelbacher and "Joe the Plumber" will remain connected for some time to come. Good luck on the two articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose From a lot of past experience, I think it is better that we all focus our energies in one place. I have seen way to many times this: A well sourced article split up for what seems like good reasons. Then one of the articles becomes forgotten and neglected. Then new editors constantly add duplicate material to the wrong article. Sometimes the link to the split article is removed. Inclusionist (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are no reliable sources to back up the OR claim that JtP is a meme. Joe Wurzelbacher is an individual who asked a question, had his background searched by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, started the watchdog group Secure Our Dream, and wrote the text Joe the Plumber - Fighting for the American Dream. The proposed idea of creating 2 seperate articles is as logical as creating 2 articles for Hulk Hogan and Terry Gene Bollea. They are one in the same - show me reliable sources that prove otherwise! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Wikipedia is not a term paper; the idea of Joe the Plumber as a "meme" or "concept" is original research. This topic has popped up several times in the talk pages. The main problem is several editors seemed to be confused over the concepts of metaphor and example; a person being used in a metaphor doesn't make them a metaphor. John McCain saying "Well you're all Joe the Plumber" doesn't make Joe the Plumber a metaphor any more than someone saying "Warren Buffet is the Michael Jordan of investing" makes Michael Jordan a metaphor. In addition, I haven't seen the slightest bit of proof that the term "Joe the Plumber" has been detached from Joe Wurzelbacher whatsoever. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose and comment: Hey, come one guys and girls. Let's be honest. The only reason that Wurzelbacher has his own bio-article is because it was written meanwhile the election was still going on. Separating it into two articles, like he would be a notable person on his own would be just a joke. Any one remembers the discussion to merge it into another (election article)? If he would deserve an own bio all of us would deserve one. I can't repeat it enough: That article was a joke as it started, is still a joke and even more a joke to edit warring over it. How low do we have to go to make WP a joke and nothing but a joke itself? Either make JTP's article a clearly election related one or merge and split it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (Late) clarify: By splitting I meant spread it into the election articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose splitting - One article is plenty. Absent his notoriety as JTP, I don't see how SJW would pass WP:NOTE. There are hundreds of people out there who are roughly comparable in terms of what he/they have done in the periods prior to and following after the final month of the 2008 election campaign. Cgingold (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point. Although I will say again that Joe the Plumber is not the same as "Joe the Plumber", if you split it into two articles you will either have not enough to fill either one, or so much crossover that a week later someone will suggest merging them. Keep it as one. Even after he gets his tell-all book published. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Brendan19 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Initially I was ambivalent about forking the article as I could see advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. However, after reading some excellent arguments here against, and thinking some more, I now also oppose splitting. Each article separately would be vulnerable to deletion or merging attempts, and too much content overlaps anyway. However, as BB notes, and I've said before, "Joe the Plumber" is not the same as Joe the Plumber. There is both a real person and a metaphor. — Becksguy (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have a solid point of consensus - where can we go from here to continue to build on our points of agreement? -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Within the article, be sure to separate the man from the myth, so to speak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe vs. McCain
While you all are bickering over whether he's a plumber or not, Joe has been trashing John McCain's campaign. His book should make for some interesting reading. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I saw that news item the other day, and at some point it should be included in the article. If pro MCain comments by Joe are included, then so should anti McCain comments. I can't wait until the book comes out. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And again I'm reminded - why do we value what this dude has to say? Mattnad (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He's Joe Sixpack, the weather vane of Middle America! So says Joe The Plumber, So says Joe Sixpack and his wife Jane Maybelline and her brood of Nuclear Children. It's important from a marketing perspective, and as you know, God employs a team of marketers to sell His red, white, and blue apple pies. Proxy User (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Freakin' A, Bubba! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the same reason we have an article about him. Whatever that might be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The old write a book & cash in trick, eh? Next stop, Joe's reality show So ya think you're a Joe. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Glenn Beck interview is illuminating for sure. I doubt that any book will generate lots of money. Collect (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the following be added to the article?

