Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 6 December 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe the Plumber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 4 days

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2008 Articles for deletion Redirected October 17, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept October 20, 2008 Deletion review Endorsed November 1, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Joshua Young (2008-10-20). "Misplaced Pages vs. Joe the Plumber Misplaced Pages users debate Wurzelbacher's newsworthiness and notability". Colombia Journalism Review.

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. •Jim62sch• 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 Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -quets  /-ˌkeɪz, -ˌkɛts, -ˈkeɪz, -ˈkɛts; Fr. -ˈkɛ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 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" " 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 <g>. 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 Misplaced Pages: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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 | 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 | 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 <g> Collect (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course neither bias nor favour are originaly English. Weird. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 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 Misplaced Pages anyway. Celarnor 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 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 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. Celarnor 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#let us end the sobriquet v. nickname nonsense 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. Celarnor 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? Celarnor 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. Celarnor 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. Celarnor 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 | 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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:

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", Misplaced Pages 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 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)

I would like to add the following argument:

1. The usage of the word 'sobriquet' provides an interesting juxtaposition to the 'average Joe' theme of the article right from the get go.

I might add more points as fits my fancy.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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..."? Aleta 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, people can learn a new word and the meaning doesn't get lost. Nice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 ..."? Celarnor 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 ;-) ). Aleta 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? Aleta 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? Aleta 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. Aleta 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. Aleta 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, and some others seem to be strongly against using nickname. I am advocating using both, with references. :) Aleta 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? Misplaced Pages 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;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 "παρωνύμιο", or "绰号".
..... 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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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:

• "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

We could recast the lede to take this concept into account (example 2):

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.

-Alan 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

-Alan 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?

-Alan 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. -Alan 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.-Alan24.184.184.130 (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 Misplaced Pages 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. -Alan 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. -Alan24.184.184.130 (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?

-Alan 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. -Alan 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. Aleta 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.

-Alan 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 Misplaced Pages.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

-Alan 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 Misplaced Pages core policies. — Becksguy (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DOB

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was born December 3, 1973. Joe is very notable. His DOB should be in the article like any other article. QuackGuru 02:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber as a metaphor is notable, Joe Wurzelbacher, himself, isn't. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (also known by his nickname as Joe the plumber) is a book writer and has made many media appearances. QuackGuru 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable per se. His notability, as such, only arises from one campaign. His DOB only appears on quaternary sources (blogs or worse) at this point. It is not found in any RS that I found. Collect (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I showed Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is notable. Please do not claim otherwise. The campaign is over and he continues to make media appearances and is a book writer. I added a source a while ago but it got deleted. Hmm. QuackGuru 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh! You are the official decider-in-chief here? Notability is something which has not been set by consensus here. Collect (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been used by editors to block improvements. I have shown Joe's notability. It's time for editors to acknowledge the truth. QuackGuru 19:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally don't like to see exact dates of birth in BP bios. His year of birth could be mentioned if it's not already. I agree that Joe is now notable enough for a perminant WP bio. (He is notable as a celebrity/activist, never as a plumber.) One thing I must add is that even if he were as good as Saint Joseph that would not make President Obama's tax plan bad, and even if he were as evil as Joseph Stalin or Joseph Goebbels that would not make the plan good. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually with Collect on this one. This article is not meant per se to be a bio of Mr. Wurzelbacher, in which case his date of birth would be relevant and we'd delve into his whole life story. His notability arose from the Joe the Plumber moniker and the term is no longer just about him. Joe the Plumber is a metaphor for the Middle Class courtesy of President-Elect Obama and John McCain, particularly Obama. Thus the name is far more notable than the actual person and that's the focus of this article albeit in a semi-biographical fashion. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Plumber's Assistant Controversy Reflects Editors Stifling Public Consensus

There is no uncertainty about it. Factually, conceptually, etc., the occupation in question, as it applies specifically to this man, is ACCURATELY described as a plumber's assistant. He may moonlight as a plumber to save the company from having to hire another fully licensed one, but he cannot legally or professionally presume to use the title, nor should editors bestow it upon him in a prolonged moment of cavalier or negligent whimsy. That is why real plumbers do the extra training and consequently get paid the extra money.

Misplaced Pages should not deliberately aid a personality who is increasingly notorious for his penchant for self-inflation and misrepresentation, by intentionally disregarding such well documented and thoroughly discussed facts. These facts and other credible support were cited above (but have since been largely removed) and now widely available to the non-Misplaced Pages-reading public.

