Talk:Joe the Plumber

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•^dissera! 19:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

They are synonyms. In other words, there is no difference in meaning. Other than the fact "sobriquet" is a 25 cent French word, why argue? RHD: " so⋅bri⋅quet   /ˈsoʊbrəˌkeɪ, -ˌkɛt, ˌsoʊbrəˈkeɪ, -ˈkɛt; Fr. sɔbriˈkɛ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-bruh-key, -ket, soh-bruh-key, -ket; Fr. saw-bree-ke] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -quets  /-ˌkeɪz, -ˌkɛts, -ˈkeɪz, -ˈkɛts; Fr. -ˈkɛ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-keyz, -kets, -keyz, -kets; Fr. -ke] Show IPA Pronunciation . a nickname. " AHD: "so·bri·quet (sō'brĭ-kā', -kět', sō'brĭ-kā', kět') Pronunciation Key n. An affectionate or humorous nickname. An assumed name. " In the case at hand, "assumed name" wouldm in fact, be incorrect. Wordnet: "sobriquet noun a familiar name for a person (often a shortened version of a person's given name); "Joe's mother would not use his nickname and always called him Joseph"; "Henry's nickname was Slim" [syn: nickname] " Wordnet does not even use the word "sobriquet" in its examples. AHD: "nick·name (nĭk'nām') Pronunciation Key n. A descriptive name added to or replacing the actual name of a person, place, or thing. A familiar or shortened form of a proper name. " Guess what? "Joe the Plumber" fits the dictionary def of "nickname" to a T. (By the way, WP does not allow WP to be used as a reference for quite obvious reasons. Presidents? We have a list of "nicknames" not of "sobriquets" on WP. For some reason, the Eleventh Edition of the EB is considered a teesny bit out of date <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;^dissera! 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Words not in common American usage must not be used, as this is an encyclopedia that must be usable by many, including those with less education (due to the dumbing down of American education). We should be writing articles for maximum readability and usability, not to show off vocabulary. How many typical Junior High or High School students in America know what sobriquet means. I didn't. I see four editors with, in my opinion, stronger arguments on this thread that do not support "sobriquet" vs. the two that support. Red Pen's compromise seems reasonable and very workable—wikilinked sobriquet piped with nickname. — Becksguy (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ANGER! I actually didn't know what sobriquet means, and learnt something when I went to the Wiki article and read up. Do not deprive others of this knowledge. It's probably the best takeaway they could get from this utterly meaningless article. God... I wonder why dumbness is on the rise when this kind of attitude is being thrown around.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Exactly. An encyclopedia id for learning. Let's take a standard encyclopedic article about the earth: we could say perigee or the earth's nearest approach to the sun during its yearly orbt. I prefer the first.

Also,sobriquet isn't that uncommon, it gets 1.85 million hits. Fabales gets about 40% as many. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncommon. Sobriquet is found on a total of 803 places in WP articles. Many of which are for works with that title. Nickname hits 175,944. There seems to be a slight edge for one of the eterms, doesn;t there? Collect (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's uncommon. It's a little misleading, not that it's inaccurate, but that it's kind of a peacock term - taking attention away from the topic. The word "nickname" is more easily understood, although perhaps not as thoroughly descriptive. However, I liked learning a new word, and if the Wikilink is included I hope it's left as is. Without the Wikilink it messes up the article. In any case it shouldn't be this much of an issue between editors which version is preferable. I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest we all find more meaningful, substantive and constructive ways to spend our time on Wikpedia. On other pages that are more in need of editors than this one. VictorC (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Helps me to remember the word when such a huge fuss is made about it. So consensus is to keep sobriquet in the lede. Great!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is not consensus for sobriquet. There is actually more consensus to go back to nickname (piped from wikilinked sobriquet) as having much more precedent and a much more commonly understood meaning. — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

There is a Nickname article which is the one which also links to all the lists of nicknames on WP. And here I hoped this LEW was over. and "votes" do not mean anything. With a factor of 200 to 1 for use of "nickname" in WP, I think now is the time to bring this to WP:BLP/N . Hope we can get good input there. 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Collect (talk)

Note that I said that consensus is not a vote; I was merely illustrating that Becksguy's claim that there was "more consensus" was false. Also, it's interesting (and telling) that while you think it's a lame edit war, you feel like escalating it to another venue - in effect, perpetuating the war. Your 200-1 argument is hard to swallow, also, as there is plenty that is inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong pervading Wikipedia; there is no standard for this that needs to be followed and if we have the chance to use a slightly more accurate term here, I think we should. Tan | 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;^dissera! 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's very appropriate to use a less precise term in the lead. What benefit does that provide? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in from BLP/N, which wasn't really the place to take this. I think that 'nickname' doesn't fully encompass what's trying to be expressed here; something more accurate and specific, such as 'sobriquet', is much more appropriate. I'm not convinced by the 'inaccessible English' argument, as its not a particularly difficult word, and even if it were, it could simply be wikilinked; we should strive to maintain accuracy and precision over 'readability by people with a less than high school education'. For those people, there is Simple Wikipedia anyway. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article." (emph added}-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already written in a clear, accessible style. If you can't understand 'sobriquet', then you should probably be at Simple. There's a big difference between being accessible and catering to the lowest denominator. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with what appears to be a "if your not smart we dont care about you here" philosophy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with what appears to be a "dumbing down article content well beyond the point of inaccuracy with the goal of maintaining a readership lacking intermediate english skills" philosophy. Like I said, there's a big difference between "accessible" and "catering to the lowest denominator". There's a point where simplifying things any more results in a loss of accuracy necessary to understand a definition, and I think we're at that point right now; i.e, changing a more accurate word into a less accurate word, especially without qualifying it in such a way as to retain the original definition. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" is not a hard puzzle for the uneducated to figure out. If you really can't figure out the puzzle then the wikilink will provide you with the answer. Look, you've learnt something!Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

It is a nickname. We should write clearly and without pretension. It means nickname, say nickname. LaidOff (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not mean nickname. We do not use inaccurate words when it there is a suitable, more accurate one is easily available. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, as I said above, I think that the sentence "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" is not a hard puzzle for the uneducated to figure out. If you really can't figure out the puzzle or want the definition then the wikilink will provide you with the answer.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Usage of verbiage which is abstruse in contextual formation and grammatical construction in a sesquipedalian mien potentially misappropriates cordiality of utilizers of the entry. Collect (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The lede of an article, especially the first sentence of the lede, should not be a puzzle, as that violates WP:LEDE, and English usage guidelines. Also, housekeeping question: Does anyone object to combining the previous thread one on exactly the same subject, entitled Talk:Joe the Plumber#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 ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nickname" is NOT inaccurate. "Sobriquet" may be a more completely descriptive term, but the common usage term is indeed an accurate term. (In the same way that calling Millie a "dog" is NOT inaccurate - calling Millie a "Springer Spaniel" is more completely descriptive.) Does the increase in accuracy compensate for the increase in difficulty - in the case of "nickname" vs. "Sobriquet" I would say: No.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's inaccurate in that it is less descriptive. There is a more accurate, more descriptive term available, so why do a disservice to our readers and be more ambiguous than we could be? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

English is a flexible and varied language, and I completely dispute your analysis that "less descriptive" is "inaccurate". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If 'sobriquet' isn't already in your vocabulary, you probably have some other issues that need attending to, and should probably be at Simple anyway. The fact that 'some people don't know it' is a non-starter. The same could be said about 'conclusion' or any other word with more than one syllable. There's nothing that can be done to change the fact that we have two descriptors available: one that fully encompasses the nature of the name, and that offers a more precise definition, and one that just makes it sound like a psuedonym, which it isn't; there's a difference. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pass judgement and discriminate against potential users based on whether or not they know fancified french words when there are simple basic English words which work just as well in 98+% of the occasions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother... sister... mother... father... and the holy ghost. I thought I settled this? I did not know the word coming to the article, but roughly figured it out, and was pleased to read up and know the true meaning of 'sobriquet'. 'Sobriquet' is a valued member of this article's vocabulary. Great addition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Asynchronous discussions that have fluctuating memberships are not always quickly resolved. Your frustration is duly noted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it was a word that wasn't in common use, I think you might have something, but that's not the case; we aren't talking about "chef d'oeuvre" or "fait accompli"; really, even the second of those two is pretty easy to come across in prose. It's fairly basic vocabulary, and if the only reason you have for substituting a less descriptive word is that "people won't understand it", then it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re linguistic breakdown of Celarnor's (whatever language that is): OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, L, L, OE, OE, OE,OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, OE, L; OE, OE, OE, OE, Fr<l, Fr<L, Fr<L, OE, Fr<L, Fr<l; Fr<L, OE, OE, L, OE, OE, OE, OE, Du, Fr, etc. Plus some Greek. What's your point? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you're not here to have a constructive conversation/argument anymore, Jim. The next time you make a sarcastic, unhelpful, or otherwise disruptive edit, I will block you. Tan | 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;^dissera! 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I had thought we had reached a compromise. Kindly do not try changing the infobox unless and until an agreement is reached. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Who tried to change it and what has the infobox to do with anything? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. It is the"plumber" silliness arising again in the infobox. I really don't care much about the text as long as RS is used, but the simple term "plumber" for the occupation was fine for months. Collect (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well for less than two, anyway. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