Wurzelbacher Quote about McCain: "...the Republicans didn't put out a candidate for us to really vote for. It's the lesser of two evils. When you get to that level, you've compromised your principles, you've compromised your values so often and you owe your soul to whatever special interest group or lobbyist has padded your campaign finances and everything else that you no longer are your own man. So you can no longer stand on your own feet because they've been cut out from underneath you years ago." Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/ 63.226.222.174 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, anything that makes him look even more like a jerk is good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Joe, or McCain? :) Kelly  hi! 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, my statement was a bit ambiguous, wasn't it. 0:) OK, let's go back to what someone said earlier: Why do we care what this guy has to say about McCain? And is it appropriate to be stacking up a bunch of verbal artillery against McCain, who probably did the best he could under the circumstances? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mainly joking...Joe is notable as a campaign figure, but I don't think he has a whole lot going for him going forward. However, he's probably got a brighter future among conservatives than McCain, who wasn't even invited to CPAC this year. Kelly  hi! 19:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no intention to bash McCain (who in my mind is a war hero). The article is about a certain "Joe the Plumber" who emerged during and later rose to prominence directly as a result of McCain's campaign making use of (without sufficiently "vetting") him. The JTP article has a post-campaign section on Wurzelbacher. It seems logical to include Wurzel's apparent reversal in sentiment towards McCain, esp. since the timeframe of his reversal so closely follows the election. In short, it seems well within the scope of and substantially relevant to the article. 63.226.222.174 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote does not speak well of Mr. Plumber, nor do his negative comments about the campaign from his forthcoming book. The GOP had their chance to choose whoever they wanted, and they chose McCain. I feel sad for McCain. He should have been the guy in 2000, but he was sabotaged. It's also unfortunate in a way that Bush won in 2000 instead of Gore, because I suspect McCain would have been a more formidable challenger in 2004 against Gore than he was in 2008 against Obama. Throughout this year's campaign, I was impressed by the class demonstrated most of the time by McCain. Would that his many detractors now, including Joe the Plumber, would demonstrate similar class. And just to clear things up - that quote makes JTP look like a jerk. Given what you're saying, maybe it would be good to have it there, to show what he's really made of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Baseball Bugs. Incidentally, my two contributions have been posted for almost 5 minutes without being deleted yet. Is Collect on holiday?63.226.222.174 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Zing! I don't know, it's not my day to watch him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh - ya know I love you, Bugs - but one of the greatest things about Obama winning is that, as a libertarian, I longer have to pretend to like McCain. Talk about uninspiring! His Palin choice was the only thing that swung me to him from Bob Barr, but he was a total milquetoast as a campaigner. I completely sympathize with Wurzelbacher's sentiment here. Kelly  hi! 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion that McCain was a "throwaway" candidate, as the GOP figured they were going to lose anyway. Kind of like when they ran Dole in 1996. Or when the Democrats ran Stevenson a second time in 1956. Still, it would have been interesting to see Mitt Romney get the nomination. The religious right would have really been torn on that one. But he might have been more popular overall than McCain turned out to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree - especially since McCain turned out to be clueless economy-wise. He might have had a chance if he had rallied Republican opposition against Bailoutpalooza, but he "suspended his campaign" and ultimately voted with Bush and the Democrats. That was the reason he lost, IMHO. The social-cons probably would have ultimately rallied behind Romney (although with reluctance - not because of his faith, but because of his endless flip-flopping)...but it would have been a tough sell, depending on his VP choice. Kelly  hi! 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that, but that's a point - that people in the GOP suspected that Romney was insincere. Maybe it could be said that the public thought McCain was sincere, but wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your political instincts are good as always. In the conservative blogs during the primaries, a frequent epithet towards Mitt was "used car salesman". I don't think McCain was ever considered an opportunist like Romney, but he was just too far to the left for many Republicans - there are a lot of calls now to end open primaries for GOP candidates, or to stop looking to liberal early states like Iowa or New Hampshire. McCain's loss has pretty much discredited the neocon strategy for appealing to the center to achieve electoral victory - it's way early to tell for sure, but the next GOP candidate will likely be an unabashed Reagan-con like Sanford, Palin, or Jindal. Kelly  hi! 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nunberg notes Joe the Plumber not original to Wurzelbacher
see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html and his footnote 2. Mulp (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been saying for awhile, at some length (though not very much length), that Joe the Plumber is a guy, and "Joe the Plumber" is a metaphor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquet?
Especially since the definition of "sobriquet" is "a nickname" it seems silly to dispute the use of "nickname." Can anyone furnish a real reason for differentiation of the synnyms? Collect (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sobriquet is appropriate in this case.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Sobriquet' is the correct term. 'Nickname' is an informal usage and less closely defined. Further, 'Joe the Plumber' fits very nicely with the exemplification of the usage within the 'sobriquet' article. It is defined as "a nickname which is familiar enough such that it can be used in place of a real name without the need of explanation". I think that this can be distinguished from a nickname such as 'sawbones', as in John 'Sawbones' Smith, which can be used for any doctor. TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They are synonyms. In other words, there is no difference in meaning. Other than the fact "sobriquet" is a 25 cent French word, why argue? RHD: " so⋅bri⋅quet   /ˈsoʊbrəˌkeɪ, -ˌkɛt, ˌsoʊbrəˈkeɪ, -ˈkɛt; Fr. sɔbriˈkɛ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [soh-bruh-key, -ket, soh-bruh-key, -ket; Fr. saw-bree-ke] Show IPA Pronunciation  –noun, plural -quets  /-ˌkeɪz, -ˌkɛts, -ˈkeɪz, -ˈkɛts; Fr. -ˈkɛ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [-keyz, -kets, -keyz, -kets; Fr. -ke] Show IPA Pronunciation  . a nickname. " AHD: "so·bri·quet    (sō'brĭ-kā', -kět', sō'brĭ-kā', kět')  Pronunciation Key n.   An affectionate or humorous nickname. An assumed name. "  In the case at hand, "assumed name" wouldm in fact, be incorrect.  Wordnet: "sobriquet noun a familiar name for a person (often a shortened version of a person's given name); "Joe's mother would not use his nickname and always called him Joseph"; "Henry's nickname was Slim" [syn: nickname] "  Wordnet does not even use the word "sobriquet" in its examples.  AHD: "nick·name    (nĭk'nām')  Pronunciation Key  n.   A descriptive name added to or replacing the actual name of a person, place, or thing.  A familiar or shortened form of a proper name. "  Guess what? "Joe the Plumber" fits the dictionary def of "nickname" to a T. (By the way, WP does not allow WP to be used as a reference for quite obvious reasons. Presidents? We have a list of "nicknames" not of "sobriquets" on WP. For some reason, the Eleventh Edition of the EB is considered a teesny bit out of date .  Collect (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "They are synonyms. In other words, there is no difference in meaning" No, they are different words that have very similar meaning(s), but there are subtle differences in meanings/usage/implications. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also wonder why we'd favour a word that's not in common use (or "vernacular" per the SAT). I read a lot, and this is the first time I've come across this word. Can't we err on the side of easy understanding? Mattnad (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Collect and Mattnad. Except that I think Sobriquet is a four bit (50 cent) word. :-) It is not in common American use, IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont see why the link to the 50 cent word, piped with the common term was changed - it seemed to accomplish all of our goals - presenting easy to read text with more accurate detail for those who wished more detail. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, basically for the reason that you give above "there are subtle differences in meanings/usage/implications" and since this is an encyclopaedia we should strive for accuracy and precision. 'Common usage' is fine for determining the title of articles but not for the content of a reference work. TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * considering the lack of precision in important _content_ points of the article, any "lack of precision" in the use of a piped "nickname" is overwhelmed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, you would have a lot of work changing the huge number of pages referring to "nickname" (175,681) and the minuscule number using "sobriquet" (803 including titles) on WP.  Say a factor of more than two hundred to one?  Collect (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I better get started then :-) TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, sobriquet and nickname are not true synonyms. There a difference in sense.  Sobriquet fits -- unless Joes call up customers with backed up crappers and says "Hi, this is Joe the Plumber".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was trying to say :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Words not in common American usage must not be used, as this is an encyclopedia that must be usable by many, including those with less education (due to the dumbing down of American education). We should be writing articles for maximum readability and usability, not to show off vocabulary. How many typical Junior High or High School students in America know what sobriquet means. I didn't. I see four editors with, in my opinion, stronger arguments on this thread that do not support "sobriquet" vs. the two that support. Red Pen's compromise seems reasonable and very workable—wikilinked sobriquet piped with nickname. — Becksguy (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ANGER! I actually didn't know what sobriquet means, and learnt something when I went to the Wiki article and read up. Do not deprive others of this knowledge. It's probably the best takeaway they could get from this utterly meaningless article. God... I wonder why dumbness is on the rise when this kind of attitude is being thrown around.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because some have a less advanced grip on English we have our sister project Wikipedia:Simple English (which has yet to get a page on Joe!). I can hardly understand a word of Fabales but I don't expect it to be simplified for me! TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. An encyclopedia id for learning.  Let's take a standard encyclopedic article about the earth: we could say perigee or the earth's nearest approach to the sun during its yearly orbt.  I prefer the first.
 * Also,sobriquet isn't that uncommon, it gets 1.85 million hits. Fabales gets about 40% as many. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncommon. Sobriquet is found on a total of 803 places in WP articles. Many of which are for works with that title. Nickname hits 175,944. There seems to be a slight edge for one of the eterms, doesn;t there? Collect (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's uncommon. It's a little misleading, not that it's inaccurate, but that it's kind of a peacock term - taking attention away from the topic. The word "nickname" is more easily understood, although perhaps not as thoroughly descriptive. However, I liked learning a new word, and if the Wikilink is included I hope it's left as is. Without the Wikilink it messes up the article. In any case it shouldn't be this much of an issue between editors which version is preferable. I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest we all find more meaningful, substantive and constructive ways to spend our time on Wikpedia. On other pages that are more in need of editors than this one. VictorC (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Helps me to remember the word when such a huge fuss is made about it. So consensus is to keep sobriquet in the lede. Great!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is not consensus for sobriquet. There is actually more consensus to go back to nickname (piped from wikilinked sobriquet) as having much more precedent and a much more commonly understood meaning. — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We understand that you disagree, Becksguy. However, and of course I know that consensus doesn't mean a majority, but in this case we have five editors for "sobriquet" (Jim, TF, Redpen, MS, VictorC) and three against (Collect, Matt, you). Perhaps you know of another discussion going on, but there is not "more consensus" (whatever that means) for changing back to "nickname". If I could add my two cents, we should not be dumbing down Wikipedia, and sobriquet != nickname. There is a subtle difference, and the piped link is an extremely easy way for people to find out what it means - most people only have to mouse over the word and they'll be informed of the near-synonym of "nickname". Tan   &#124;   39  00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Nickname article which is the one which also links to all the lists of nicknames on WP. And here I hoped this LEW was over. and "votes" do not mean anything. With a factor of 200 to 1 for use of "nickname" in WP, I think now is the time to bring this to WP:BLP/N. Hope we can get good input there. 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Collect (talk)
 * Note that I said that consensus is not a vote; I was merely illustrating that Becksguy's claim that there was "more consensus" was false. Also, it's interesting (and telling) that while you think it's a lame edit war, you feel like escalating it to another venue - in effect, perpetuating the war. Your 200-1 argument is hard to swallow, also, as there is plenty that is inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong pervading Wikipedia; there is no standard for this that needs to be followed and if we have the chance to use a slightly more accurate term here, I think we should. Tan   &#124;   39  00:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * compromise? How about using the more accessable "nickname" in the lede and "sobriquet " ("in cases where the sobriquet becomes more familiar than the original name for which it was formed as an alternative") later in the article, say under the section on Media? -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok enough. I just happen to be biassed in favor of English in the lede  Collect (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course neither bias nor favour are originaly English. Weird.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very appropriate to use a less precise term in the lead. What benefit does that provide?  Celarnor Talk to me  02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in from BLP/N, which wasn't really the place to take this. I think that 'nickname' doesn't fully encompass what's trying to be expressed here; something more accurate and specific, such as 'sobriquet', is much more appropriate. I'm not convinced by the 'inaccessible English' argument, as its not a particularly difficult word, and even if it were, it could simply be wikilinked; we should strive to maintain accuracy and precision over 'readability by people with a less than high school education'. For those people, there is Simple Wikipedia anyway. Celarnor Talk to me 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEDE "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article." (emph added}-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already written in a clear, accessible style. If you can't understand 'sobriquet', then you should probably be at Simple.  There's a big difference between being accessible and catering to the lowest denominator.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what appears to be a "if your not smart we dont care about you here" philosophy. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what appears to be a "dumbing down article content well beyond the point of inaccuracy with the goal of maintaining a readership lacking intermediate english skills" philosophy. Like I said, there's a big difference between "accessible" and "catering to the lowest denominator".  There's a point where simplifying things any more results in a loss of accuracy necessary to understand a definition, and I think we're at that point right now; i.e, changing a more accurate word into a less accurate word, especially without qualifying it in such a way as to retain the original definition.  Celarnor <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" is not a hard puzzle for the uneducated to figure out. If you really can't figure out the puzzle then the wikilink will provide you with the answer. Look, you've learnt something!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I now endorse "sobriquet" if it will help get this topic closed. The wikilink explains it. Mattnad (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a nickname. We should write clearly and without pretension. It means nickname, say nickname. LaidOff (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not mean nickname. We do not use inaccurate words when it there is a suitable, more accurate one is easily available.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Laidoff has it exactly right. It means nickname, although every word has a different nuance. No one has shown just how the word is more accurate than nickname. In what way is it more accurate? Quoting the famous lexicographer and writer on English usage H.W. Fowler: Any one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid. The word is not well known, and it is overly fancy and pretentious. We write so the average reader can read, not to show off our vocabulary. — Becksguy (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, H.W. Fowler, in his book Modern English Usage, said on page two hundred and... blah blah blah. The word is neat. It stays. We've all heard those sage quotes before and we've all heard them abused as well. Writing should put form and function first, which is another general guideline. All we are saying is give sobriquet a chance. Let it be applied where it can because there is a wiki-article about sobriquet that needs to be used and there is nothing wrong with a little pretension. I believe we should seek the advice of John Simon, who I'm sure has covered this kind of debate before in one of his essays on language.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it is neat. But that's your argument to keep? Along with an underutilized article on the word? It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia meant to be used by a typical or average American. As I said before, how many Junior High or High School students would know what Sobriquet means. Even in this thread, there are two (maybe three) editors that didn't know what the word meant. And I think that's a indication of the general reader's vocabulary. Form and function is a concept and design philosophy that emphasizes simplicity, and in writing, would imply well understood and simple words for function to work. Most guides and manuals on English usage, famous or not, advise simplicity over pretentiousness and well known words over less common ones. It's English Comp 101. — Becksguy (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I said above, I think that the sentence "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" is not a hard puzzle for the uneducated to figure out. If you really can't figure out the puzzle or want the definition then the wikilink will provide you with the answer.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Usage of verbiage which is abstruse in contextual formation and grammatical construction in a sesquipedalian mien potentially misappropriates cordiality of utilizers of the entry. Collect (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Collect. :-) A bit of humor always helps. — Becksguy (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The lede of an article, especially the first sentence of the lede, should not be a puzzle, as that violates WP:LEDE, and English usage guidelines. Also, housekeeping question: Does anyone object to combining the previous thread one on exactly the same subject, entitled Talk:Joe the Plumber with this one? — Becksguy (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After all this discussion I doubt that there is anyone in the world who stills finds it a puzzle ;-) I have merged the threads. TerriersFan (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should also not be inaccurate. And yes, I oppose the compromise on that basis.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nickname" is NOT inaccurate. "Sobriquet" may be a more completely descriptive term, but the common usage term is indeed an accurate term. (In the same way that calling Millie a "dog" is NOT inaccurate - calling Millie a "Springer Spaniel" is more completely descriptive.) Does the increase in accuracy compensate for the increase in difficulty - in the case of "nickname" vs. "Sobriquet" I would say: No.-- The Red Pen of Doom  19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate in that it is less descriptive. There is a more accurate, more descriptive term available, so why do a disservice to our readers and be more ambiguous than we could be?  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  20:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * English is a flexible and varied language, and I completely dispute your analysis that "less descriptive" is "inaccurate". -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being more descriptive is adding details and interpretation into a concept, and that violates WP:SYHTH. So I agree with Red Pen in disputing that less descriptive is inaccurate. The vastly more common of the two terms used in press coverage was "nickname". To use another term is to interpose POV when the majority of RS does not support it. No one has yet provided any arguments that sobriquet is more accurate, other than being more descriptive, and that is not more accurate, and in this case less accurate. How many mainstream press articles used "sobriquet" vs. "nickname". To use sobriquet is a disservice to our readers for several reasons, already expressed. Nickname is a commonly understood term, sobriquet is not, and WP is not a vocabulary improvement site. Red Pen offered a very reasonable compromise in which each side could find something to agree with. — Becksguy (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If 'sobriquet' isn't already in your vocabulary, you probably have some other issues that need attending to, and should probably be at Simple anyway. The fact that 'some people don't know it' is a non-starter.   The same could be said about 'conclusion' or any other word with more than one syllable.  There's nothing that can be done to change the fact that we have two descriptors available: one that fully encompasses the nature of the name, and that offers a more precise definition, and one that just makes it sound like a psuedonym, which it isn't; there's a difference.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't pass judgement and discriminate against potential users based on whether or not they know fancified french words when there are simple basic English words which work just as well in 98+% of the occasions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh brother... sister... mother... father... and the holy ghost. I thought I settled this? I did not know the word coming to the article, but roughly figured it out, and was pleased to read up and know the true meaning of 'sobriquet'. 'Sobriquet' is a valued member of this article's vocabulary. Great addition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Asynchronous discussions that have fluctuating memberships are not always quickly resolved. Your frustration is duly noted. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was a word that wasn't in common use, I think you might have something, but that's not the case; we aren't talking about "chef d'oeuvre" or "fait accompli"; really, even the second of those two is pretty easy to come across in prose. It's fairly basic vocabulary, and if the only reason you have for substituting a less descriptive word is that "people won't understand it", then it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re linguistic breakdown of Celarnor's (whatever language that is): ''OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, L, L, OE, OE, OE,OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, L; OE, OE, OE, OE, Fr<l, Fr<L, Fr<L, OE, Fr<L, Fr<l; Fr<L, OE, OE, L, OE, OE, OE, OE, Du, Fr, etc. Plus some Greek.  What's your point?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear you're not here to have a constructive conversation/argument anymore, Jim. The next time you make a sarcastic, unhelpful, or otherwise disruptive edit, I will block you. Tan   &#124;   39  01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You need an initial, secondary and tertiary warning before issuing a final warning. That's how it works.  BTW: warnings are issued on user pages.
 * And quite contrary to your belief, sobriquet is no longer solely a French word, but has been adopted by English just as "easy", "prose", "common", ''basis", "substituting", "really", "constructive", "conversation", "argument", "clear", "sarcastic", "disruptive", "edit" (a back formation from editor) and "people". That's the point -- seems to me it's pretty clear.  Enlish is a language that freely borrows from other linguae, hence the anti-sobriquet argument is wrong at best.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I had thought we had reached a compromise. Kindly do not try changing the infobox unless and until an agreement is reached. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who tried to change it and what has the infobox to do with anything? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. It is the"plumber" silliness arising again in the infobox. I really don't care much about the text as long as RS is used, but the simple term "plumber" for the occupation was fine for months. Collect (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well for less than two, anyway. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The above four comments are in the wrong thread, please move them to the plumber thread below. Thanks. Back to sobriquet.