The only clog hindering what should be Misplaced Pages's PUBLIC work appears to be an over-inflated, stubborn, self-important über-editorial ego, greased over with a veneer of false logic and pseudo-objectivity. This, more than anything else, threatens Misplaced Pages's credibility and usefulness.

I can see Misplaced Pages will have competition in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.117.84 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rant appears to further no improvement of any article. Thanks for playing. Collect (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The "rant" above is actually a logical case for why Misplaced Pages should truthfully reflect Wurzelbacher's occupation of plumber's assistant.

It also expresses legitimate concern about the fact that editors at Misplaced Pages effectively stifled a substantial amount of public dialog and consensus that was making the same point, and many of whom included wonderfully incisive arguments and citations, but all to no effect because they were continually countered with weak, dismissive and illogical justifications for why the man in question should be represented as something other than he is. Their corrections to the article were repeatedly reverted, and ultimately, it looks like the majority of their discussion which argued against how the article is currently presented, was even removed from the discussion page.

It’s an appeal for Wiki Foundation to have a look at their employees’ work and see if the spirit of the project and the public is being served here, or increasingly polluted by personal agendas or egos.

So, my apologies if the suggested improvements to the article eluded you.

They are: to keep Misplaced Pages as accurate as possible and as much of a public (rather than editorial) work of consensus as possible, and to correct this article to reflect Wurtzelbacher's actual pay grade: plumber's assistant.

67.40.179.58 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct and good luck.

Collect: "Thanks for playing."? Is this the appropriate path we should take? Seems unhelpful. 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

Read WP:BLP/N where a large number of opinions focussed on the issue came up with "plumber." Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The BLP/N was mainly about the infobox and not the lead or body of the article. QuackGuru 23:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I thought the IP67.etc was referring to the infobox, which is finally settled, I trust. The lede was made non-offensive as well Collect (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The BLP/N is for BLP violations. The only thing that was settled is that we can't add illegal plumber to the infobox. Nothing else was a BLP violation. QuackGuru 00:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wading back in - clearly there's two notions of "plumber" - the broad non-specific meaning that covers anyone who works on plumbing, and the more specific "profession" that has training and licensing requirements. In my view, it's better for this article to explain these differences since they are obviously at the core of this debate and help explain to the man and the meme. And I have not heard a convincing argument for why we should default to the imprecise explanation only. Mattnad (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because some folks living under bridges want it that way. Certainly we can't admit that Joe's not a professional plumber. But, think of the cachet it lends to guys who clean Port-o-san's. 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

"Folks living under bridges?" People like you are the reason this article has to be protected. Childish and despicable. I came to this article to see if/how the reports of various people improperly digging into Joe's private information was handled (the answer being that it's not mentioned at all, no surprise), but seeing as how we're hung up on ridiculous things like this (he is a plumber in the common vernacular but not technically classified as one legally, blah blah, put a prominent note saying so but don't inject it into every other paragraph of the article, problem solved; can we move on to something actually relevant to the big picture?), I doubt my suggestion would get anywhere until long after inauguration day. -- Glynth (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that I've neither edit-warred nor tried to take control of the article, I find your comment humorous ... at best. And whence ye? You just popped up in a convenient spot of the conversation? What has Inauguration Day to do with it? The election is functionally over save the Electoral formalities. It's not like anyone is hanging on Joe's last words of wisdom. 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has this section on the data base searches. We've been stopped from adding to it, but not sure there's much more there anyway. According to the official investigation, this information was never shared publicly and the searches were not politically motivated. What other "digging into Joe's private information" details were you thinking we should be including here? His tax liens were public record already and a lot of other information was revealed through interviews by reporters.Mattnad (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Glynth - did you read the post supra? This article has had literally tens of thousands of words discussing whether or not a plumber is ap plumber, for gosh sakes! And when the BLP/N comes up with a definitive consensus, all one editor says is that it means we can not use "illegal plumber" in the "occupation" in the infobox? We had actually reached a compromise -- in the lede that is "employed as a plumber" and in the infobox "plumber" and that the rest could go in the weird licensing section. That something is a "public record" is not sufficient for contentious material of dubious relevance to a BLP. WP is not a repository for every factoid raised in a political campaign. Collect (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can say that investigations into several people, with those whose political party (or that of the person directing them) is known being Democrats, which are ongoing and/or concluded that various people "inappropriately" looked into information they shouldn't have (and in at least one case gave this information to the press) is completely above board, but whatever; I don't expect to make much leeway convincing the typical Wiki crowd much of anything. A bigger point is that people immediately went to attack "Joe" personally rather than address the very valid questions he asked and the position he represented (which certainly wasn't simply McCain's position - he supported him, but didn't agree entirely with him) and how this is intimidating those who dare stick their necks out to ask questions of political candidates, but I guess that'd be editorializing (though it is a point made repeatedly by commentators). And Collect, I don't know why you're taking that tone with me - I was just pointing out the ridiculousness and disgusting partisanship of certain Joe-the-Plumber-haters around here. - Glynth (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully apologize if my tone was wrong ... I think my position is clear, and I did not intend to upset you at all! (uploading warmest wishes) Collect (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought Obama very respectfully answered Joe's questions with quite a bit of detail. Joe later went on to voice skepticism, as is his right to do, and continued to seek the limelight. Even various non-partisan tax groups felt that Joe would likely save taxes based on his stated aspirations. So really, his questions were addressed. But there's no doubt that Joe went beyond the simple question and became a political advocate for McCain's campaign. A lot of what we know about Joe was revealed in interviews he participated in after the initial interaction, and by the press who were doing their jobs. So I think it's doubtful Joe received all of this attention for simply asking a question. Mattnad (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I actually think the article gives the info that people are looking for on Joe the Plumber fairly well. People might do better to move on to something else. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

