![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Wurzelbacher confessed to FamilySecurityMatters.org that he set Obama up with his questions and intended to "catch Obama off-guard".
The plumber also explained that, rather than outright buy the company that currently employs him, he meant to put it on lay-a-way and just make payments on his purchase "for years".
I hope no one thinks I'm trying to "SMEAR" the Plumber (to quote John McCain), but shouldn't we add this topic to the article about the guy, for proper historical context? Also, Joe has a book coming out soon in which he will urge us to greater patriotism (like honesty in U.S. elections, paying our taxes, blah blah blah) so clearly the chapter on this Palin-esque historic figure has yet to be fully written.
Source To Add: http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp 67.40.178.49 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're using a lot of bold words "entrap", "catch off-guard", that Joe himself didn't use. He was asked: "Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?" He replied: "Well that was actually my intent..." Was his intent to surprise or to catch off guard? Is it meaningful if it was? These questions cannot be answered without original research. All we have is a transcript, we cannot infer anything beyond that without a reliable source as to Joe's intent. You're also attempting to provide undue weight to a single response to one of thousands of questions he's been asked without a source that indicates the response to be significant in any way. Oren0 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:SOAP Speculation on the whys and wherefor's of how the media treated Joe's question and Obama's answer is best left to the political chat boards. Dman727 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
63.226.209.158 ( talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, can you clarify why nearly every time I post an article improvement suggestion you delete it before anyone else has a chance to weigh in?
"Collect", can you also clarify why my current suggestion for improving the article is not - in your opinion - "actual discussion of improvements to the article"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.209.158 ( talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, can you state SPECIFICALLY what you problem is with adding a "Public Image" and/or "Rise and Fall in Media" section to the article? Referring me to the top of the page is not helpful in understanding or clarifying your own viewpoint on adding the sections to the article.
By the way, is there anyone else online right now, anybody else have an opinion on this? I get the feeling my very valid improvements will also get deleted from JtP "discussion" very shortly, like my other suggestions. 63.226.209.158 ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If no one else minds, I may just archive this section. I'm guessing that there aren't many here who agree with the sentiment above. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this above and the more I think about it the more I think it's a good idea. There is no rule that an article has to have an infobox. In this case it adds nothing to the article (the picture could stand by itself), and the information it contains does not really speak to Joe's notability. He is not notable for being a plumber, or living in a certain town, or working for a certain company, or being a citizen of the United States, or even for his name. I think it's better to let the information about Joe come out in the article rather than trying to pin it down with a few words in an infobox. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is schizophrenic. It really should be more about the phenomenon, and also include information on the person behind it, but currently much of it written as if were a bio about Joe the person. Joe the person is not notable, but Joe the Plumber as a metaphor or symbol is. The infobox is useless as it is, so I agree with removing it. — Becksguy ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is some consensus to remove the infobox. I'm going to take it off, leaving the picture, and see what happens. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this talk page for a short period. I feel that my comments above were quite clear that if the anonymous user wants something changed, they need to make specific suggestions as to what, not general comments about what everyone else needs to do. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
i think the anonymous person had valid points. why would we chase such a person away? arent we supposed to welcome other views? i think it was silly to protect the page from someone who seemed to want to help. Brendan19 ( talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Occupation in lede and infobox is "Plumber." This has been settled for a while now. "Plumbing" primarily refers to pipes and is not commonly used to refer to what a person's occupation is. Vide many listed as "businessman" as occupation -- not "business." "Lawyer" and not "lawyering." "Author" and not "writing." And so ad infinitum. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP/N etc. -- "plumbing" refers to pipes. The occupation of a person who works on plumbing is "plumber." I did not touch the section about his license, the issue is what word is used in the lede and infobox. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox has been a war zone because a few editors insist on their singular definition of what joe's is, or is not. I would argue that forcing a single term for his occupation takes a political stance and becomes spin (either way). So here are some ideas for compromise:
Further, I suggest we vote on this. My vote is #1 to remove the occupation line from the box and let the article explain what he does in more than one word. Any others care to participate? (and please no bitching that this violates consensus since that clearly won't happen so why make that the requirement). Mattnad ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
plumbing for occupation or remove occupation from infobox. i think his title should be plumbers assistant, but i am willing to say that he works in the field of plumbing to compromise with those who want to call him a plumber. Brendan19 ( talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the 200th time this sort of issue has arisen -- and the BLP/N overwhelming consensus was "plumber" would you like to post it there again? I suggest that the consensus there is unlikely to change. Collect ( talk) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"After The Washington Post reported it was unable to find a listing for Mr. Wurzelbacher in the database of the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, reported that Joe the Plumber is an unlicensed employee of Newell Plumbing &Heating.