There are more than just "people won't understand it" arguments against sobriquet: I could add more, but the sobriquet camp arguments are essentially: It's neat, it's a vocabulary word of the day, and it's more descriptive; none of which are compelling or sufficient. — Becksguy (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nickname is overwhelmingly used. The search term "Joe the Plumber" AND "nickname" gets 395K Google hits vs. the search term "Joe the Plumber" AND "sobriquet" which gets 1,140 hits. "Joe the Plumber" nickname -wikipedia as compared to "Joe the Plumber" sobriquet -wikipedia. That's nickname 346 times as often as sobriquet, or a 346 to 1 ratio.
 * 2) The word is not in common English use, despite claims that it is. That editors here didn't know it's meaning is a very strong indicator. And "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:V policy.
 * 3) The use of that word is a violation of WP:V since it's a minority used word and therefore add implications and nuances not in the majority view of those that used nickname. Per RedPen "but there are subtle differences in meanings/usage/implications". A more descriptive word is not more accurate, it's less accurate.
 * 4) Most guides and manuals on English usage, famous or not, advise simplicity over pretentiousness and well known words over less common ones. As does WP:LEDE in saying "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article". Sobriquet is pretentious, uncommon, and therefore not accessible.
 * 5) As Collect pointed out, "With a factor of 200 to 1 for use of "nickname" in WP", Wikipedia internally also supports the use of a more accessible, simpler, and non pretentious term.
 * 6) As VictorC points out: "I agree it's uncommon. It's a little misleading, not that it's inaccurate, but that it's kind of a peacock term - taking attention away from the topic. The word "nickname" is more easily understood, although perhaps not as thoroughly descriptive."
 * 7) This specific debate is really part of a long running debate about the description of "Joe the Plumber" as a metaphor, a symbol, a nickname, a cultural icon, or an election theme on one hand, or about Joe W. as a person on the other.

I would like to add the following argument: I might add more points as fits my fancy.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The usage of the word 'sobriquet' provides an interesting juxtaposition to the 'average Joe' theme of the article right from the get go.