There are more than just "people won't understand it" arguments against sobriquet:

1. Nickname is overwhelmingly used. The search term "Joe the Plumber" AND "nickname" gets 395K Google hits vs. the search term "Joe the Plumber" AND "sobriquet" which gets 1,140 hits. "Joe the Plumber" nickname -wikipedia as compared to "Joe the Plumber" sobriquet -wikipedia. That's nickname 346 times as often as sobriquet, or a 346 to 1 ratio.
2. The word is not in common English use, despite claims that it is. That editors here didn't know it's meaning is a very strong indicator. And "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:V policy.
3. The use of that word is a violation of WP:V since it's a minority used word and therefore add implications and nuances not in the majority view of those that used nickname. Per RedPen "but there are subtle differences in meanings/usage/implications". A more descriptive word is not more accurate, it's less accurate.
4. Most guides and manuals on English usage, famous or not, advise simplicity over pretentiousness and well known words over less common ones. As does WP:LEDE in saying "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article". Sobriquet is pretentious, uncommon, and therefore not accessible.
5. As Collect pointed out, "With a factor of 200 to 1 for use of "nickname" in WP", Wikipedia internally also supports the use of a more accessible, simpler, and non pretentious term.
6. As VictorC points out: "I agree it's uncommon. It's a little misleading, not that it's inaccurate, but that it's kind of a peacock term - taking attention away from the topic. The word "nickname" is more easily understood, although perhaps not as thoroughly descriptive."
7. This specific debate is really part of a long running debate about the description of "Joe the Plumber" as a metaphor, a symbol, a nickname, a cultural icon, or an election theme on one hand, or about Joe W. as a person on the other.

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

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

Arbitrary section break

Another possible compromise - How about we say that it is a "sobriquet or nickname referring to..."? Aleta ^Sing 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, people can learn a new word and the meaning doesn't get lost. Nice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that as a compromise. Wikilink both. — Becksguy (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't really get the point across, and implies (sobriquet == nickname). How about "... sobriquet (a form of nickname) referring to ..."? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I found Brendan19's comments enlightening. He is right. Sobriquet stands. I admit my part has simply been to hold down with the pro-Sobriquet side until the Voice of Reason arrived. That Voice is Brendan19.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of a compromise is that neither side gets everything it believes is right, or wants, but gets some of it, and allows closure and moving on. In this case each side gets their term included, but without excluding the opposing one. I strongly believe sobriquet is very wrong for the reasons already expressed, but with Aleta's compromise, nickname and sobriquet are both included on equal footing and readers can check the links for both terms. Further, I think Aleta's compromise is the only way we can reasonably reach consensus. Do we really want to continue with potential indeterminate discussions, edit wars, article protections, WP:RfCs, WP:POVNs, WP:RSNs, and who knows what else. Here is a chance to close this particular issue and move on. — Becksguy (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, don't worry about dragging this on. I have nothing better to do. It's perfectly fine with me. But I don't think we should compromise on this point. Maybe Wikipedia can bring back the usage of 'sobriquet' in its correct sense. 'Sobriquet' should be applied wherever it suits.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is beyond Wikipedia's scope to take on projects such as campaigns to improve / change vocabulary of its users. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I could find plenty of examples to contradict that idealist assumption. In any case, "sobriquet" means a nickname that was assigned by someone else, usually by the media or other public figure, so the term fits here. I think I first ran across that word a number of decades ago, when reading about the ballplayer Home Run Baker, whose real name was Frank Baker. It's often used to designate someone whose real name is less well-known, and even now I couldn't tell you Joe the Plumber's real name without looking it up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ruth article calls "Babe" a "nickname." All the Presidential nicknames are called "nicknames." All the British PM nicknames are called "nicknames." and all the other lists on WP of nicknames use "nicknames." There are no lists of "sobriquets" on WP other than in that article proper, and most of those do not meet the definition of "sobriquet"! "Sobriquet" is effete. Collect (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "most of those do not meet the definition of "sobriquet"!" so you now accept that there is a distinction; that's progress! :-) TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No -- I say that most of the examples of "sobriquet" do not meet the definition at all. And all fit the definition of "nickname" where people are involved. Collect (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- if "most of the examples of "sobriquet" do not meet the definition at all." but "all fit the definition of "nickname" where people are involved" then that means there is a difference. TerriersFan (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "epithet" (infra) is what covers the rest. "Sobriquet" is unusually used to refer anything other than people. I trust this clarifies that non-issue. Collect (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Babe" was definitely a sobriquet, as no one who knew him well called him that. It was a media invention. So perhaps "nickname" is sufficient. "Effete"? What, are you channeling Spiro Agnew now? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Then change the WP article on Ruth, (and a few hundred thousand historical references to it being a "nickname") <g>. Trying googlebooks, "sobriquet" and "babe ruth" gets all of 59 hits (good choice of words?). "Nickname" gets 654 - a home run. NYTimes says Ruth's "sobriquet" was "The Sultan od Swat" and that "sobriquets" generally do not include a name as part of the "sobriquet." Russell Baker, a columnist on word usage for the New York Times, wrote that sobriquet is defined as a "fanciful appelation." [1] 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;^dissera! 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

is this evidence that we should change the title of the article to joe the plummer? just because the internet is full of dumbed down info (and sometimes just dumb info) doesnt mean we should dumb down an encyclopedia. also, can we stop with the hits comparisons now? Brendan19 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Which search engine? Google has 1.8 million hits for "Joe the Plumber" and .2 million for "Joe the Plummer". More importantly, under News, "Joe the Plummer" has 87 hits in 30 days, most of which did not have the misspelling in the article (about 6 had it in the text of the article), but in the "comments"! 20K for "Joe the Plumber." Therefore I wonder what engine you used for such incredibly disparate results. Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Brendan19 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You need quotes for searches like this .. you ended up with lots of Christopher and Amanda Plummer hits. Collect (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually virtually every neutral editor (ten or so) on WP:BLP/N chose "plumber" as do about half the ones here. Collect (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, fascinating. The 'sobriquet' article should be expanded to offer this detailed explanation after we're done here. What do you mean by sobriquets do not generally include a name? This is an important point. There are some names in the list of sobriquets in the WP article but largely they're otherwise. Joe the Plumber could be considered as Joe for Joseph the name or as a term such as average Joe or Joe Shmoe.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A "fanciful appellation" is one like "Sultan of Swat" which Babe Ruth would not have answered to if you called out to him with it. "Babe" was a nickname - according to good sources bestowed on him by teammates. If you call out to Joe with "Joe the Plumber" I suspect he will answer you. Benny Goodman was "King of Swing." As a sobriquet. If you called out to him "Hey, King of Swing!" he would have cast not a glance. "Pretty Boy" Floyd was, as far as sources indicate, a sobriquet. He would have punched you (or worse) if you called out "Hey, Pretty Boy!" I think this is probably the simplest way to distinguish. Use of epithets as alternative names for places and the like is not really at issue. Epithet: "any word or phrase applied to a person or thing to describe an actual or attributed quality: “Richard the Lion-Hearted” is an epithet of Richard I." (RHD). Note the substantial and correct overlap between the French word "sobriquet" and the English word (from the Greek circa 1570) "epithet." If anything, "epithet" is better used than "sobriquet" in many cases. Collect (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

this is silly. I would have it as "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, as known as Joe the Plumber..." since per WP:MOSBIO and many other articles, birth name comes first followed by other known names. --Maestro25 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Early on, the decision to use JtP as the name of the article was unanimous. Especially since SJW has no notability otherwise. By the way, there are other articles which do the same. Collect (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Which was, I believe, my point re the meme over the person. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't more editors interested in Aleta's compromise? — Becksguy (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it equates two words that, as has been established in this discussion, have differing meanings. TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion for compromise

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

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

That was essentially where it was for a while, but for some reason the sobriqueteers got antsy. Collect (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I love the idea LaidOff (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)AF

Well, lets bring it back, as Aleta suggested here in her 2nd compromise offering. — Becksguy (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to this strategy? Aleta ^Sing 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

MSamurai, but there is apparently disagreement among RS as to which is the correct term, isn't there? Aleta ^Sing 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you make that determination? By Google hits?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actually just going by this conversation here. I'm just trying to help broker a compromise. Aleta ^Sing 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

We can't define "sobriquet" for the article, as we are not reliable sources for definitions, especially controversial ones. Which this one obviously is. The sobriquet camp has offered these arguments for "sobriquet": It's neat, it's a vocabulary word of the day, and it's more descriptive. The problem is that the definition for sobriquet includes nickname, but it adds nuances and differences that are not compatible with the term "nickname" as used by the preponderance of reliable sources or as understood by an average reader. Potentially many readers don't know the word (at least two editors here didn't), and that invites a lack of clarity and understanding in the article's lede. The reliable sources control what goes into articles, as I quoted above from WP:V and WP:LEDE. Check out Collect's listing of dictionary sources above (11 November). Sobriquet is pretentious and uncommon, and is therefore poor English usage, as I quoted from H.W. Fowler above. Yes, sobriquet has been used (although much less than nickname), but so have other terms, such as metaphor, symbol, cultural icon, or election theme. — Becksguy (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquet should hardly be of any difficulty for a person who can read at or above the ninth grade level. Very sad that the use of this verbiage has created such a shitstorm. Oner of the greatest beauties of reading is that we do it individually and have access to lexicons. Is there a reason, a logical reason, why we should fear the acquisition of new verbiage? When should we cease acquiring new words? Sixth grade? Third grade? When is a poor vocabulary, one deprived of any but the basest of words and one clearly a sign of educational and intellectual deprivation, considered a positive? Bah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sobriquet" is not found at the ninth-grade reading level. Honest! And recall the official WP policies regarding making articles readable to everyone. Collect (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have more faith in the abilities of the average person (although further research indicatesthat sobriquet is actually eighth grade). Perhaps we might use nickname in its original form, ekename.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a knucklehead. Correct verbiage is what makes articles readable. The extra specificity that comes along with the word 'sobriquet' helps to bring the phenom that is "Joe the Plumber" into focus.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Joe the Plumber "An affectionate or humorous nickname", "An assumed name", "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name", all from AHD. Or "a familiar name for a person (often a shortened version of a person's given name)" from Wordnet. As Collect said: "Joe the Plumber" fits the dictionary def of "nickname" to a T. Sobriquet is incorrect per dictionary definitions and per WP:V and WP:LEDE.