He is not registered to work as a plumber in Ohio. (my emphasis added- b19)
The newspaper also reported that Mr. Wurzelbacher had a lien against him from the Ohio Department of Taxation in January, 2007, for failing to pay $1,183 in property taxes.
When the president of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors National Association in Washington issued a press release applauding Joe the Plumber for helping small business owners play a role in the debate on the nation's economic future, the business manager of the Toledo local of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters & Service Mechanics issued a statement complaining Joe the Plumber hadn't even undergone apprenticeship training." - [3]
now, any chance we could get back on track and establish a consensus? Brendan19 ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Per RedPen's request, a solid ref for him being called a plumber has been added -- one which is all of a day old, so no one can say it is outdated. I am willing to furnish more cites as needed. Per the WP:BLP/N discussion of Occupation of Joe the Plumber, and the fact this is in WP:LEW, I would trust this disposes of this silliness and attempt to add contentious material to a BLP. Thanks!
Collect (
talk)
12:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
{undent} We appeared to be heading in a positive direction with Collect mentioning several compromises that he supported - lets stick to areas where we appear to be making progress and not go off on tangents - there is much that we do not agree on but we should not let that interfere with us actually getting together on the points that we can all support. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It could also be mentioned that being a plumber has no relationship to his notability. That may give a person more rights under the building codes but it doesn't give him any more rights under the First Amendment to ask a question of a political candidate. Steve Dufour ( talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Being a plumber would indeed normally have absolutely nothing to do with his notability, and no relationship to the initial question asked of Obama, except that he's notable as Joe the Plumber, an election metaphor and symbol as well as a cultural icon. Even then, having whatever qualifying term du jour is being applied to him (assistant, helper, apprentice, etc), at the end of the day, he's still a plumber. Or maybe he will transcend that and become something else. After all, Harry S Truman was a haberdasher at one point.
Why does his occupation even need to be in the infobox? Isn't the obvious solution just to omit it, particularly since the sources simply don't agree on that particular thing? -- Minderbinder ( talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that 3RR has a specific exception for contentious material in a BLP. Adding the same stuff contrary to consensus and which is considered contentious is not a protected edit. Thanks! O have posted to WP:BLP/N Collect ( talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in this dispute is serious enough to justify going over 3RR for BLP in either direction. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per [5] we appear to have a sock entering into editing the article. Collect ( talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The union endorsement of Obama has been tagged with irrel -- and so must the entire licensing issue as it is clear that Joe is not violating any Ohio law by working for a plumbing contractor. If he is not violating the law, then why is it important whether he has a license at all? Seems at this point to be totally irrelevant either to JtP as paradigm of small business, or to SJW as a private individual. Collect ( talk) 12:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
While it looks like he hasn't violated Ohio state law, some of the sources say that city and county laws require licensing. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe is a plumber and he can work as a plumber. He just can't hire out to the public or operate as an independent plumber. His work has to be supervised by a licensed plumber, as he is doing working for Newell. But he still is a plumber regardless. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I now understand Collect's tit-for-tat approach - he feels that if the union endorsement of Obama is irrelevant, then he wants the whole section related to Joe's licensing removed. Hence his somewhat tortured logic suggesting his objection to this section is about whether or not Joe can legally perform plumbing tasks. There is no debate about that, and the section covers that detail already.
By contrast, one can readily understand an editorial position that the view of Local Union on professional licensing is separate from the National Union's endorsement of Obama. We can disagree on whether these should be linked, but we're not inventing an issue.