 * Yes it does, MS, and thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

sobriquet is more appropriate and just because wikipedia editors arent aware of that doesnt make it right to change it. sorry, but the longer ive been at this the more convinced i am that half of us are idiots. its the inherent problem of wikipedia. anyhow, alphadictionary says...sobriquet- Meaning: A characteristically relevant or otherwise special nickname for someone. Notes: Nicknames are closely associated with given names: Bobby for Robert, Will or Bill for William, Liz for Elizabeth and Molly for Mary. The nicknames are inseparabale extensions of the given names. A sobriquet, on the other hand, is a unique 'moniker' with a special meaning for a particular person, e.g. Dubya for President Bush, Satchmo for Louis Armstrong, Yankee for a US citizen, or Uncle Sam for the USA itself. In Play: While we generally agree on our nicknames, sobriquets are usually conferred on us by others: "Most Americans were surprised to learn that President Bush's sobriquet for Carl Rove, his chief political advisor, is Turd Blossom." Sobriquets may be insulting or affectionate: "The sobriquet of the Indian social reformer Mohandas Gandhi was Mahatma 'great soul' for good reason."

in my eyes it boils down to a question of being more correct with sobriquet or dumbing it down to nickname. i will always choose the more correct version. as for plumber or plumber's assistant i now really like plumbing. thanks, dave.

also, lets not get so angry at each other. and if you think someone made a cavalier statement by not reading every one of these countless lines, so what? who is reading all this crap anyway? we have written too much for normal people to possibly care about such minutiae.

ps collect, at the beginning of this you asked for someone to "furnish a real reason for differentiation of the synnyms?" Collect (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

i just did, but so did many others before me. satisfactory? Brendan19 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

oh and one more thing... using the internet search hits (x amount of hits for nickname and y amount for sobriquet) to justify why one is more appropriate reminds me of when tv game shows use the 'ask the audience' lifeline. many of those people are dead wrong. these are probably the people who say acrosst when they mean across.

319,000,000 for television on google and 2,350,000,000 for tv

television is still more correct. as is sobriquet.

Brendan19 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the concept that use of sobriquet is pretentious. There seems to be common ground that sobriquet and nickname have differing usages with the distinction described by Brendan19 and others. We strive for accuracy and precision; throughout Wikipedia there are numerous examples of less common words being used where a more common, but arguably less precise, alternative exists. I happened to look up Wikipedia. In the second sentence of the lead it states "Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia". Now I can safely say that I have never used portmanteau (also a word with French origins) in my life but would use 'combination' instead. If accessibility is the key, surely the lead for an article on Wikipedia should be accessible? TerriersFan (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Portmanteau" used for combined words is English - first used with that definition by Lewis Carroll. Collect (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Another possible compromise - How about we say that it is a "sobriquet or nickname referring to..."? <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, people can learn a new word and the meaning doesn't get lost. Nice.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as a compromise. Wikilink both. — Becksguy (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't really get the point across, and implies (sobriquet == nickname). How about "... sobriquet (a form of nickname) referring to ..."? <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I found Brendan19's comments enlightening. He is right. Sobriquet stands. I admit my part has simply been to hold down with the pro-Sobriquet side until the Voice of Reason arrived. That Voice is Brendan19.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of a compromise is that neither side gets everything it believes is right, or wants, but gets some of it, and allows closure and moving on. In this case each side gets their term included, but without excluding the opposing one. I strongly believe sobriquet is very wrong for the reasons already expressed, but with Aleta's compromise, nickname and sobriquet are both included on equal footing and readers can check the links for both terms. Further, I think Aleta's compromise is the only way we can reasonably reach consensus. Do we really want to continue with potential indeterminate discussions, edit wars, article protections, WP:RfCs, WP:POVNs, WP:RSNs, and who knows what else. Here is a chance to close this particular issue and move on. — Becksguy (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, don't worry about dragging this on. I have nothing better to do. It's perfectly fine with me. But I don't think we should compromise on this point. Maybe Wikipedia can bring back the usage of 'sobriquet' in its correct sense. 'Sobriquet' should be applied wherever it suits.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is beyond Wikipedia's scope to take on projects such as campaigns to improve / change vocabulary of its users. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I could find plenty of examples to contradict that idealist assumption. In any case, "sobriquet" means a nickname that was assigned by someone else, usually by the media or other public figure, so the term fits here. I think I first ran across that word a number of decades ago, when reading about the ballplayer Home Run Baker, whose real name was Frank Baker. It's often used to designate someone whose real name is less well-known, and even now I couldn't tell you Joe the Plumber's real name without looking it up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Ruth article calls "Babe" a "nickname." All the Presidential nicknames are called "nicknames." All the British PM nicknames are called "nicknames." and all the other lists on WP of nicknames use "nicknames." There are no lists of "sobriquets" on WP other than in that article proper, and most of those do not meet the definition of "sobriquet"!   "Sobriquet"  is effete. Collect (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, "most of those do not meet the definition of "sobriquet"!" so you now accept that there is a distinction; that's progress! :-) TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No -- I say that most of the examples of "sobriquet" do not meet the definition at all. And all fit the definition of "nickname" where people are involved. Collect (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes -- if "most of the examples of "sobriquet" do not meet the definition at all." but "all fit the definition of "nickname" where people are involved" then that means there is a difference. TerriersFan (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "epithet" (infra) is what covers the rest. "Sobriquet" is unusually used to refer anything other than people. I trust this clarifies that non-issue. Collect (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Babe" was definitely a sobriquet, as no one who knew him well called him that. It was a media invention. So perhaps "nickname" is sufficient. "Effete"? What, are you channeling Spiro Agnew now? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then change the WP article on Ruth, (and a few hundred thousand historical references to it being a "nickname") <g>. Trying googlebooks, "sobriquet" and "babe ruth" gets all of 59 hits (good choice of words?). "Nickname" gets 654 - a home run. NYTimes says Ruth's "sobriquet" was "The Sultan od Swat" and that "sobriquets" generally do not include a name as part of the "sobriquet."  Russell Baker, a columnist on word usage for the New York Times, wrote that sobriquet is defined as a "fanciful appelation."   Baker is a good source on such usage, and "Joe the Plumber" is much more a "nickname" than it is a "sobriquet" by those standards. By the way, there is only one word applicable in French -- sobriquet.  So in the French WP, there is no issue. Alas -- this one is in English. Collect (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, since like effete for "weak", sobriquet is somehow bad because it's used less?  Geez, and to think that Agnew got away with not just "effete", but "nattering nabobs of negativity".  Ah, once upon a time literacy was a goal of the vulgus, not an elitist plot.  Sad.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 777,000 for joe the plumber. (0.14 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,770,000 for joe the plummer. (0.15 seconds)

is this evidence that we should change the title of the article to joe the plummer? just because the internet is full of dumbed down info (and sometimes just dumb info) doesnt mean we should dumb down an encyclopedia. also, can we stop with the hits comparisons now? Brendan19 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which search engine? Google has 1.8 million hits for "Joe the Plumber" and .2 million for "Joe the Plummer". More importantly, under News, "Joe the Plummer" has 87 hits in 30 days, most of which did not have the misspelling in the article  (about 6 had it in the text of the article), but in the "comments"! 20K for "Joe the Plumber."  Therefore I wonder what engine you used for such incredibly disparate results. Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

i used google, but didnt use quotes around the term. that is what made the difference. i actually never use quotes unless i am having trouble finding what i am searching for. not sure if thats what most people do or not. hopefully my point wont get lost in all of this. i dont think we should be using hits as a measure of which word should be used because the internet is biased towards the more recent, more simplified examples of damn near anything. of course this isnt always the case, but it can be quite often. a large number of people dont know their representatives in congress, dont know who the secretary of state is, cant find many countries on a map, etc. many of these people are putting info on the internet (i think a lot of them are wikipedia editors). should we expect them to know the word sobriquet and/or to use it? probably not, but i also doubt they could explain quantum mechanics. that doesnt mean we should dismiss either. as long as there are enough people who understand the difference between sobriquet and nickname i think the more proper term should be used. if sobriquet were so archane that almost nobody knew it i would be inclined to ignore the word, but its just not. another example of the internet bias of which i speak... (with quotes around both)

Results 1 - 10 of about 988,000 for "James Monroe"

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,790,000 for "Joe the Plumber".