The only reasonable method of resolution is to compromise by including both with reliable source citations as suggested by Aleta. Why won't the sobriquet camp work for consensus rather than insisting on having it all their way, and only their way? Is this going to become a federal case by going to RfC, ANI, or POVN, or whatever? Half a loaf is better than none, for both sides.

— Becksguy (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we now need a lesson in the dic def of "humourous"?

Anyway, OED has" An epithet, a nickname." Shall we argue about the primary def, "epithet" (An adjective indicating some quality or attribute which the speaker or writer regards as characteristic of the person or thing described. )? It fits perfectly really.

Really, I'm sensing a desire to "dumn-down" here that is antithetical to the function of an encyclopedia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think giving both terms with references constitutes dumbing-down. Using only "nickname" might be, but not using both. Aleta ^Sing 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Using both might be OK, but I'm sensing strong opposition to the use of sobriquet. At one point, some weeks back, several folks objected to the use of sobriquet because it was not a native English word. But then neither are 11 words in my above two sentences, and 4 in what you wrote. For the most part, English requires the use of such tewrma as our original words, in many cases agglutinative compounds similar to those in use in modern German, have disappeared. Were we to try to use OE-derived words only, for example wyte for blame and wight for person, no one would understand us. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, and some others seem to be strongly against using nickname. I am advocating using both, with references. :) Aleta ^Sing 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm proud to be a part of the ardently pro-sobriquet camp.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquet is indeed not a native English word (it's French), but neither are many English words. But that was not my reason for opposing. Yes there is strong opposition to sobriquet. But I oppose because it's pretentious, not well known, and includes meanings not meant by the preponderance of reliable sources. For example: "A familiar or shortened form of a proper name." The word "Joe" alone would be a sobriquet by that definition, but "Joe the Plumber" is not. If we use both with RS citations, then readers can make up their own minds. Aren't we here to provide the significant viewpoints and let the reader decide? Wikipedia is not a vocabulary improvement project, as that mission conflicts with the mission of being accessible to the greatest number of readers. Unfortunately. — Becksguy (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While we are touching up on this subject, allow me to note that English has, according to a plethora of verifiable sources, the most voluminous and richest vocabulary of any language spoken on this globe, and to seek to arbitrarily limit that vocabulary because one finds eloquence and lexical acquisition and proficiency to be "pretentious" is a despicable and unforgivable assault on knowledge and the pursuit thereof. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Despicable?" Geez, Jim. Reminds me of this well known cartoon character ;-) I'm amazed that this is being so vigorously argued. As a counterpoint to Aleta's suggestion, maybe another thing to do is use neither word . How about another obscure replacement like, say, ""cognomen"? If it stops the argument, why not? Or heck, maybe we can sneak in a neologism. Since it's common to incorporate words into English from other languages, perhaps we can sneak in a word from another language. For instance, how about "spitzname"?, "sopranomme", or "apodo", or perhaps "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 Wikipedia: Link sobriquet to a definition in Wiktionary, should one exist. This saves readers the hassle of going through an entire article trying to summarily grasp the full definition of one word within an article comprised of several thousand such words. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is meant to be an informal learning tool of sorts, why fear incorporating a higher grade-level vocabulary into it as a means of providing the best possible learning experience? And if we have to "dumb down" a word here, the same precedent would theoretically have to be set for the entire English Wikipedia, thereby degrading the quality of articles. As someone pointed out, if readers cannot grasp the lingusitics of the standard English wikipedia, there's Simple English to cater to that need. So, that's my offer for a solution. Dictionaries are as important of a resource as an encyclopedia and complement one another: Get the information you want and if you don't know what a word means, just look it up. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet or nickname referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher,

TerriersFan (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Joe the Plumber is a reference to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher....

The other possibility is to recast the lede to include his symbolic status (which is sadly lacking anyway). Joe the Plumber is an election theme, metaphor, symbol, and cultural icon, as well as a reference to Joe the person. Here, from an earlier post of mine, are several news quotes using terms other than nickname or sobriquet:

• "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC) [2]
• "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC) [3]
• "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." -- (Headline) Toledo Blade [4]
• "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade [5]
• "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 [6]
• "...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 [7]
• "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post [8]

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 Wikipedia article, link it to Wiktionary or some other online dictionary if need be. I don't think Nickname is the appropriate word in this case.

-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 Wikipedia guidelines per your liking. If we were to take out sobriquet because it's not the most common word in the English Language, then we might as well just remove it from every article that contains the word. While we're at it, let's take out incorrigible, paradigm, innocuous, quell, every obscure medical term, etc. The word is used to some extent in the English language otherwise it wouldn't be included in the lead and as far as references go, learn to read them better. Seeing the word nickname at the end of the definition means it's there to serve as a related word. If you actually read the definition for nickname also, you'd see there was a difference between the two, otherwise the definition for sobqriquet would just read "See Nickname" or something thereabout, assuming you're using a reliable reference which RHD clearly is not. We're here to find a mutually agreeable solution but at the same time though, if you want to start degrading the quality of the lead for the sake of weaseling your way around a single word too advanced for you, you need to provide something better than what we already have. It's as simple as that. -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 ^Sing 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Aleta, that seems like a nice compromise, but this is an encyclopedic article and the text should be relatively straightforward. It seems illogical to me that the reader should have to determine for themselves which of the two is more correct. And in essence, putting both there, separated by the "or" clause would imply equality on some level. Citations only add to the misconception that sobriquet and nickname are identical. The two words are similar, but not completely synonymous; I've already illustrated the difference. To that same extent, I concede to the possibility that sobriquet may not precisely be Joe the Plumber's matching vocabulary word, but it's the best word available and thus more relevant than nickname would be. As such, if both were to be included, sobriquet would need prominence with nickname being used as part of a brief, parenthetical description of sobriquet. I would stylize it more as:

Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet (a characterizing name, akin to an informal nickname) originally referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher but now carrying a broader meaning.

If not that, then something relatively similar. Think of the two words as the difference between say identical twins and fraternal twins, or perhaps an orange and a tangerine. My apologies if the provided examples aren't the most adequate but the idea is there. When this is over, it would be nice if someone created an article specifically for this subject: Sobriquet vs. Nickname. And I was rather certain the protection ended today, but I guess that provides us with some time still to reach a final consensus on what to do here.

-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 Wikipedia.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Asinine? Out of all the web pages searched by Google -- only 471 associate "Joe the Plumber" with "sobriquet." 324,000 associate "Joe the Plumber" with "nickname." I daresay that calling all those sites inaccurate is errant. Collect (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant that this web search idea is idiotic. There is a lot of "groupthink" in journalism. We are trying to be more accurate here.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai is right. And by the way, all this websearching, besides contorting and reinterpreting various Wikipedia guidelines to your advantage, could easily be considered Original Research. You make it sound like the media are never wrong in their reporting. This is Wikipedia, not a journalism/media compendium, nor do we predicate articles on convoluted arrays of search results of which most are probably independently written on blogs or some other web-based medium. I know for a fact you didn't personally peruse through every single search result, so for all you know these same "sources" could be providing a plethora of inaccurate information, yet you remain unaware of such since you just did a quick search and then just expect us to automatically take your word for it, no questions asked. Sorry, but that is asinine. For that matter, the media reports on Wikipedia more so than the other way around. The internet as a whole is not relevant to this discussion. Parts of it are, yes, but it's limited beyond how you see fit to misuse it. The true sources for this matter are ones of reference, such as dictionaries and they clearly delineate what is and what's not a sobriquet or a nickname. I couldn't have made it any easier to distinguish between the two and yet you choose to remain oblivious to it as a means of supporting your ideals.

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

But I was so sure of myself. How could this be?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

No nicknme or sobriquet in lede -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC):

• Joe the Plumber is a phrase initially used in exchanges between Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama during the third presidential debate on October 15, 2008 and throughout the remainder of the campaign as a metaphor for middle class Americans[2] and to refer to Samuel Joseph "Joe" Wurzelbacher [3] who had been videotaped questioning Obama about small business tax policy.