its an insult to my friend, justin, and all other actual plumbers in the usa to call s. joe a plumber. i have worked on my sink, toilet and shower, but i would only call myself a plumber if i finished an apprenticeship in plumbing and got myself licensed. my father is a pilot and i have routinely flown with him, but i am not a pilot. the fact that i know how to fly and do it frequently does not make me a pilot.

Collect keeps saying there is a consensus to make it plumber and not plumbers assistant (or something similar), but all i ever see are his arguments with multiple editors (hadnt heard from glynth till now). just because one editor is more pushy than all the rest doesnt make that editor right. i am always a proponent of making wikipedia more accurate than less and because of that i believe i have a convincing argument for s. joe being a plumbers assistant, or something similar.

ps, there are many other examples of people employed in a field who have different titles than those who do similar jobs. my expertise is in medicine so i instantly think of physician/physicians assistant and nurse/nurses assistant. my point is that no amount of knowledge or experience transforms the assistant into the other title- only the appropriate training/schooling does. basically, working like a plumber does not make one a plumber.

i would love to see a logical argument against what i just stated in the previous two sentences.Brendan19 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the editors who posted on WP:BLP/N -- ten of whom agreed on "plumber." I am not alone in thinking that "plumber" is correct for the infobox and lede. David Shankbone, Mosmof, Wikidemon, Balloonman, agr, JoshuaZ, Hoary, Alansohn, Avruch, Dwheeler, dave souza, betsythedevine, Becksguy, Zsero, Oren0, Clreland and a few otghers say "plumber." Care to dsay "alone" again? Collect (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to take off the infobox. There is no rule that an article has to have one. (p.s. This article's infobox says nothing directly relating to this person's notability.)Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect , please dont twist my words. i never said you were "alone." what i said was that in THIS discussion on THIS page i seem to see you making the same argument against multiple others. if others agree with you why cant that be seen HERE on this discussion. wouldnt that make more sense?

also, you never answered my question, so i will ask again...

my point is that no amount of knowledge or experience transforms the assistant into the other title- only the appropriate training/schooling does. basically, working like a plumber does not make one a plumber.

i would love to see a logical argument against what i just stated in the previous two sentences. Brendan19 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP/N for the lengthy discussion on Joe the Plumber. Iteration hundreds of lines here does not make the arguments stronger. Collect (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i could not agree with your last sentence more. perhaps you should take your own advice. i found the archived discussion you mentioned and i believe it shows that many agree and disagree with you, yet you claim it as evidence that you have a consensus. that aside, why do you refuse to answer my above requests for logical arguments? Brendan19 (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I’ve just read “Criticisms of Misplaced Pages”, in an attempt to understand why improving the JtP article has been so fruitless, frustrating and time wasiting for me and other former Wikipedians.