i dare say monroe will prove to be more significant. collect, i like that you didnt just take my word for it on the google search. i am also a big skeptic. on another note, since i know you will be reading this... and at the moment you seem to be the only one fighting for plumber vs plumber's assistant... how about we say plumbing as his occupation in the infobox as someone else suggested. i would think that should satisfy both camps. as for what to put in the text of the article i dont know what to do. many of us want assistant and you zsero are stuck on plumber. we either decide on one or the other or i say we just call him an employee for a plumbing company. what do you think? we cant keep arguing back and forth over the others sources. it accomplishes nothing except making this talk page really really lllllllllloooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggg. Brendan19 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You need quotes for searches like this .. you ended up with lots of Christopher and Amanda Plummer hits. Collect (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually virtually every neutral editor (ten or so) on WP:BLP/N chose "plumber" as do about half the ones here. Collect (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, fascinating. The 'sobriquet' article should be expanded to offer this detailed explanation after we're done here. What do you mean by sobriquets do not generally include a name? This is an important point. There are some names in the list of sobriquets in the WP article but largely they're otherwise. Joe the Plumber could be considered as Joe for Joseph the name or as a term such as average Joe or Joe Shmoe.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A "fanciful appellation" is one like "Sultan of Swat" which Babe Ruth would not have answered to if you called out to him with it. "Babe" was a nickname - according to good sources bestowed on him by teammates. If you call out to Joe with "Joe the Plumber" I suspect he will answer you. Benny Goodman was "King of Swing." As a sobriquet. If you called out to him "Hey, King of Swing!" he would have cast not a glance. "Pretty Boy" Floyd was, as far as sources indicate, a sobriquet. He would have punched you (or worse) if you called out "Hey, Pretty Boy!"  I think this is probably the simplest way to distinguish. Use of epithets as alternative names for places and the like is not really at issue. Epithet:  "any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality: “Richard the Lion-Hearted” is an epithet of Richard I." (RHD).  Note the substantial and correct overlap between the French word "sobriquet" and the English word (from the Greek circa 1570)  "epithet."  If anything, "epithet" is better used than "sobriquet" in many cases. Collect (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * this is silly. I would have it as "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, as known as Joe the Plumber..." since per WP:MOSBIO and many other articles, birth name comes first followed by other known names. --Maestro25 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Early on, the decision to use JtP as the name of the article was unanimous. Especially since SJW has no notability otherwise. By the way, there are other articles which do the same. Collect (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which was, I believe, my point re the meme over the person.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't more editors interested in Aleta's compromise? — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it equates two words that, as has been established in this discussion, have differing meanings. TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion for compromise
OK, we could say "Joe the Plumber is either a sobriquet <ref that calls it sobriquet> or a nickname <ref that calls it nickname> that refers to..." This avoids our making any direct decisions about which term is more appropriate, does not equate the terms, wikilinks them so anyone can learn more about what distinguishes them, and cites 3rd party sources (something we tend to encourage anyway ;-) ). <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Aleta, you are a genius. I'm in favor of this as I think it addresses all concerns and doesn't take sides. My major concerns are that nickname had way more reliable references than sobriquet, and that sobriquet is just wrong, so the preponderance of RS would favor nickname. But, since compromise means each side doesn't get it all their way, and putting this to bed is also important, I'm willing to compromise (just speaking for myself). And the terms should have citations anyway, especially since they are disputed, per WP:V. Is the other side willing to compromise to reach consensus? — Becksguy (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was essentially where it was for a while, but for some reason the sobriqueteers got antsy. Collect (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the idea LaidOff (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)AF

Well, lets bring it back, as Aleta suggested here in her 2nd compromise offering. — Becksguy (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any objection to this strategy? <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of the original sobriqueteers, I object. We can't be compromising on correct usage of the English language.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this a sobriquet too: Niggerati? Not quite an epithet according to the article, so perchance a sobriquet?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * MSamurai, but there is apparently disagreement among RS as to which is the correct term, isn't there? <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How did you make that determination? By Google hits?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am actually just going by this conversation here. I'm just trying to help broker a compromise. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm worried that this could get ugly. I think we need to define sobriquet more closely.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't define "sobriquet" for the article, as we are not reliable sources for definitions, especially controversial ones. Which this one obviously is. The sobriquet camp has offered these arguments for "sobriquet": It's neat, it's a vocabulary word of the day, and it's more descriptive. The problem is that the definition for sobriquet includes nickname, but it adds nuances and differences that are not compatible with the term "nickname" as used by the preponderance of reliable sources or as understood by an average reader. Potentially many readers don't know the word (at least two editors here didn't), and that invites a lack of clarity and understanding in the article's lede. The reliable sources control what goes into articles, as I quoted above from WP:V and WP:LEDE. Check out Collect's listing of dictionary sources above (11 November). Sobriquet is pretentious and uncommon, and is therefore poor English usage, as I quoted from H.W. Fowler above. Yes, sobriquet has been used (although much less than nickname), but so have other terms, such as metaphor, symbol, cultural icon, or election theme. — Becksguy (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sobriquet should hardly be of any difficulty for a person who can read at or above the ninth grade level. Very sad that the use of this verbiage has created such a shitstorm.  Oner of the greatest beauties of reading is that we do it individually and have access to lexicons.  Is there a reason, a logical reason, why we should fear the acquisition of new verbiage?  When should we cease acquiring new words?  Sixth grade?  Third grade?  When is a poor vocabulary, one deprived of any but the basest of words and one clearly a sign of educational and intellectual deprivation, considered a positive?  Bah.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sobriquet" is not found at the ninth-grade reading level. Honest! And recall the official WP policies regarding making articles readable to everyone.  Collect (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have more faith in the abilities of the average person (although further research indicatesthat sobriquet is actually eighth grade). Perhaps we might use nickname in its original form, ekename.  ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a knucklehead. Correct verbiage is what makes articles readable. The extra specificity that comes along with the word 'sobriquet' helps to bring the phenom that is "Joe the Plumber" into focus.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How is Joe the Plumber "An affectionate or humorous nickname", "An assumed name", "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name", all from AHD. Or "a familiar name for a person (often a shortened version of a person's given name)" from Wordnet. As Collect said: "Joe the Plumber" fits the dictionary def of "nickname" to a T. Sobriquet is incorrect per dictionary definitions and per WP:V and WP:LEDE.
 * The only reasonable method of resolution is to compromise by including both with reliable source citations as suggested by Aleta. Why won't the sobriquet camp work for consensus rather than insisting on having it all their way, and only their way? Is this going to become a federal case by going to RfC, ANI, or POVN, or whatever?  Half a loaf is better than none, for both sides.
 * — Becksguy (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we now need a lesson in the dic def of "humourous"?
 * Anyway, OED has"  An epithet, a nickname."  Shall we argue about the primary def, "epithet" (An adjective indicating some quality or attribute which the speaker or writer regards as characteristic of the person or thing described. )?  It fits perfectly really.
 * Really, I'm sensing a desire to "dumn-down" here that is antithetical to the function of an encyclopedia. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think giving both terms with references constitutes dumbing-down. Using only "nickname" might be, but not using both. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Using both might be OK, but I'm sensing strong opposition to the use of sobriquet. At one point, some weeks back, several folks objected to the use of sobriquet because it was not a native English word.  But then neither are 11 words in my above two sentences, and 4 in what you wrote.  For the most part, English requires the use of such tewrma as our original words, in many cases agglutinative compounds similar to those in use in modern German, have disappeared.  Were we to try to use OE-derived words only, for example wyte for blame and wight for person, no one would understand us.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, and some others seem to be strongly against using nickname. I am advocating using both, with references. :) <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm proud to be a part of the ardently pro-sobriquet camp.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquet is indeed not a native English word (it's French), but neither are many English words. But that was not my reason for opposing. Yes there is strong opposition to sobriquet. But I oppose because it's pretentious, not well known, and includes meanings not meant by the preponderance of reliable sources. For example: "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name." The word "Joe" alone would be a sobriquet by that definition, but "Joe the Plumber" is not. If we use both with RS citations, then readers can make up their own minds. Aren't we here to provide the significant viewpoints and let the reader decide? Wikipedia is not a vocabulary improvement project, as that mission conflicts with the mission of being accessible to the greatest number of readers. Unfortunately. — Becksguy (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While we are touching up on this subject, allow me to note that English has, according to a plethora of verifiable sources, the most voluminous and richest vocabulary of any language spoken on this globe, and to seek to arbitrarily limit that vocabulary because one finds eloquence and lexical acquisition and proficiency to be "pretentious" is a despicable and unforgivable assault on knowledge and the pursuit thereof.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despicable?" Geez, Jim. Reminds me of this well known cartoon character ;-) I'm amazed that this is being so vigorously argued. As a counterpoint to Aleta's suggestion, maybe another thing to do is use neither word . How about another obscure replacement like, say, ""cognomen"? If it stops the argument, why not? Or heck, maybe we can sneak in a neologism. Since it's common to incorporate words into English from other languages, perhaps we can sneak in a word from another language. For instance, how about "spitzname"?, "sopranomme", or "apodo", or perhaps "&#960;&#945;&#961;&#969;&#957;&#973;&#956;&#953;&#959;", or "&#32496;&#21495;" . ..... But wait! We already have "sobriquet", which best expresses what "Joe the Plumber" is w.r.t. Joe Wurzelbacher. "Nickname" doesn't as accurately capture it, because a "nickname" is generally taken to be significantly more up-close-and-personal, most commonly implying that the alternative name was coined by and used by friends and/or personal acquaintances. Both sobriquets and nicknames are, of course, clearly distinguished from pseudonyms, pen names and the like, which are self-applied by the person or group to which they refer, or at least taken on with explicit consent of the person or group to which they refer. By contrast to both pseudonyms and nicknames, a "sobriquet" is often applied by someone else not necessarily arising out of a personal relationship such as is strongly implied by the word "nickname". Perhaps most importantly, a sobriquet tends to be widely known, part of the public discourse, and quite typically has a strong socio-political application. A sobriquet has the additional characteristic that it is capable of completely replacing the original formal name of a person or group in the public forum. The WP article on sobriquet gives several examples.  Genghis Khan, who is rarely recognized now by his original name "Temüjin", the British Whig party, which acquired its sobriquet from the British Tory Party as an insult, and Honest Abe, used in a more positive light for Abraham Lincoln. Dubya is another example of a sobriquet, for George W. Bush.  These relationships more accurately describe the relationship between "Joe the Plumber" and Joe Wurzelbacher than does the word "nickname". ..... Yet, for some reason, I've no objection to the use of the word "nickname" either. So, why am I here? I think "sobriquet", despite being an obscure word, far more accurately captures the class of linguistic entities to which "Joe the Plumber" properly belongs. .... Kenosis (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm highly amazed by the fact that this debate rages on. If I may interject, Aleta formed a subsection entitled Arbitrary Page Break. Note using the word Arbitrary over say, Random? Are we going to throw a huge fuss over the inclusion of a more sophisticated word? Sobriquet is quite clearly at least somewhat different from Nickname, otherwise there would be only one article encompassing both words. My suggestion is per a growing trend on Wikipedia: Link sobriquet to a definition in Wiktionary, should one exist. This saves readers the hassle of going through an entire article trying to summarily grasp the full definition of one word within an article comprised of several thousand such words. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is meant to be an informal learning tool of sorts, why fear incorporating a higher grade-level vocabulary into it as a means of providing the best possible learning experience? And if we have to "dumb down" a word here, the same precedent would theoretically have to be set for the entire English Wikipedia, thereby degrading the quality of articles. As someone pointed out, if readers cannot grasp the lingusitics of the standard English wikipedia, there's Simple English to cater to that need. So, that's my offer for a solution. Dictionaries are as important of a resource as an encyclopedia and complement one another: Get the information you want and if you don't know what a word means, just look it up. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that we do need to move on. Consequently I am prepared to accept Aleta's compromise. I suggest that the article starts:

Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet or nickname referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, TerriersFan (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But we established it's not an entirely valid compromise if they aren't truly the same thing. We can't call it a nickname if that's not really the correct terminology. I say that we take sobriquet and link it to wiktionary. There's really nothing wrong with the sentence as it is now nor is there any fault with my suggestion. We can't water down the English language unnecessarily. Again, the article would end up being a template for the several million other English articles and for what reason? Because of a handful of uneducated readers? Besides at this point, the editors who failed to know its definition are now fully aware of it, thereby negating their argument in theory. The Links are there for people to read up on some subject matter they wish to know more about. It's one word, people can look it up. The article as a whole should be focused on, not a single high school vocabulary word in the opening sentence of the header, which could be a little longer in order to properly summarize the article IMO.

24.184.184.130 (talk) 05:11, December 1 2008 (UTC)


 * The two terms aren't the same thing, or we wouldn't be having this endless discussion (I think second only to whether he's a plumber or whatever). And referring to editors that didn't know the term was meant to illustrate that readers also might not know the term. As I said several times, and so have others, sobriquet is incorrect and nickname is correct, but I was willing to accept having both in order to move on. However I thought about the fourth option, using neither term, and neatly sidestepping the argument over nickname vs. sobriquet. We could say (example 1):
 * Joe the Plumber is a reference to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher....

The other possibility is to recast the lede to include his symbolic status (which is sadly lacking anyway). Joe the Plumber is an election theme, metaphor, symbol, and cultural icon, as well as a reference to Joe the person. Here, from an earlier post of mine, are several news quotes using terms other than nickname or sobriquet: We could recast the lede to take this concept into account (example 2):
 * "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)
 * "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC)
 * "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." -- (Headline) Toledo Blade
 * "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade
 * "Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." - New York Times
 * "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times
 * "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post
 * Joe the Plumber is a reference to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and to the election metaphor, as represented by Joe Wurzelbacher, that was used by John McCain in the third 2008 presidential debate...

Or something like that. As long as it doesn't use either term. The lede needs to be rewritten anyway as it looks too much like a bio only. — Becksguy (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But we want to use the word 'sobriquet'! That's like our final decision. The word is apt. Unfortunately we on the sobriquet side of this argument can't suggest umpteen other options. Why is there so much anger towards the word 'sobriquet'?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me put the two into context like this: Based on definitions in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and from the descriptions herein, Joe is a nickname for someone named Joseph whereas Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet in direct reference to Mr. Wurzelbacher and solely him. I'm glad though that you agree that the Lede needs work. That empitomizes why this debate needs a foregone and conclusive agreement: We've become oblivious to the more important issues pertaining to this article.

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this analysis. If either is correct it is sobriquet. At least everyone now agrees that there is a difference between the two terms. Moving on, I am also happy with the compromise suggestion of rewriting the lead to avoid either term. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's end this
It's decision time. If everyone who's participated in this debate is on board, let's have an official vote and whatever the end result is, we'll adhere to that decision, provided there is a majority. No lengthy debating in here. There's plenty of room above here in the main subsection to perpetuate this argument if you do desire. Just state your personal choice for what word or words we should use in detail and the reason behind it. I'll go first I guess.
 * I say keep sobriquet and for those who wish to know the definition, minus a whole Wikipedia article, link it to Wiktionary or some other online dictionary if need be. I don't think Nickname is the appropriate word in this case.

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no vote. Voting solves nothing and is not the way we do things. We continue to work towards a consensus. TerriersFan (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We might as well do something of that nature. Nobody's really changed their opinion on the matter anytime recently nor will they, so it really just comes down to everyone reiterating their stance one more time in a concise manner. This can't go on forever. The only plausible means of reaching a consensus is to tally up the individual "votes". A jury debates but ultimately votes. I'm trying to resolve this matter as efficiently and fairly as possible. We all know where we stand on the issue, thus we'll each just state our idea one more time and without the relentless arguing which has failed to bring a resolution. Can you agree to that much?

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all; though I prefer sobriquet, I have now supported two compromise proposals. Rewriting the lead to avoid referring to either seems a good compromise to me. TerriersFan (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sobriquet seems the more accurate term, and the more encyclopedic usage. "Nickname" is not as accurate for this usage as some other synonyms, such as, for example, pseudonym, alias, moniker, nom de guerre, or "handle."  If a synonym is to be included to help clarify what a sobriquet is, "pseudonym" would be preferable to "nickname." - Michael J Swassing (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with rewriting the lede is that if you're going to abstain from using either of those two words, which are the two best known words to describe the status of "Joe the Plumber", you'll need to provide a substitute that maintains that same level of factual accuracy. You can't refer to the name as something it's not, e.g., you can say that a plumber is a profession, but you can't call a plumber a "business executive" per se just because the title can loosely be applied in this situation. Mr. Swassing has offered something valid. -Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sobriquet.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far it's leaning towards that. The fact is, the lead will be left as is unless something better can be offered in its place.-Al  a n24.184.184.130 (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. Sobriquet violates the WP:V policy and the WP:LEDE guideline. Sobriquet is factually incorrect and inaccurate as pointed out. Also, there are two compromises on the table so the choice is not just between the two terms. — Becksguy (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And many who do have opinions would not come to a "vote" without asking each to join in. Argument for "sobriquet" - it reflects the usage of "Joe the Plumber" for those who favor "sobriquet." Arguement for "nickname" - it is the one word definition of "sobriquet" in RHD and part of the definition of "sobriquet" in every online reference I found. It is also "common English." Argument for using both: It covers every base. Collect (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a vote anymore, it's about a consensus reached via the sum of all editors' suggestions. And you're twisting Wikipedia guidelines per your liking. If we were to take out sobriquet because it's not the most common word in the English Language, then we might as well just remove it from every article that contains the word. While we're at it, let's take out incorrigible, paradigm, innocuous, quell, every obscure medical term, etc. The word is used to some extent in the English language otherwise it wouldn't be included in the lead and as far as references go, learn to read them better. Seeing the word nickname at the end of the definition means it's there to serve as a related word. If you actually read the definition for nickname also, you'd see there was a difference between the two, otherwise the definition for sobqriquet would just read "See Nickname" or something thereabout, assuming you're using a reliable reference which RHD clearly is not. We're here to find a mutually agreeable solution but at the same time though, if you want to start degrading the quality of the lead for the sake of weaseling your way around a single word too advanced for you, you need to provide something better than what we already have. It's as simple as that. -Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How is including both terms with citations, rewriting the lede to include the symbolic sense of JtP, or using a different term other than the disputed terms in any way degrading the quality of the lede. Including both terms would improve it, giving readers a choice. Sobriquet includes meanings that are plain out wrong. For example: How is Joe the Plumber "An affectionate or humorous nickname", "An assumed name", "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name", all from AHD. Also, we are not deciding whether sobriquet belongs in other articles, just this one. And it clearly doesn't per policy, usage, and accessibility. Pretentious and uncommon words degrade accessibility and quality. — Becksguy (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Using both terms isn't degrading as much as avoiding either word, but this comes back to the point that you're making the mistake of equating the two words to be synonymous. They're not. The differences are subtle, but if the two aren't the same thing, then it would be wrong to use both. It would be like the outcome of the dispute below being that Mr. Wurzelbacher is both a plumber and a Plumber's Assistant. The analogy I provided earlier makes the distinction between the two repudiated words: Joe is a nickname, Joe the Plumber is most closely defined as a sobriquet . Just because some media outlets consider JtP to be a nickname doesn't mean they're 100% right. Unfortunately we're without the assistance of a lingual expert, hence this perpetual debate. Let it be known right now that I'm not opposed to a compromise, but it needs to a suitable one. If you want a simple solution, just keep sobriquet and in parentheses provide a brief, sourced and simplified explanation without using the word nickname.