Actually, according to Jeff Nunberg, Joe the Plumber has been in use for some time with the first reference he found to be in College and University Writing Essentials, 1995 -- see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html Mulp (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

or

• Joe the Plumber was initially used in exchanges between Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama during the third presidential debate on October 15, 2008 and throughout the remainder of the campaign as a metaphor for middle class Americans[2] and to refer to Samuel Joseph "Joe" Wurzelbacher [3] who had been videotaped questioning Obama about small business tax policy.

We are not going to neglect an important fact simply because some people find it is too sophisticated. We aim to properly explain here at Wikipedia.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What "important fact" is missing? The difference between "nickname" and "sobriquet" is not in my view "important" enough to require discussion in the lede - we have a full article to differentiate and illucidate if required. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is madness. Off hand I will admit that "presented as a paradigm" is an interesting choice of words, but how correct that is has yet to be debated. Much better than the idea of using nickname over sobriquet. But let's not dismiss sobriquet, which has served us well so far (hardly anyone is being abused by our talk discussions here) and is an absolutely appropriate term.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is rational -- Perhaps "middle class Americans" might be better phrased as "American small businessmen"? Can we ameliorate the passive voice a tad? Say: "JtP" was presented as a paradigm of American small businessmen by John McCain during (etc.) based on SJW's videotaped questioning of Barack Obama etc. (Dictionary searching leads me to believe "paradigm" meaning "example or model" pretty accurately describes how JtP was used in the campaign.) Collect (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "small business owners" would indeed be more accurate-if that phrasing is supported by the source. However, the current link to the original source is not functioning. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"businessmen" or "business owners" - seems much of a muchness, no? And I am getting to really like "paradigm" for its accuracy here. Collect (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

back to sobriquet, i saw it got changed here [9]. was there consensus for that? Brendan19 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obcviously not... MSamurai has reverted the change. (Of course, we don't have a consensus for sobriquet either. There's been no consensus on this issue.) Aleta ^Sing 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

We don't have consensus for either nickname or sobriquet, as Aleta rightly points out, so the only appropriate thing to do is leave both out until we do reach consensus, if that ever happens. Maybe it's time to go to WP:RfC or WP:POVN on this, since the sobriquet camp apparently refuses to consider Aleta's compromise of using both equally, with citations. Or just leave it the way it is, without either term. Which I prefer, since it's not just about Joe the person anyway and both terms imply that. — Becksguy (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite; but 'paradigm' is another non-consensus jargon word with a specific meaning which doesn't really fit. I have rewritten the lead to avoid all such terms! TerriersFan (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or Dwayne the Rain Drain guy. Try saying that three times quickly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Joe vs. McCain

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

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

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

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

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

For the same reason we have an article about him. Whatever that might be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The old write a book & cash in trick, eh? Next stop, Joe's reality show So ya think you're a Joe. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Can the following be added to the article?

Wurzelbacher Quote about McCain: "...the Republicans didn't put out a candidate for us to really vote for. It's the lesser of two evils. When you get to that level, you've compromised your principles, you've compromised your values so often and you owe your soul to whatever special interest group or lobbyist has padded your campaign finances and everything else that you no longer are your own man. So you can no longer stand on your own feet because they've been cut out from underneath you years ago." Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/ 63.226.222.174 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, anything that makes him look even more like a jerk is good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe, or McCain? :) Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha, my statement was a bit ambiguous, wasn't it. 0:) OK, let's go back to what someone said earlier: Why do we care what this guy has to say about McCain? And is it appropriate to be stacking up a bunch of verbal artillery against McCain, who probably did the best he could under the circumstances? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was mainly joking...Joe is notable as a campaign figure, but I don't think he has a whole lot going for him going forward. However, he's probably got a brighter future among conservatives than McCain, who wasn't even invited to CPAC this year. Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no intention to bash McCain (who in my mind is a war hero). The article is about a certain "Joe the Plumber" who emerged during and later rose to prominence directly as a result of McCain's campaign making use of (without sufficiently "vetting") him. The JTP article has a post-campaign section on Wurzelbacher. It seems logical to include Wurzel's apparent reversal in sentiment towards McCain, esp. since the timeframe of his reversal so closely follows the election. In short, it seems well within the scope of and substantially relevant to the article. 63.226.222.174 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote does not speak well of Mr. Plumber, nor do his negative comments about the campaign from his forthcoming book. The GOP had their chance to choose whoever they wanted, and they chose McCain. I feel sad for McCain. He should have been the guy in 2000, but he was sabotaged. It's also unfortunate in a way that Bush won in 2000 instead of Gore, because I suspect McCain would have been a more formidable challenger in 2004 against Gore than he was in 2008 against Obama. Throughout this year's campaign, I was impressed by the class demonstrated most of the time by McCain. Would that his many detractors now, including Joe the Plumber, would demonstrate similar class. And just to clear things up - that quote makes JTP look like a jerk. Given what you're saying, maybe it would be good to have it there, to show what he's really made of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Baseball Bugs. Incidentally, my two contributions have been posted for almost 5 minutes without being deleted yet. Is Collect on holiday?63.226.222.174 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Zing! I don't know, it's not my day to watch him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh - ya know I love you, Bugs - but one of the greatest things about Obama winning is that, as a libertarian, I longer have to pretend to like McCain. Talk about uninspiring! His Palin choice was the only thing that swung me to him from Bob Barr, but he was a total milquetoast as a campaigner. I completely sympathize with Wurzelbacher's sentiment here. Kelly ^hi! 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that McCain was a "throwaway" candidate, as the GOP figured they were going to lose anyway. Kind of like when they ran Dole in 1996. Or when the Democrats ran Stevenson a second time in 1956. Still, it would have been interesting to see Mitt Romney get the nomination. The religious right would have really been torn on that one. But he might have been more popular overall than McCain turned out to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - especially since McCain turned out to be clueless economy-wise. He might have had a chance if he had rallied Republican opposition against Bailoutpalooza, but he "suspended his campaign" and ultimately voted with Bush and the Democrats. That was the reason he lost, IMHO. The social-cons probably would have ultimately rallied behind Romney (although with reluctance - not because of his faith, but because of his endless flip-flopping)...but it would have been a tough sell, depending on his VP choice. Kelly ^hi! 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that, but that's a point - that people in the GOP suspected that Romney was insincere. Maybe it could be said that the public thought McCain was sincere, but wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your political instincts are good as always. In the conservative blogs during the primaries, a frequent epithet towards Mitt was "used car salesman". I don't think McCain was ever considered an opportunist like Romney, but he was just too far to the left for many Republicans - there are a lot of calls now to end open primaries for GOP candidates, or to stop looking to liberal early states like Iowa or New Hampshire. McCain's loss has pretty much discredited the neocon strategy for appealing to the center to achieve electoral victory - it's way early to tell for sure, but the next GOP candidate will likely be an unabashed Reagan-con like Sanford, Palin, or Jindal. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Career and Licensing