Other editors have pointed out that Joe's licensing is about the credibility of his claim that he might take over the business some day, as well as a relevant juxtaposition to McCains's sobriquet of "Joe the Plumber". Also, it's part of the objection to calling Joe a "plumber" (which could be what Collect is really after). I'll do some work on the article to make that context clearer since Collect has misunderstood the purpose of that line of exposition. Mattnad ( talk) 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Saying that he does not have a plumbing license but also saying that he does not need one while working for Newell is fine with me. Since there was press coverage of the license issue and since the union's comments on it, although not very relevant in the greater scheme, was covered by reliable sources, I guess it can stay in the article (although I'm not enthusiastic about it). Basically I'm fine with presenting both sides of any of the issues that are sufficiently notable. Personally I think that all of us (including myself) have spent way more time on this entire article, and certainly on these particular issues than it's worth, so if we can finally cone to some kind of a compromise consensus, let's go for it. — Becksguy ( talk) 16:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed: Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a separate license as a plumber in Ohio, nor does he need one as he is employed by a licensed plumbing contractor. Place under personal, and delete "plumbing career" in toto. Collect ( talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Calling Good Faith edits "vandalism" does not work. Collect ( talk) 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is a 2008 D&B copyright report more accurate on the financial state of the /Newell Corporation than comments by SJW? I submit that removing a cited D&B report with a 2008 copyright is improper, as it is a "reliable source" under all WP guidelines. Collect ( talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Does someone want to create a workshop page and invite an editor or two to work on improvements then invite others to comment while the article is in lockdown? We may be able to settle some disputes prior to the re-opening of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that one of the two persistent edit-warrers on this page, Collect, has made no effort to discuss anything during the page lockdown. This is very telling, and will be given due weight if edit wars continue. Tan | 39 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Temporary workshop page per above suggestion and WP:SUBPAGES created at subpage of this talk page Talk:Joe the Plumber/Temp since since no one else didit. Contains the single section entitled Plumbing career and licensing and references. I suggest we work on one section at a time and this seems to be a contentious one. — Becksguy ( talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure it's the best place to start. But it's the section that had the most edits just before the current full protection and it has an open RfC. And much of the debate has been about whether Joe is, or is not a plumber and about the licensing issue. I'm open to discussing anything on the subpage that may lead to a resolution, so if you or others think this section is not the best place to start, we can always change it. If editors are willing to thrash out their differences on a temporary workshop page, that has to be better for the article, as we can change content there as much as we want until we are happy with it. Thoughts? — Becksguy ( talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Has Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher's notability extended beyond "Joe the Plumber" to the point that it makes sense to create separate articles - one a biographical article about the living person SJW and one about the "concept"/"meme" 'Joe the Plumber'? Would such a division help stabilize the article(s)? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we have a solid point of consensus - where can we go from here to continue to build on our points of agreement? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
While you all are bickering over whether he's a plumber or not, Joe has been trashing John McCain's campaign. [8] His book should make for some interesting reading. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 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)
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)
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)
see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html and his footnote 2. Mulp ( talk) 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above four comments are in the wrong thread, please move them to the plumber thread below. Thanks. Back to sobriquet.
There are more than just "people won't understand it" arguments against sobriquet:
I could add more, but the sobriquet camp arguments are essentially: It's neat, it's a vocabulary word of the day, and it's more descriptive; none of which are compelling or sufficient. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following argument:
I might add more points as fits my fancy. Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Another possible compromise - How about we say that it is a "sobriquet or nickname referring to..."? Aleta Sing 20:24, 15 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)
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)
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)
Why aren't more editors interested in Aleta's compromise? — Becksguy ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Well, lets bring it back, as Aleta suggested here in her 2nd compromise offering. — Becksguy ( talk) 02:40, 27 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 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)
Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet [1] or nickname [2] referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher,
TerriersFan (
talk)
04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
24.184.184.130 ( talk) 05:11, December 1 2008 ( UTC)
The other possibility is to recast the lede to include his symbolic status (which is sadly lacking anyway). Joe the Plumber is an election theme, metaphor, symbol, and cultural icon, as well as a reference to Joe the person. Here, from an earlier post of mine, are several news quotes using terms other than nickname or sobriquet:
We could recast the lede to take this concept into account (example 2):
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)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 20:34, 1 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)
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. -Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 17:14, 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)
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)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:29, 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)
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)
-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)
No nicknme or sobriquet in lede -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC):
or
back to sobriquet, i saw it got changed here [17]. was there consensus for that? Brendan19 ( talk) 18:17, 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)
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)
-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)
The phrase "Joe the Plumber" has been found in reliable sources going back to at least 1948, as pointed our before. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any agreement on the accuracy of the WP definitions of sobriquet and nickname? Just an idea to move this forwards. Druidpld ( talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was to use neither term. Thus discussing them now is not moving anything forwards <g>. Collect ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher made public statements in which he asked why Senator Chris Dodd "hasn't been strung up yet?"
It has been documented and reported in numerous credible publications. Those publications describe Joe's statement as a "suggested lynching" of a senior U.S. senator by "Joe The Plumber". Some of those publications have been included to document the sources. They are independently verifiable sources.
It has bearing on Joe's sentiments, tea party activities, and his personal controversies in the 2009 post-election period.