I now believe the “Joe the Plumber” article can be improved by

1. Editors, especially the prolific one(s) with completely INSANE amounts of time on their hands, first reading the “Criticisms of Misplaced Pages” page. Specifically, it will help improve the JtP article by understanding behavior to avoid or be alert for, and editor-caused problems that weakens the value of Misplaced Pages and how it’s regarded.

2. Raising a flag in the “discussion” page should individuals persistently attempt to stifle input from others with an opposing POV, or other un-Wikipedian community behavior.

I hope that the inordinate difficulty of improving this article isn’t due to someone engaging in “Editing for Financial Rewards” or the like. Still, I and others in the Misplaced Pages-appreciating public have had our contributions towards consensus in JtP systematically attacked by a relentless onslaught of very amateurish, poorly-reasoned prose over an extensive period of time.

To raise the quality of the article, the editors who seem very familiar with Misplaced Pages’s rules should not continually break them while accusing others of disregarding them. For example: “Collect”, you have several “edit war” warnings. During the time I’ve checked back on my and others’ attempted updates to the article & discussion page, I have witnessed you in particular persistently driving away or discouraging a great number of Wikipedians, who had good faith contributions for improving and reaching consensus on the “Joe the Plumber” article. Are we working to improve the article, or to keep others from modifying it?

Another example: I think it’s pretty clear that if consensus cannot be reached on how to accurately describe Sam/Joe Wurzelbacher’s (pre-publishing) occupation in the actual article, then keeping the infobox occupation description probably gives undue weight and support to those who are in the “he’s a plumber, not an assistant” camp. Therefore, due to no consensus, it makes common sense to remove it from the infobox.

Harmless or reasonable suggestions like that should not provoke a compulsive need to keep replying, but if they do, strict limits should be enforced for how often they are indulged in. (In fact it raises an issue of putting low response limits on some editors’ commentary.)

Another issue interfering with the quality of the JtP article seems to be the reoccurring combination of editorial tone and methodical attack used against other editors, which can be observed on the “discussion” page.

The most persistent one seems to combine a certain lofty sneering tone with attempted bullying and an attack using sheer proliferation in the number of dissenting replies, all from the same individual. This behavior is preventing true consensus from being heard or reached. The article can be improved by desisting with the attack method, and allowing different users’ voices and reasoning to be heard and respected, without the accompaniment of knee-jerk dissent replies, sneering or lame responses.

Indeed, another user famously commented in frustration that, trying to get their own contribution or reasoning towards consensus re: JtP article heard was like “trying to piss up a rope”.

If the causes of this widespread sentiment amongst would-be contributors to the article are an intentional barrier, meant to stifle, oppress, exacerbate or dissuade dissenting opinion from being expressed, it needs to be lifted if the article is to improve and represent more than the opinion of the minority.

As it stands, the article continues to give a very fragmented and non-consensual understanding of “Joe the Plumber” and the “discussion” page is anything but welcoming. A dubious achievement for everyone’s time spent on trying to improve the Misplaced Pages project.

63.226.210.77 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, right now, stop criticizing the other editors and demanding that others do the work for you. If you don't stop with the criticism of everyone else this second, I'm locking the page and we are moving on. If you want something, you do the work and ask for it. Don't insult other people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ricky, not so sure that was necessary. 62.266.../anon person, wikipedia can be frustrating. dont give up, help make it better. i think you had very good points. try to make sure nobody could be offended by your comments and try not to attack anyone. sound arguments should win (theoretically anyway) over silliness provided there are enough reasonable people out there to judge. lest we get distracted... i say s. joe is no plumber. im still waiting to hear a logical argument against that. (please see my above comments). Brendan19 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

edit protected

1. ^ "Catchwords of this year's campaign", William Safire, International Herald Tribune, November 2, 2008
2. ^ "Joe the plumber boards the McCain campaign bus", The Guardian, Mark Tran, October 29, 2008

Wikiquote

Please add his Wikiquote page link.

JtP on Wikiquote Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there is more material on the page. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no reason not to add it; and if placed in the article, as it should be, it would invite more collaboration. Please add it. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to be civil, unsigned. Collect (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I find empahsis on a crack on a plumber's ass and calling a plumber a "turd gurgler" to not actually present a valid try at improving an article. Amazing! Collect (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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 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 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 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ohio articles
• Low-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press