Collect removed expanded information on Joe's professional credentials and licensing with this edit [11]. He claims this is "contentious". The sources are Newsweek, the Toledo Blade, MSNBC. I'll let the content speak for itself. I'm looking for comments from other editors. I also removed a section of Ohio law that collect added to the article since it does not apply to Joe's situation in the context of whether he can work as a plumber. I think that section is WP:OR given what we now see in the reports.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ill-formed RfC. Seeks to remove prior material that was in the article by consensus. Seeks to add contentous material which specifically falls under WP:BLP. Seeks to remove occupation from infobox without removing entire infobox, thus removing the only actual cite in the infobox. Makes personal attack on another editor, including calling a good faith edit "vandalism." Makes a claim of OR which was not accepted by prior consensus. And, all in all, seeeks to make a terrible upset of every applecart. Seeks to add material which was not found proper at the time it was first submitted. Seeks to COATRACK McCain. And a few more if you need them. Collect (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite - what part of the Toledo Blade, MSNBC, or Nesweek quotes violated WP:BLP and how?Mattnad (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The material is, on its face, contentious. Now let's see how others weigh in on the issue of your major change to a stable section. Collect (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note the non-answer. I just don't think Collect understands what contentious means per WP:BLP. WP:BLP allows for contentious material, provided it's well sourced, " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." The material was direct quotes, well sourced and verifiable. Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum about personal attacks. Collect (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The removing, adding, or changing of content, especially by established editors, in which they disagree about the encyclopedic value of that content is not vandalism. It's a content dispute, and if carried to extremes, then an edit war. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. per WP:VANDAL policy. — Becksguy (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ReCollect's profferred "proof" of ad hominem: there's no QED there. Re "contentious", how so? We need more than just a drive-by word flung about during the removal of items that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we need some time of logical, cogent argumentation. I'm sensing an attempt to whitwash here, and yes Beck, such attempts can be considered more than a content dispute, and if it is continued may very well fit the definition of WP:VAND. Remember, Joe's sobriquet is "Joe the Plumber", not "Joe the Saint". Of course, were this article written about the meme and not the person all of this could be avoided. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Contentious" isn't reason for removal, only contentious and not backed up by sources. The material that Collect has been revert warring over is sourced, so it's definitely allowed by BLP. Honestly, I don't know why this article is even locked, looking at the edit history it's one editor repeatedly reverting to his version with not only no consensus, but doesn't even seem to have support from a single other person. --Minderbinder (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just had time to fly quick over this edit and if the sources, (which I didn't check to be clear), are backing up the "contentious" edit, I don't see as such. I see it more as a content dispute and the only question would be how much detail we ought to include here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Contentious -- the section where the claim is that a paper "surmised" something (actually one person's editorial opinion) meets "contentious" to a T. And does not meet NPOV by a mile. The cites are all from circa October 16 and 17, which means they do not provide any info not already known and fully discussed here. And removal of a consensus statement concerning the fact that nothing illegal occurred is contentious in itself. Lastly, the article is evolving away from personalities into discussion of the use of JtP as a paradigm or example - rather than of him as a specific person. Again per consensus. Collect (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Which part of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump WP:CON is unclear? It's really a rather simple concept. We can form a consensus that the sun is cold, but per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV we'd lose. Really. No shit, we'd lose. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, please stop editing the section until this is resolved. You may have crossed 3RR already. Mattnad (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep The material is well sourced and meets all guidelines. I am troubled by the amount of contention that Collect has caused here by massive deletions of several pages of text including hundreds of citations and references, with no discussion before hand; the twisting of policy (BLP in particular); and the wikilawyering. (removed) Inclusionist (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a simple personal attack. I have nowhere near the greatest number of edits on this article, or any other one, nor have I removed "hundreds" of citations and references, nor have I mmade "massive deletions." The accusation of "vandalism" over good faith edits is reprehensible. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Please save the poster child comments about vandalism since this appears to a content dispute. --Tom 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that one editor has canvassed for support in this. Amazingly enough, he canvassed for supporters of his position, and not all the editors on this page. WP:CANVASS applies. Collect (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Grasping at any straw to save one's POV is hardly dignified. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, if you spent more time supporting your views with referenced sources, then deleting everyone elses, Joe the Plumber would be featured article. I think there is a little fatigue with your behavior here Collect. Once again, you never discussed this most recent large scale deletion on the talk page before you deleted it. You cry "good faith", but what about your good faith towards other editors contributions? Is deleting pages and pages of other editors well cited collected works good faith? Be careful, because when someone demands that a spotlight be put on someone elses behavior, that spotlight often comes back and shine on them too.Inclusionist (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• If this is a request for comment on the content of the article: The material is clearly reliably sourced and removal on the sole basis that the items contain "contentous material" is not at all supported by WP:BLP. Whether or not the material Collect removed is necessary and helpful to understanding the topic of "Joe the Plumber" and whether the volume of material gave such comments WP:UNDUE weight are debatable. Perhaps the material from the multiple sources can be combined into a more condensed statement that is more fully expounded in a referenced footnote. If this is a request for comment on one or more editor's behavior, I would have additional opinions too.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The additions of old material (all from mid-October) were made without any discussion, hence it is up to the adder to show they should be in, not up to others to do otherwise. There was no "large scale deletion" but the adder did delete material which had been worded through consensus (Ohio contractors law). And I do not label any GF edits as "vandalism" which is a reprehensible thing to do. As for making any veiled threats, who cares. I am acting as best I can to make this article and the hundreds of other articles I have worked on worthy of an encyclopedia. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I did mention a couple of days ago I would work on this section. Aside from doing the changes, I'm not sure how else Collect could react to them (negatively it appears). As far as my rationale goes, these reliable sources help explain what is required to be a plumber in Toledo, where Joe works, including reporting on the view by local officials and building inspectors that Joe is not legally allowed to work as a plumber. This topic has been debated here and in the media at length and if someone coming to this article had a question about Joe's qualifications, this section provides well-sourced verifiable information.Mattnad (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm really confused by Collect's comment about "old material". If he has newer material relevant to this topic, he can certainly add it. I will say his interpretation of Ohio law as it applies to Joe's situation is probably WP:OR.Mattnad (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'm still laughing about the October comment. Does "truth" have a sell-by date? ROFL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You gotta pay more attention. There is an expiration date on everything nowadays, even on news (and therefore history)  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you make me laugh more I'll die. *lol* . But that's off topic so back to more serious "business"  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

what is and what is not contentious seems to be a real sticking point here. im going out on a limb and saying that just because one person finds something to be contentious doesnt mean that it is. that said, the issue over this guys work in plumbing (both the field and the actual pipes) is relevant given the fact that he is called joe the plumber. his credentials have been discussed in the media and should fairly be mentioned here. to be clear, keep licensing stuff in the article. maybe instead of fighting over calling him a plumber or not we should just have a section that discusses the fact that some wish to call him a plumber and some insist that he is not. just a thought. Brendan19 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion there seems to be wide agreement to keep the material in, is a page lock really necessary? If one editor keeps reverting with no consensus support, if admin intervention is needed, just block whoever is being disruptive. For the record, I also support leaving the occupation out of the info box since that seems to be the simplest solution. While there are sources that say "plumber" there are also plenty that say he isn't. If there is agreement that it is really necessary, I'd say either something like "employee of a plumbing company" or even "plumber (disputed)" with references to both articles that say he is and articles that say he isn't. The facts are that some sources consider him a plumber and some don't - the article should reflect that and note that the sources disagree. As Brendan put it above, "have a section that discusses the fact that some wish to call him a plumber and some insist that he is not". Also, I don't think the frivolous accusations of personal attack and things like "ll-formed RfC" add anything to the discussion, please AGF. --Minderbinder (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to the party. The material is well sourced but could definitely use some trimming after people have a chance to digest it. But given the fighting over this article i would have bet that had been more summarized and without full quotes, I think it could have been picked apart and removed for not being "accurate". Anyway, I got that impression when one editor removed an entire quote because the lead in said "surmised". Anyway, it's page protect till x-mas, so we can think about it.Bruno23 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I should surmise that if the usage of "surmise" were problematic, the editor who removed it would have stated so, rather than merely labling it contentious. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG Oppose. The childish smearing of Joe the Plumber has just got to stop because it's getting beyond ridiculous. This is elementary duck testing; Wurzelbacher is clearly a plumber. Mentioning his licensing status is appropriate, but it's getting out of control and has a clearly non-neutral slant. Collect's edit reverts a lot of minutiae and irrelevant bullshit -- I mean c'mon, John McCain calling Wurzelbacher "Joe the Plumber" leading to questions about McCain's vetting of Sarah Palin has got to be some of the most blatant, ill-conceived, bad faith POV pushing that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. In addition, the primary source should be used here since I'm positive Ohio plumbing licensing laws are available online (which I'm almost certain was once included as a source in this article). All cited sources from the reverted entry that have made claims about required licensing have simply said "local officials" without actually naming anyone -- if they actually called up these local officials, I'm sure they would've been able to get at least one name. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) [Addendum: Ah-ha! I knew there was a contribution about the Ohio laws regarding contracting that vandals had removed: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740.07. This source has much more validity than news sources which can't specifically cite a person in regard to the issue. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]

Thanks for the rant. When JW became a public figure, he became open to scrutiny, no matter how fair or unfair that is. His licensing status is not a smear, it is an attempt to clarify. Hell, if I wanted to smear JW I'd point out that he was bereft of any understanding of both Obama'stax plan and the standard (since 1913) US progressive tax system. Of course, given that McCain took the misperceptions and ran with them says much about McCain's understanding of the prgressive tax concept and the fact that they garnered such wide support shows that many Americans don't understad either. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to include unfair information, now that's a warning flag for bad faith. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral store of notable information, but that doesn't appear to be your intent judging by comments like that. And I always appreciate your pretentious comments. (SARCASM) You're really leaping to new bounds thinking that you have more understanding of the American tax system than a four term senator. Hey, why aren't you running the government already? Is it because we're all too stupid to vote you for president? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you Amwestover - are you suggesting that the reporters and editors from Newsweek, The Toledo Blade, and MSNBC made this all up because they didn't provide names of local officials? That seems like a stretch.

Also, we as editors should not being doing our own research on Ohio laws and adding it to article 'assuming it applies to Joe is definitely OR. Laws are complicated and have layers - just ask any lawyer. What we need instead is a published reliable source that makes the claims that Joe is in compliance with laws. I actually tried to find material that said Joe is plumber per local law but couldn't. There were some political commentators who made points like yours that say he does plumbing work, ergo he's a plumber. But that's different from being legally allowed to be a plumber which is what that section is about.