One editor's deletion of this sourced material was based on the pretext that it is libelous to include Joe's own public, sourced, statements in an article about him.
Legally, a statement is libelous if it is untrue.
But, again, this info has been verified by numerous credible sources, who saw fit to inform the public that Wurzelbacher has said it, and it has even received direct commentary and response from Senator Chris Dodd's camp.
Why are wikipedians going rogue and deleting this pertinent, interesting, relevant, sourced information?
24.143.66.205 ( talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Jordgette, Collect and Mattnad all essentially voice the same objection: what is the relevance of Joe the Plumber's controversial statements, if they were made AFTER the election?
The correct response is: Joe the Plumber's article already has a section entitled: "Since the 2008 election". The purpose of this section is to group Joe the Plumber's most noteworthy statements and actions since the 2008 election.
The info about Joe the Plumber publicly calling for an active U.S. senator to be lynched, is, by any impartial editor's reckoning, an extremely controversial and noteworthy occurrence. It happened not decades after the election, but within a year of it. So it's factual, extremely noteworthy, timely, and the article already a section established for it.
It was certainly noteworthy to the press, and has even received attention and a public response from the senator's spokesperson.
Why would wikipedia editors seek to passive-aggressively shape wiki-articles by selectively omitting such highly descriptive, newsworthy facts? 174.21.18.111 ( talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've made the edits suggested above, to keep consistency per Mattnad's remarks. Thanks. 174.21.18.111 ( talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Wurzelbacher confessed to FamilySecurityMatters.org that he set Obama up with his questions and intended to "catch Obama off-guard".
The plumber also explained that, rather than outright buy the company that currently employs him, he meant to put it on lay-a-way and just make payments on his purchase "for years".
I hope no one thinks I'm trying to "SMEAR" the Plumber (to quote John McCain), but shouldn't we add this topic to the article about the guy, for proper historical context? Also, Joe has a book coming out soon in which he will urge us to greater patriotism (like honesty in U.S. elections, paying our taxes, blah blah blah) so clearly the chapter on this Palin-esque historic figure has yet to be fully written.
Source To Add: http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp 67.40.178.49 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're using a lot of bold words "entrap", "catch off-guard", that Joe himself didn't use. He was asked: "Do you think your question surprised Obama, caught him off guard at all?" He replied: "Well that was actually my intent..." Was his intent to surprise or to catch off guard? Is it meaningful if it was? These questions cannot be answered without original research. All we have is a transcript, we cannot infer anything beyond that without a reliable source as to Joe's intent. You're also attempting to provide undue weight to a single response to one of thousands of questions he's been asked without a source that indicates the response to be significant in any way. Oren0 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) See WP:SOAP Speculation on the whys and wherefor's of how the media treated Joe's question and Obama's answer is best left to the political chat boards. Dman727 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
63.226.209.158 ( talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, can you clarify why nearly every time I post an article improvement suggestion you delete it before anyone else has a chance to weigh in?
"Collect", can you also clarify why my current suggestion for improving the article is not - in your opinion - "actual discussion of improvements to the article"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.209.158 ( talk) 11:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, can you state SPECIFICALLY what you problem is with adding a "Public Image" and/or "Rise and Fall in Media" section to the article? Referring me to the top of the page is not helpful in understanding or clarifying your own viewpoint on adding the sections to the article.