I myself have a vague idea for an alternative should we fail to reach a consensus of any kind here. Today was the initial expiration date for the editing lock, barring this sort of dilemma, which is why I want to bring this whole mess to a close. -Al  a n24.184.184.130 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, what just happened to the whole Plumber vs. Plumber's Assistant argument? I thought that there was a request to not archive or delete portions of the talk page without prior consent. Am I missing something?

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Auto-archiving is what happened, per consensus. But please lets try to keep the threads separate. So can we move your question and my answer to a plumber thread? — Becksguy (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wasn't sure what had happened. -Al  a n 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan, I suggested saying it is "either" a sobriquet or nickname with references so that we would not be equating the two, nor making the determination which is (more) correct, but allowing the reader to decide for himself or herself. I do not understand the objection to that compromise. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Me neither which is why I suggested "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet or nickname referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, ..." TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Using both terms, with citations, clearly separated to disavow any implied equality works for me. BTW, the full protection expires in two days at 14:52, 4 December 2008. — Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aleta, that seems like a nice compromise, but this is an encyclopedic article and the text should be relatively straightforward. It seems illogical to me that the reader should have to determine for themselves which of the two is more correct. And in essence, putting both there, separated by the "or" clause would imply equality on some level. Citations only add to the misconception that sobriquet and nickname are identical. The two words are similar, but not completely synonymous; I've already illustrated the difference. To that same extent, I concede to the possibility that sobriquet may not precisely be Joe the Plumber's matching vocabulary word, but it's the best word available and thus more relevant than nickname would be. As such, if both were to be included, sobriquet would need prominence with nickname being used as part of a brief, parenthetical description of sobriquet. I would stylize it more as:
 * Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet (a characterizing name, akin to an informal nickname ) originally referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher but now carrying a broader meaning.
 * If not that, then something relatively similar. Think of the two words as the difference between say identical twins and fraternal twins, or perhaps an orange and a tangerine. My apologies if the provided examples aren't the most adequate but the idea is there. When this is over, it would be nice if someone created an article specifically for this subject: Sobriquet vs. Nickname. And I was rather certain the protection ended today, but I guess that provides us with some time still to reach a final consensus on what to do here.

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that. Keep sobriquet with an explanatory note in parentheses.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't, as it's wrong and incorrect. Equal prominence for both viewpoints per WP:V and WP:UNDUE with no parenthetical marginalization. Including the other term is a concession to help reach a compromise consensus, since nickname has the majority of citations in reliable sources, and sobriquet doesn't apply. — Becksguy (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. But we've discovered that "Joe is a nickname, while Joe the Plumber is most closely defined as a sobriquet ." Now we simply want to use sobriquet with an explanatory note hedging off future debates.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. Even if, hypothetically speaking, sobriquet was more correct or accurate, it's the majority of the reliable sources that determine prominence in the article. If 10 newspapers to 1 use nickname, then that's what we use, right or wrong. It's the search for verifiability, not truth. So far the arguments to use sobriquet have not been policy or guideline based, whereas nickname has been, based on what I see. — Becksguy (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's idiotic and exactly why the policy of 'ignore all rules' was written. We try not to perpetuate inaccuracy at Wikipedia.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Asinine? Out of all the web pages searched by Google -- only 471 associate "Joe the Plumber" with "sobriquet." 324,000 associate "Joe the Plumber" with "nickname."  I daresay that calling all those sites inaccurate is errant.  Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that this web search idea is idiotic. There is a lot of "groupthink" in journalism. We are trying to be more accurate here.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Samurai is right. And by the way, all this websearching, besides contorting and reinterpreting various Wikipedia guidelines to your advantage, could easily be considered Original Research. You make it sound like the media are never wrong in their reporting. This is Wikipedia, not a journalism/media compendium, nor do we predicate articles on convoluted arrays of search results of which most are probably independently written on blogs or some other web-based medium. I know for a fact you didn't personally peruse through every single search result, so for all you know these same "sources" could be providing a plethora of inaccurate information, yet you remain unaware of such since you just did a quick search and then just expect us to automatically take your word for it, no questions asked. Sorry, but that is asinine. For that matter, the media reports on Wikipedia more so than the other way around. The internet as a whole is not relevant to this discussion. Parts of it are, yes, but it's limited beyond how you see fit to misuse it. The true sources for this matter are ones of reference, such as dictionaries and they clearly delineate what is and what's not a sobriquet or a nickname. I couldn't have made it any easier to distinguish between the two and yet you choose to remain oblivious to it as a means of supporting your ideals.

-Al  a n 24.184.184.130 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, MS is not right, without recounting all the arguments. Groupthink or not, if they are reliable sources, they are usable. And IAR cannot trump the Wikipedia core policies. — Becksguy (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But I was so sure of myself. How could this be?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal
No nicknme or sobriquet in lede -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC):
 * Joe the Plumber is a phrase initially used in exchanges between Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama during the third presidential debate on October 15, 2008 and throughout the remainder of the campaign as a metaphor for middle class Americans[2] and to refer to Samuel Joseph "Joe" Wurzelbacher [3] who had been videotaped questioning Obama about small business tax policy.
 * Actually, according to Jeff Nunberg, Joe the Plumber has been in use for some time with the first reference he found to be in College and University Writing Essentials, 1995 -- see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html Mulp (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

or
 * Joe the Plumber was initially used in exchanges between Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama during the third presidential debate on October 15, 2008 and throughout the remainder of the campaign as a metaphor for middle class Americans[2] and to refer to Samuel Joseph "Joe" Wurzelbacher [3] who had been videotaped questioning Obama about small business tax policy.
 * We are not going to neglect an important fact simply because some people find it is too sophisticated. We aim to properly explain here at Wikipedia.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What "important fact" is missing? The difference between "nickname" and "sobriquet" is not in my view "important" enough to require discussion in the lede - we have a full article to differentiate and illucidate if required. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is madness. Off hand I will admit that "presented as a paradigm" is an interesting choice of words, but how correct that is has yet to be debated. Much better than the idea of using nickname over sobriquet. But let's not dismiss sobriquet, which has served us well so far (hardly anyone is being abused by our talk discussions here) and is an absolutely appropriate term.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is rational -- Perhaps "middle class Americans" might be better phrased as "American small businessmen"? Can we ameliorate the passive voice a tad?  Say:  "JtP" was presented as a paradigm of American small businessmen by John McCain during (etc.)  based on SJW's videotaped questioning of Barack Obama etc.  (Dictionary searching leads me to believe "paradigm" meaning "example or model" pretty accurately describes how JtP was used in the campaign.)  Collect (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "small business owners" would indeed be more accurate-if that phrasing is supported by the source. However, the current link to the original source is not functioning. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "businessmen" or "business owners" - seems much of a muchness, no? And I am getting to really like "paradigm" for its accuracy here. Collect (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