As for the McCain part, it's absolutely POV, but no more so than including McCain's spin on "Joe the Plumber". That's also POV and I think it should be in the article.Mattnad (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your argument Mattnad -- you are suggesting its okay to be critical of some sources, such as a primary source that specifically says Joe the Plumber is operating legally i.e. the actual law, but not critical of sources which don't specifically mention sources that claim otherwise. Oh wait, I do follow it! You've been trying to push your own conclusion (which you share with many liberal media outlets) that Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber, and actually including the text of the law would shoot your argument to shit. So let's call it original research, that's always a trump card in these discussions. Now I get it! Jeez... And your only defense is "laws are complicated", are you kidding me? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no paradox in my approach. I'm sharing the content of media outlets - this is true. I've found and quoted reliable sources on the topic. No argument with you on that point. What I'm not condoning is an editor doing his own research on what Ohio laws say, interpreting this research, and connecting his interpretation to Joe the Plumber. If you can find a reliable, verifiable source, and I'll guote you, "that specifically says Joe the Plumber is operating legally" then by all means add it. But the legal citation I removed did not do that at all. It was some general language about workers being deemed to be under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Very different and our connecting that to JtP is our own Original Research. Regards.Mattnad (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a paradox to your approach. And you're claiming that it's "research" to do a Google search to find the Ohio laws on construction trade licensing, but it's "not research" to do a Google search for media outlets that can't specifically name anyone who claims that Joe the Plumber isn't properly licensed. And if you didn't have such an itchy trigger finger and actually bothered to read the source that you deleted, you would've quickly found that plumbers, and all construction trades actually, fall under the term "licensed contractor". I'd think that an editor editing in good faith would've enhanced the contribution rather than removing it. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Beg your pardon??? "plumbers, and all construction trades actually, fall under the term "licensed contractor".

Either you don't live in the US, misunderstood something or more likely you just have non experiance and expertise in regard of that matter. There are rare circumstances where you actually can apply for a license depending on the trade but you "always" have to get a license if you want to work officially on you own at most construction jobs. Even as a "handy man" you need a license. That doesn't mean that all people doing such work have indeed a license and are therefore officially allowed work on whatever they're working on but they can be penalized if caught by the state, the county or the city. This is a fact! I'm was in that business and have plenty of books and paperwork on this. No, Sir or Madam. It is not as easy as you stated. There are indeed states where a contractors license is not needed (excluding plumbers and electricians) but you have to get special insurance and other "stuff" like as an example a certain amount of cash in your bank account(s) (for a certain preset time which can vary but usually is at least three month).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The McCain use of JtP as an example in the debate in POV to you? BTW, you had earlier accepted the union rep statement that Joe could legally work in the townships (from one of your own cites!) -- do you feel that you can cherry-pick from your own cites? Collect (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: McCain creation of JtP as POV - sure it is, just as including editorial comments on McCain's use of "Joe the Plumber" in light of his non-compliance with plumbing licensing rules. Article always include POV material.Mattnad (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If the use if JtP as an exemplar is removed, on what grounds does JtP have any notability at all? Seems to me that under such an edit that JtP would properly be deleted as non-notable entirely. And I will note that you did not answer the fact about the union rep's statement that Joe could legally be a plumber in the townships ... as you had agreed previously.

re: Townships... I'm not sure what you are writing about - can you show me the quote you have in mind? As for the rest of your comment .... what are you talking about? Nobody is saying we remove JtP from this article.Mattnad (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(from archive here) Per Toledo Blade cited supra: "Mr. Joseph said Mr. Wurzelbacher could only legally work in the townships, but not in any municipality in Lucas County or elsewhere in the country." Note that the Union rep is the one who said Joe could "legally work" where Newell had a license. So much for a claim that it is "not legal" for him to work as a plumber. As for "in the country" I take that as hyperbole on Mr. Joseph's part. Collect (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [12]

And if we remove McCain's use of JtP as an exemplar, then the entire rationale of notability goes away -- JtP is notable because of McCain;s debate usage. Collect (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly add that qualifier that a union rep though Joe could legally work in "the townships" once the block is off. But I read the section, he does not say that Joe is a "plumber", only that he "can work" in the township and it's not at all clear in what capacity. Given what else he says about Joe, he could mean some other kind of status (like a plumber's assistant), but you and I are guessing. And I'm sure you wouldn't want us to quote him more broadly from the article since he's pretty caustic about SJW. Finally does not eliminate the other well sourced, and much clearer material that states "Joe is not a plumber" and is not allowed to work in Toledo under Newell etc. etc. So we can present all of the available material that isn't OR (like an editor doing his own research on Ohio laws and then saying it applies to Joe's particular situation). Now about McCain's use of JtP, why on earth do you want to remove it? Mattnad (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Try quoting me correctly. Ascribing a position to me which I did not take is intellectually not worthwhile on your part. Thanks!

Strong Keep. Are you guys seriously trying to remove information that was published in many major sources and frequently mentioned in television news reports? csloat (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That someone published something does not mean it belongs in an article. The objective should be to write an article which will still be valid in a year, which means that "not news" and other guidelines do apply. Remember, there were "published" reports that JtP was related to the Keating Five -- and a lot of other rubbish. Collect (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. So let's put this article on AFD and merge the notable stuff into the appropriate articles (as far as some things where missed) and all problems here are solved. Right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a valid reason for removing sourced text. Vague comments is not a reason to remove published in many major sources information. QuackGuru 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Sources are OK. Just because they are negative is not a valid reason to remove them. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And are they that negative?Mattnad (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak qualification on a strong Keep: "As part of the background on McCain's use of the "Joe the Plumber" paradigm, several media outlets researched his professional plumbing credentials. One Toledo Blade article surmised, "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber."

This passage stops 'surmising' right about here: "which means he's not a plumber". It would be nice to find a word that jibes with this non-speculative tone.

"The uncertainty over Joe's plumbing bona fides led to some political commentators to question McCain's vetting process following Sarah Palin. While Joe was simply asking a question, it was McCain who promoted an image of "Joe the Plumber" that did not match reality. Under the title of "Joe not a plumber" Andrew Sullivan of the The Atlantic wrote "Why am I not surprised? No license and a lien for unpaid taxes. Like Sarah Palin, a great concept. But the McCain campaign needs to be able to vet its hood ornaments."

Maybe I have just been in the house of pain that is Sarah Palin article too long, and can't see good writing as what Wiki is for anymore, but the leadup to the quote isn't aiming at being as factual and no-nonsense as possible. Obviously the quote itself is good; verifiable, taut and colorful language.

Also, I think this article needs someone saying, as you mentioned earlier, 'he says he's a plumber, he's a plumber'. Both sides. But that is an issue for another day. Anarchangel (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this as soapboxing because User talk:Anarchangel did nothing to explain why he thought my reasoning was weak yet posted three paras of NPOV not related to my comment. User talk:Mattnad reverted me saying this is all well and good. I won't edit war over something so trivial but can easily defend my position if Anarchangel if he would care to explain why its OK to remove sourced material because it's negative. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see his comment in relation to yours. But I suppose one could read it that way and then I see why you made that edit. It's funny that his comments refer to a version (with the work "surmised") that hasn't existed for over a week. VERY curious. Mattnad (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nunberg notes Joe the Plumber not original to Wurzelbacher

see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html and his footnote 2. Mulp (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Would an administrator please make this edit

Please add Josephine the Plumber to the "See Also" section. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unemployed

Calling himself "the most famous unemployed person in America," he writes that, "I was and still am flat broke." According to Joe he is no longer a plumber. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor added false, outdated information to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that he's still a plumber, though he's not working as one at the moment. It's his profession. For example, Caroline Kennedy is still an attorney, even though she's not practicing. For that matter, Joe Biden is still a lawyer. If his profession isn't "plumber" then what is it? Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Joe is not a professional plumber. He used to work for one.Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a line, probably from Henny Youngman, who was employed pretty much every day of his adult life, directed at his brother-in-law: "Why don't you learn a trade, so we'll know what kind of work you're out of?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm waiting for the laughter to die down from that one, here's one that's definitely from Henny the Great: "My brother-in-law says his occupation is 'Diamond Cutter'. He mows the lawn at Yankee Stadium!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As Wurzelbacher has been quoted in reliable sources as stating that he is unemployed, then this is clearly notable are should be mentioned in the article concerning his profession. Also, as he is out actively promoting his book, and as there are multiple current reliable sources that address his new position as author, the profession he is practicing is that of an Author. This is what current reliable sources verify. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ironically, this reminds me of another line, from Groucho Marx, who was a part-time author himself. One of his contestants said his occupation was writer. Groucho came back with, "In other words, you're unemployed!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's funny, and there is a lot of truth to that. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wurzelbacher was an active plumber and now he is an active author. One is past, the other is current. I dont see why both cant be mentioned in the article. But, it is misleading to say he is employed by a company that he is not employed by - as the article had previously stated. He is unemployed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Truman is listed as having occupations which were clearly not concurrent. "Unemployed" is not, moreover, an "occupation." Seems to me this is yet one more example of silly argumentation over something which had been settled long ago. Collect (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  Then please do not add information to the article that says he is employed when he is not and it is clearly outdated information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is something that was not settled long ago when we have new information about his occupation. Unemployed (author) is correct. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with QuackGuru. Unemployed (author) is correct. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Joe was never legally a plumber (according to reliable sources) and now he's no longer working in a plumbing capacity. By his own admission he's not employed. Given he has no accreditation as a plumber (unlicensed), what grounds do we have to say he is NOW a plumber. Occupation is present tense, not historic. Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  Just a question - is Barack Obama an attorney then? Is Sarah Palin a sportscaster? Kelly ^hi! 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. GW Bush is not an oilman or a sports team owner either. And I used to be a student, but that's the past.Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - If he's currently not working, what is his occupation? If it's changed to "none," that might be a reasonable compromise. - SluggoOne (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Although he is unemployed, he is still an author - as shown by the additon of updated reliable sources. Also, Wurzelbacher has recieved substantial media attention for his book Fighting for the American Dream. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment By the reasoning abouve, Truman's current occupation is "dead." Collect (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  For the same reason the Truman article does NOT list his occupation as Timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, even though that was his occupation at one point in his career. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

His listed occupations are haberdasher and farmer. I still think he is dead and not currently employed in either capacity. Collect (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you should update that so there's no occupation for Truman. Anyway, here there's a pretty strong consensus here that Joe's most recent occupation of "Author" is the better and more accurate choice.Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Per the above discusson, there have been no arguements for keeping Jtp's employment as with a plumbing company and as a plumber. This wording will be removed until a verifiable reliable sources have been added to replace the outdated [13]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest his occupation is still "plumber" regardless of who is employing him. Collect (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What are your reliable sources to verify this? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Normal use of the English language. An unemployed teacher is no longer a teacher as occupation? Teachers during vacation are not teachers? A person who is dead can no have been a "farmer"? A person who is serving in Iraq can not be a UPS truckdriver because he is now a soldier? Nope. An "occupation" is anything the person would ordinarily be engaged in provided he has the opportunity. " a person's usual or principal work or business" covers this well -- it means that if a person is unemployed he does not lose his "usual or principal work or business." Collect (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Truman's occupation is still not listed as, Timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, even though he held that position. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitiously irrelevant as he did not consider it his "usual or principal work or business" - recall the use of (all things) a dictionary? I would suggest that Joe does consider "plumber" to be his "usual or principal work or business." Adding something a person did not consider their "usual work" is irrelevant. Collect (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And what are your reliable sources to verify this? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AHD, RHD, M-W, OED -- how many dictionaries do you need to define "occupation"? By the way, each and every one of them is considered a "rel;iable source" on meanings of words. Collect (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are reliable sources that show Wurzelbacher to be an author. These are not debatable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant -- his "usual and principal work or business" is still "plumber." BTW, watch out for 3RR on this one. Collect (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that show's he's now a plumber. We have one, quoting him, that say's he unemployed. We have others that say he was never a plumber. What do you have aside from your application of the dictionary to Joe? Looks like OR to me. Mattnad (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are also reliable sources that show Barack Obama to be President-elect. Does that mean he is no longer a lawyer? Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kelly Obama's current Ocupation is not a lawyer - there is a difference between the degree and ones work. In fact, before he won the election, he was a Senator. Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

unemployed people do not need a license

Hence all the discussion about needing any license is moot. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Separate issue. Per many reliable sources (see Career section), his lack of licensing was and is notable. Lede is simply including that detail. I will also add that Collect expended quite a bit of time explaining how Joe was allowed to be a plumber provided he worked for someone with a license - how times change. However, if you don't think "licensing" is relevant, neither is his former profession. Pick one. Mattnad (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My position is that his "occupation" remains "plumber." Ism stated that there is no need for ANY "occupation" to be listed, in which case all discussion of the occupation per se is irrelevant. Unless of course we rule that Truman;s current occupation is "Corpse" <g>. Read the posts above. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, HST's status is "corpse". His "occupation" is "Pushing Up Daisies". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No -- I thought that was Chic Young's profession ... Collect (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be Blondie. But that's a different Harry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the dog's name. Who was likely hairy at least. <g> Collect (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue hair, yet. A rare breed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe's career is missing

Joe was employed and that is part of a biography on Wikipedia. But it was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the current lead sentence seems to say he's an unemployed author as well as an unemployed plumber. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write a book, and they often do. Obama has written at least two, but his primary occupation is public official, I would say, even though - technically - he is currently unemployed, yes? Unless he gets some kind of allowance while President-elect. I would likewise say Joe the Plumber's occupation is plumber, until he chooses some other occupation. It's also fair to state that he's unemployed. It's even fair to say he's an unemployed plumber. As to whether he's a "certified" plumber - well, as far as I know (1) he has done work that would qualify as plumbing; and (2) he has done such work in accordance with the law. Hence, he's a plumber. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "unlicensed" from the lede as it was contrary to multiple consensuses arrived at here and at BLP/N. The election is OVER folks! There is no need to made silly editorial points in any article (and there never was). Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He's not a plumber either Collect. You are nearly alone in trying to keep his occupation as plumber. So... if he's not employed as a plumber, not allowed to legally work as a plumber on his own, not working.... why do you insist that we put in his past occupation. If you want that there, we need to qualify it otherwise it's untrue and inaccurate. You have been asked multiple times to provide a source that says he's NOW a plumber. We have many reliable sources that say otherwise.Mattnad (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nearly alone" -- alas nearly twenty edotors have weighed in on this, contrary to your assertion. Nearly unanimous in BLP/N on using "plumber." A compromise was made that his infobox would read "plumber" and he could have the licensing stuff in the corpus of the article after the lede. Remember? Collect (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Collect. That dog won't hunt anymore. You're depending on that so called consensus which is based on incomplete and dated information. Joe has moved on from Plumbing and we now have several reliable sources that demonstrate he was never legally allowed to work as a plumber. You claimed at one time that so long as he was working for a plumber, he could be called a plumber. Now you want to change your position on that too. Please provide a current source that supersedes Joe's admission that he's not working as a plumber. If you cannot, please stop putting that misleading information in the article. Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What does Joe consider his current occupation to be? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Best we can tell from his activities is spokesperson, author, and perhaps activist. If you have a current reliable source that can help us know his personal thoughts, let's take a look. But right now, the best information we have (that isn't opinion) suggests he's not a plumber - legally or otherwise. Mattnad (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly -- the spokesman for the union said Joe could legally work in the townships. So much for the "illegal" smear. Secondly, Joe was primarily employed as a "plumber" per the definitions in every dictionary I could find. So much for the "he was not a plumber" schtick. Thirdly, the consensus on BLP/N has never been challenged. Fourthly, the consensus here has repeatedly been challenged by you -- even though your allies agreed to the compromise which you now wish to dismantle. Fifthly, precedent across WP has been to list all "occupations" even those not currently used by a person (vide Harry Truman among others). Enough of the presidential politics games already. Collect (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, show us the dictionary that says (quoting you) that "Joe was primarily employed as a plumber" and more importantly, a dictionary that says his current occupation is a plumber. Sounds like WP:OR to me since you are interpreting the dictionary and applying it to Joe despite what's published. As for the BLP/N, it's been challenged several times since on this talk page based on new and relevant information. I find it very telling that you will not provide a source that says Joe is a plumber now. Everything that we have says otherwise. Why won't you provide a source that says Joe is now a plumber even though he's unemployed?Mattnad (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the occupation section include how it is Joe came to be unemployed? I'm confused because he spoke out against both Obama AND McCain, and in the past 3 months he was/is (in addition to fixing to be a small plumbing business business owner,) a plumber's assistant, a cable box spokesperson, and a book author, all while collecting unemployment? TheBossOfCollect (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Former communications engineer?

In this interview, Wurzelbacher states he was a communications engineer who used to design networks, but left that career to spend time with his son. Lot of good info in the interview, still looking through it to extract info and citations. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He also states in that interview that he is "absolutely" going to sue the Democratic Ohio government apparatchiks like Helen Jones-Kelley who allegedly violated his privacy with illegal records searches. Kelly ^hi! 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If this is a reliable source, then this information should be added to the article. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think a passing mention may be OK, but given there's no detail on this beyond his statement, we shouldn't make it anymore than his uncorroborated claim. What exactly does he mean by "communications engineer"? It this a professional title, or his spin on what he was doing? Could be along the lines of garbage men positioning themselves as "sanitation engineers." Without third-party corroboration (which the reporter didn't do), his statement should not be given any more credibility that its due. As for his plans to to sue the democrats - when he does it, perhaps it could be mentioned (maybe), but a Wikipedia article should not be a catalog of every detail of every interview he's done. Likewise, we don't have to include every editorial comment on him etc. etc. By the way, the Jones-Kelly requested searches were not found to be "illegal" according to the official inquiry.Mattnad (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Robert Wurzelbacher?

Can an admin or someone add a disambiguation or re-direct link to Robert Wurzelbacher? I don't know how yet.

Right now when you search WP for the last name "Wurzelbacher" it only goes to "Joe the Plumber" even though an article on the Savings & Loan scam guy already exists. 66.235.38.89 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done at Wurzelbacher. Good catch. Oren0 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Current Occupation of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber)

A couple of editors want to keep calling SJW a "plumber" as his occupation in the lead and the infobox based on his past work. Attempts to reason with them have failed; when asked several times for sources that support for this position, they have not. Instead, they argue that he was previously a plumber (based on their interpretation of the dictionary definition), therefore he is a plumber.

Recent developments and more detailed research say otherwise:

• Per the lede paragraph "Wurzelbacher is currently promoting digital converter boxes for analog television,[14] his political watchdog group,[15] his charity, [16] and his book[17] he describes himself as "unemployed." [18] Note it does not say he's currently doing plumbing work at all.