back to sobriquet, i saw it got changed here. was there consensus for that? Brendan19 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obcviously not... MSamurai has reverted the change. (Of course, we don't have a consensus for sobriquet either. There's been no consensus on this issue.) <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RPoD -- I bit the bullet and removed occupation in lede, along with "sobriquet" and "nickname" in first sentence. Think this will last? Collect (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have consensus for either nickname or sobriquet, as Aleta rightly points out, so the only appropriate thing to do is leave both out until we do reach consensus, if that ever happens. Maybe it's time to go to WP:RfC or WP:POVN on this, since the sobriquet camp apparently refuses to consider Aleta's compromise of using both equally, with citations. Or just leave it the way it is, without either term. Which I prefer, since it's not just about Joe the person anyway and both terms imply that. — Becksguy (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite; but 'paradigm' is another non-consensus jargon word with a specific meaning which doesn't really fit. I have rewritten the lead to avoid all such terms! TerriersFan (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Paradigm" means "an example or pattern" and has been an English word for some six centuries. It is a precise word which refers quite corectly to hoe JtP was used in the campaign.  How do you feel JtP was not used as "an example or pattern"? (note that the WP article is not a dictionary definition but an article on scientific use of the term, not applicable here).  Collect (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Joe the Plumber' is a descriptor not an example. But lets not start another long debate. I have reworded in an accurate form that avoids all such words. What is wrong with my lead phrasing? If it's in error please suggest an alternative, here, in straightforward English without using sobriquet, nickname, paradigm or any such words :-) TerriersFan (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Try "exemplar" or "archetype" also both English words which better reflect the usage in the campaign of "JtP" if yo dislike the accurate word "paradigm." And "JtP" was not used to "describe" the middle class Americans, it was used as an "example" of middle class Americans.  Besides, when RPoD and I manage to agree, it is notable <g>.  Collect (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, 'Joe the Plumber' as a person was used as an example but the term 'Joe the Plumber' was used as a descriptor of that person; ermm as it were! TerriersFan (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But, having said that, I'll settle for your latest wording! TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now watch someone else insist on yet another word (at least the sobriquet/nickname fray os done!) Collect (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just avoided another 'nickname' in the lead - hope that's OK with you? TerriersFan (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing seems a bit awkward in the first sentence of the lede. However, I'm totally in favor of not using either nickname or sobriquet, as I said before. It now reads as: Joe the Plumber, initially referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, was used as an example of middle class Americans during the 2008 U.S. presidential election season Another possible term might be "a reference to". The phrase "Joe the Plumber" is an archetype of a campaign demographic that McCain was reaching for and is a metaphor for that same type of person. — Becksguy (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree there about the phrasing of the opening sentence. Now then, was there ever a consensus to take sobriquet and nickname out of the lead? The sentence as it is now makes zero sense. Personally, I think removing sobriquet from the article just because a select few are phobic of using a high school vocabulary word that's quite easily understood without much help defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as we know it and is almost a crude insult to the English Language, perhaps to both and more. If someone can offer something substantially better to substitute for sobriquet, or better yet, sobriquet with a brief explanation of it, then by all means use it, but avoiding a descriptive word altogether, especially if it's quite appropriate for the article, is absolutely wrong and should not ever occur. As Manhattan Samurai pointed out, the aim of Wikipedia, above all else, is to strive for accuracy and some of you are playing tug of war with the article with the intent of reducing the accuracy of it. The reasons given over the last month to withdraw sobriquet from the article outright are really not too valid and we still have not reached consensus on how to revise the article, which really is fine as it is. Sobriquet should remain in there until someone can offer an unnecesaary replacement for the word. Those of you who are so passionately anti-sobriquet need to ask yourselves: Is it really worth a perpetual argument over a single word that's not the most difficult in the world to utilize in one's vocabulary? The world won't come to an end simply because "Joe the Plumber" is referred to as a sobriquet, or are you going to argue against that too?

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement "the aim of Wikipedia, above all else, is to strive for accuracy" is not correct, even though it is an admirable one. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", per WP:V policy. The accuracy involved in Wikipedia is accurately applying reliable sources. If Wikipedia existed in the time of Galileo, then we would report the Geocentric model (that the sun revolved around the earth), since that was the accepted and religiously enforced dominant viewpoint of the day. The fact that the Copernicus and Galileo heliocentric model was actually the accurate and truthful viewpoint would have not made any difference. Further, please assume good faith that those who argue against sobriquet are working to make Wikipedia, and this article, better by increasing verifiability, readability, and accessibility per WP:V and WP:LEDE and many arguments already made. However, the sobriquet camp has not provided policy or guideline based arguments. And to answer your argument as to why we continue arguing, we have offered to accept the Aleta compromise, which would close this never ending debate. — Becksguy (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just heard Jeff Nunberg's essay on Joe the Plumber, or broadly, Joes, and he doesn't use the word Sobriquet, nor nickname. See http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html for the essay. As a linquist of some note, trust him to speak with more authority on the significance of the phrase Joe the Plumber than the pages of stuff above, that I admit to being too bored to wade through it all. As Nunberg puts it, "there's no way Wurzelbacher would have been transformed into a campaign mascot if he'd been Dwayne the dry wall guy." Further, Nunberg points out that Joe the Plumber was used long before McCain applied the term to Wurzelbacher. Mulp (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or Dwayne the Rain Drain guy. Try saying that three times quickly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Joe the Plumber" has been found in reliable sources going back to at least 1948, as pointed our before. — Becksguy (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any agreement on the accuracy of the WP definitions of sobriquet and nickname? Just an idea to move this forwards. Druidpld (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to use neither term. Thus discussing them now is not moving anything forwards <g>. Collect (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber Suggests Lynching Senator Chris Dodd
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher made public statements in which he asked why Senator Chris Dodd "hasn't been strung up yet?"

It has been documented and reported in numerous credible publications. Those publications describe Joe's statement as a "suggested lynching" of a senior U.S. senator by "Joe The Plumber". Some of those publications have been included to document the sources. They are independently verifiable sources.

It has bearing on Joe's sentiments, tea party activities, and his personal controversies in the 2009 post-election period.

One editor's deletion of this sourced material was based on the pretext that it is libelous to include Joe's own public, sourced, statements in an article about him.

Legally, a statement is libelous if it is untrue.

But, again, this info has been verified by numerous credible sources, who saw fit to inform the public that Wurzelbacher has said it, and it has even received direct commentary and response from Senator Chris Dodd's camp.

Why are wikipedians going rogue and deleting this pertinent, interesting, relevant, sourced information?

24.143.66.205 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not libel. But is it relevant?  The Joe the Plumber story should really center on presidential campaign.  After that, who cares about what he thinks or says - Joe the man is less meaningful to the article.  So it's debatable whether or not it's "pertinent, interesting, relevant" information.Mattnad (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not particularly important, nor are rhetorical speeches actually meaningful in any case. I am still unsure that he merits a biographical article as such, as opposed to a short mention in articles on the campaign. Collect (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things about the Dodd comment: First, it would be hard to argue that Joe has any relevance in mid-2009. His relevance is almost entirely tied to the 2008 campaign. Just because he makes an appearance and it's mentioned in the press, does not warrant an addition to his article, any more than if O.J. Simpson were reported to have made an appearance at a merchandise convention. Second, what is the motivation of an editor wishing to add this information to his article at this point in time, well after the campaign? I submit that it has no value other than making the subject look bad. At one time, this article was a laundry list of ridiculous and inflammatory things that Joe said; it has since been cleaned up, and it's a much more informative, tighter article as a result. I am no fan of 'Joe the Plumber' but Wikipedia articles do not exist for the purpose of making anyone look either bad or good. I am now deleting the Dodd reference. -Jordgette (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jordgette, Collect and Mattnad all essentially voice the same objection: what is the relevance of Joe the Plumber's controversial statements, if they were made AFTER the election?

The correct response is: Joe the Plumber's article already has a section entitled: "Since the 2008 election". The purpose of this section is to group Joe the Plumber's most noteworthy statements and actions since the 2008 election.

The info about Joe the Plumber publicly calling for an active U.S. senator to be lynched, is, by any impartial editor's reckoning, an extremely controversial and noteworthy occurrence. It happened not decades after the election, but within a year of it. So it's factual, extremely noteworthy, timely, and the article already a section established for it.

It was certainly noteworthy to the press, and has even received attention and a public response from the senator's spokesperson.

Why would wikipedia editors seek to passive-aggressively shape wiki-articles by selectively omitting such highly descriptive, newsworthy facts? 174.21.18.111 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Our role as editors is cull material that is not Encyclopedic. You are currently in the minority of active editors on this discussion page who believe this material is relevant to an article that has the 2008 Presidential election at its core. Joe the Plumber has relevance ONLY in the context of the election.  After that, what Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher says becomes subject to a higher hurdle for inclusion.  "Joe the Plumber" is not the same as Wurzelbacher, just as Batman is not the same as Adam West. Mattnad (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about introducing some consistency in the editing of what should and should not be included in this article?


 * For example, why are the various post-plumbing companies Wurzelbacher acted as a mouthpiece for specifically named in the article? Why are the topics he mouthpieced also included?


 * According to the current anti-reasoning being suggested by 3 opposing editors, it makes perfect sense for the article to state on three seperate occasions, that Wurzelbacher spoke at a tea party on this-or-that specific date, that x-number of people attended, etc., but the article should exclude any indication of his most noteworthy, controversial tea party topic?


 * Btw, it is not lost on me that JtP is a metaphor which is different from Sam Wurzelbacher, the living twit. However, it might be lost on the "majority" of 3 or so opposing JtP editors, that the section of the article where the relevant but deleted info belongs, is, in fact, about Sam Wurzelbacher, as I've already noted above. 174.21.18.111 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus on this is about as clear as is possible. Collect (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's allow time for a true consensus, not a preemptory one.

Meanwhile, I've made the edits suggested above, to keep consistency per Mattnad's remarks. Thanks. 174.21.18.111 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)