• There is also considerable evidence he was never working legally as a plumber. In Ohio, there are rules about what's required to work legally as a plumber. Per Joe_the_Plumber#Plumbing_and_licensing, a section that recently was nearly unanimously endorsed in a recent RFC after an editor tied to eliminate it several times before being blocked. User:Collect usually picks out a union reps comment that Joe could legally work in parts of Ohio, but there are other official sources in that section that say he's not a plumber at all. The preponderance of the available evidence is that Joe was never, and cannot be a plumber in Ohio until he completes certain steps, including his apprenticeship. Of course, this only would matter if he were actually employed as a plumber, but he says he's not. Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose to all reconsideration of this thirtieth bite at the apple The infobox does not say "current occupation." The discussion as to whether a person who acts as a plumber is a plumber has been fathomed multiple times now. The BLP/N consensus has not been challenged. The issue of "illegal" was dealt with by the union itself which said he could legally be a plumber in the townships. The issue as to whether a person hired as a plumber was a "plumber" was dealt with multiple times. This is the thirtieth "bite at the apple" on this, and each time it is worthy of WP:LEW. The change in the lede was against consensus, as you are well aware. Lastly this RfC improperly seeks to make a personal attack on an editor. Collect (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I like how you consistently claim to singlehandedly determine consensus here, Collect. You take WP:BOLD to a whole new level of boldness. Tan | 39 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the BLP/N discussion? [19] David Shankbone, Mosmof, Wikidemon, and more than a dozen others are part of my "singlehanded" consensus -- seems to me that they are not my sockpuppets, and their consensus does count. Thanks for removing your "singlehanded" slur ASAP. Collect (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not removing anything. I've protected this page several times as a direct result of your edit warring. Tan | 39 17:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Astounding -- as I am not even one of the people with most edits on this topic by a long shot <g>. Did you not know that? Collect (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Collect, where do I use the word "Illegal" here? Please stop misrepresenting my comments. That's unfair and not assuming good faith. Mattnad (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your wording was "There is also considerable evidence he was never working legally as a plumber." Seems to me that the dictionary meaning of "illegal" was what was intended, but if you assure us that you did not mean "illegal" in any sense, then I will take you at your word. Collect (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't know you didn't understand what quotation marks meant. My bad.Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Try looking at any manual of style. If I say "Mattnad said 'xxx'" then I am ascribing the exact words to you. In case you did not notice, I referred to the UNION REP's comments in that sentence. That is why the sentence was written as it was written. Is your umbrage dealt with? I accept your assurance that you did not mean to say nor imply "illegal" with regard to Joe's employment as a plumber. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collect. Joe the Plumber is a plumber. Despite claims to the contrary, it has been shown that he can legally work as a plumber under the supervision of a licensed plumber, which he did while working for Newell. However, he can't legally hire out as an independent plumber without proper licenses. Also, he's a plumber per dictionary definitions previously supplied and as generally used in society, based on those definitions. He may be a currently unemployed plumber, as well as a wannabe author and a wannabe politician, and a wannabe whatever else. If he's serious about not continuing as a plumber, and earns income from these new jobs, then he's a former plumber. Just as Obama is a former Senator. Most people change occupations; if nothing else, from student to something that brings in income. Saying that one is an author doesn't mean one is an author until one writes and publishes. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Just as Obama is a former Senator" - but you are saying Joe is currently' a plumber (unemployed, unlicensed, etc) - how do you reconcile this?Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collect. This is a campaign meme exaggerated beyond all sense. The guy is obviously a plumber by any reasonable definition. I've never seen the standard of licensing quibbles applied in any other article. John Glenn says his occupation is "astronaut". John McCain says "naval aviator". I could go on and on. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question What does Joe himself consider his current occupation to be? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Query -- as the infobox does not say "current occupation" and "current" is not required for (say) John Glenn, what difference does "current" make here? Beethoven's "current occupation" is "decomposing." Collect (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Except Joe is still among the living. So if he were to fill in the infobox himself, what what he put under "occupation"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have his 1040, so we are forced to surmise what he would say his gainful employment had been - and the surmise would have to use the last one which was actually stated -- "plumber." "Unemployed" is not an "occupation" - it is a state of employment only. Unless you consider "unemployed actors" (somewhere around 95% or so) to not be "actors" or the like? I do suspect John Glenn is not currently employed as an astronaut, right?

• Not a plumber - Not licensed and cannot be licensed unless he does some work. I remember all of this hubbub that if he's working, then he's a plumber. Collect said that over and over and over. He's not a plumber according to ohio officials and other sources, and he's not working. Oh, and John Glenn is a former astronaut [20] according to NASA. So Collect, you are wrong again.Bruno23 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Current infobox on WP John Glenn says ... "astronaut." As we said. So much for calling me wrong on what the infobox usage for John Glenn is. Collect (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think his point, per the link to the NASA website, is that reliable sources say otherwise and that John Glen is not, in fact, an astronaut. Of course Collect cherry-picks his examples from Wikipedia (which is not a RS on its own) and crows about it. Well done Collect: we know you're someone who would never let the facts get in the way of your conclusions. Now, why don't you run along to the Sarah Palin biography and get rid of the qualifier of "former" in front of "Former local news sportscasting" in the infobox, per your approach here.Mattnad (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I stated what the WP infobox said, and I was told I was wrong in what the infobox said. Did that elide your notice? Last I checked, this is also an article in WP. If you want to change WP practice, in BLPs, then I suggest you propose those changes on the BLP board. Simple. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber as per nominator. travb (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Not a plumber. If Joe calls himself a plumber per the dictionary definition, he goes to jail for fraud. Joe is as qualified to call himself a plumber as he is to call himself the governor. SluggoOne (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Not a plumber I disagree with the requirement that occupation must be a "current" employement, but SJW is not and has not been a "plumber" in Ohio (or any other state that I am aware of) in anything other than common misconception based on a misapplied nickname created from a hypothetical question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• He was a plumber. The claims that Joe the Plumber was never a plumber are just plain juvenile. Get over yourselves, seriously. Really, who are you to tell a guy who's been a plumber for years that he's not a plumber? Gimme a freakin' break... There's plenty of proof that he was operating under the law. In fact, the actual law was linked to -- apparently several times, but POV-pushers keep removing it.
  However, it appears that he may be plumbing no more. It seems like he's soaked up this 15 minutes that was forced on him from multiple sources and moved on to other things, so it appears that he's a former plumber and should be indicated accordingly in the infobox and the lead paragraph. Since I'm pretty sure he's not Homer Simpson, I don't think he'll have a laundry list of former jobs so retaining information indicating his former trade is more than appropriate, especially since it's the source for his nickname (or sobriquet, whatever the hell the final word was on that). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

that he no longer plumbs

This helps the writing style because we now need to separate the current activities which are not water and pipe related from his past work. This way we need not decide whether to call hm a plumber and merely say that he had done plumbing work. A plumber as well as a non plumber could do it. Non doctors could practice medicine. Some or all states outlaw it, but we have had people who did. LaidOff (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you propose that in BLP for all such articles? If you could gain consensus over there that all people who no longer practice the occupation listed should have it noted as "former" that would be an interesting proposal. I would also, moreover, concur that one is not an "author" until one has been remunerated for one's writing, or an "artist" unless one has actually sold one's artwork. Collect (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Authors and artists don't need licenses. Plumbers do. travb (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. The union stated he could legally be a plumber - which should be dispositive. Licensing requirements are far from universal and far from uniform on this. The issue, moreover, is whether the proposed change to BLP practice would be made were an editor to propose it. Collect (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah Collect ... taking one bit of evidence and making your whole case on it. Yes, one union rep said he could work in the townships, but we have the same union saying he's not really a plumber. And then there are several other sources in that section, including reference to local officials, that say he can't work legally anywhere, and that he's not a plumber. Of course you tried so hard to keep this information out (wonder why). And Collect, you earlier wrote that Joe's allowed to be a plumber when working for a licensed plumber. Have you forgotten your own argument that you made so extensively? You are much less firm on that point now that Joe's unemployed. Now you say that licensing requirements are "far from uniform" (to you at least). But for the local officials that sent a letter to Newell threatening the company with the loss of their license for having Joe on the job, the rules were clear enough. Mattnad (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- you leave out the other editors who made the same points. And the Ohio contractor laws. And a bunch more. And there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY LETTER WAS SENT. Sorry to burst that bubble <g>. No letter was sent threatening any loss of license at all as far as any source I can find says. Seems to me that election games are still running rampant on your part -- did you see how the RfC is progressing on this page? Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ain't you the little parser. OK, here we go: "Wurzelbacher said he did not need a plumber's license to do residential work with Newell Heating & Plumbing, but David Golis, a Toledo building-inspections official, disputed that. "We were just discussing that we will send a letter to the owner of Newell reminding him" of the city's requirement that all who do plumbing work be licensed or in apprentice or journeyman programs, Golis said."[21]. So now you're demanding evidence that they sent the letter - even when we have reliable sources that show they intended to send a letter. You demand so much from reporters to show that actions were taken by the city against JWS and his employer..... but all you require for yourself is opinion and a dictionary. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You stated that the letter WAS sent. No source for that claim. The union said he could legally be a plumber in the townships. There is a source for that claim. Claims with sources are proper in articles. Claims without any source are not. Collect (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is your best argument? OK. Letter was not sent. The officials just said they will send a warning letter because Joe is not allowed to work as a plumber, per multiple source. Here's an observation: other editors might respect you more if you'd argue the major points rather than going off on tangents. Mattnad (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? You were the one who made the unsourced claim. Blaming me does not work. Collect (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)