By the way, is there anyone else online right now, anybody else have an opinion on this? I get the feeling my very valid improvements will also get deleted from JtP "discussion" very shortly, like my other suggestions. 63.226.209.158 ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If no one else minds, I may just archive this section. I'm guessing that there aren't many here who agree with the sentiment above. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this above and the more I think about it the more I think it's a good idea. There is no rule that an article has to have an infobox. In this case it adds nothing to the article (the picture could stand by itself), and the information it contains does not really speak to Joe's notability. He is not notable for being a plumber, or living in a certain town, or working for a certain company, or being a citizen of the United States, or even for his name. I think it's better to let the information about Joe come out in the article rather than trying to pin it down with a few words in an infobox. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is schizophrenic. It really should be more about the phenomenon, and also include information on the person behind it, but currently much of it written as if were a bio about Joe the person. Joe the person is not notable, but Joe the Plumber as a metaphor or symbol is. The infobox is useless as it is, so I agree with removing it. — Becksguy ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there is some consensus to remove the infobox. I'm going to take it off, leaving the picture, and see what happens. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this talk page for a short period. I feel that my comments above were quite clear that if the anonymous user wants something changed, they need to make specific suggestions as to what, not general comments about what everyone else needs to do. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
i think the anonymous person had valid points. why would we chase such a person away? arent we supposed to welcome other views? i think it was silly to protect the page from someone who seemed to want to help. Brendan19 ( talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Occupation in lede and infobox is "Plumber." This has been settled for a while now. "Plumbing" primarily refers to pipes and is not commonly used to refer to what a person's occupation is. Vide many listed as "businessman" as occupation -- not "business." "Lawyer" and not "lawyering." "Author" and not "writing." And so ad infinitum. Collect ( talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP/N etc. -- "plumbing" refers to pipes. The occupation of a person who works on plumbing is "plumber." I did not touch the section about his license, the issue is what word is used in the lede and infobox. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox has been a war zone because a few editors insist on their singular definition of what joe's is, or is not. I would argue that forcing a single term for his occupation takes a political stance and becomes spin (either way). So here are some ideas for compromise:
Further, I suggest we vote on this. My vote is #1 to remove the occupation line from the box and let the article explain what he does in more than one word. Any others care to participate? (and please no bitching that this violates consensus since that clearly won't happen so why make that the requirement). Mattnad ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
plumbing for occupation or remove occupation from infobox. i think his title should be plumbers assistant, but i am willing to say that he works in the field of plumbing to compromise with those who want to call him a plumber. Brendan19 ( talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the 200th time this sort of issue has arisen -- and the BLP/N overwhelming consensus was "plumber" would you like to post it there again? I suggest that the consensus there is unlikely to change. Collect ( talk) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"After The Washington Post reported it was unable to find a listing for Mr. Wurzelbacher in the database of the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board, the local newspaper, the Toledo Blade, reported that Joe the Plumber is an unlicensed employee of Newell Plumbing &Heating.
He is not registered to work as a plumber in Ohio. (my emphasis added- b19)
The newspaper also reported that Mr. Wurzelbacher had a lien against him from the Ohio Department of Taxation in January, 2007, for failing to pay $1,183 in property taxes.
When the president of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors National Association in Washington issued a press release applauding Joe the Plumber for helping small business owners play a role in the debate on the nation's economic future, the business manager of the Toledo local of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters & Service Mechanics issued a statement complaining Joe the Plumber hadn't even undergone apprenticeship training." - [3]
now, any chance we could get back on track and establish a consensus? Brendan19 ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Per RedPen's request, a solid ref for him being called a plumber has been added -- one which is all of a day old, so no one can say it is outdated. I am willing to furnish more cites as needed. Per the WP:BLP/N discussion of Occupation of Joe the Plumber, and the fact this is in WP:LEW, I would trust this disposes of this silliness and attempt to add contentious material to a BLP. Thanks!
Collect (
talk)
12:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
{undent} We appeared to be heading in a positive direction with Collect mentioning several compromises that he supported - lets stick to areas where we appear to be making progress and not go off on tangents - there is much that we do not agree on but we should not let that interfere with us actually getting together on the points that we can all support. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It could also be mentioned that being a plumber has no relationship to his notability. That may give a person more rights under the building codes but it doesn't give him any more rights under the First Amendment to ask a question of a political candidate. Steve Dufour ( talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Being a plumber would indeed normally have absolutely nothing to do with his notability, and no relationship to the initial question asked of Obama, except that he's notable as Joe the Plumber, an election metaphor and symbol as well as a cultural icon. Even then, having whatever qualifying term du jour is being applied to him (assistant, helper, apprentice, etc), at the end of the day, he's still a plumber. Or maybe he will transcend that and become something else. After all, Harry S Truman was a haberdasher at one point.
Why does his occupation even need to be in the infobox? Isn't the obvious solution just to omit it, particularly since the sources simply don't agree on that particular thing? -- Minderbinder ( talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that 3RR has a specific exception for contentious material in a BLP. Adding the same stuff contrary to consensus and which is considered contentious is not a protected edit. Thanks! O have posted to WP:BLP/N Collect ( talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in this dispute is serious enough to justify going over 3RR for BLP in either direction. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per [5] we appear to have a sock entering into editing the article. Collect ( talk) 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The union endorsement of Obama has been tagged with irrel -- and so must the entire licensing issue as it is clear that Joe is not violating any Ohio law by working for a plumbing contractor. If he is not violating the law, then why is it important whether he has a license at all? Seems at this point to be totally irrelevant either to JtP as paradigm of small business, or to SJW as a private individual. Collect ( talk) 12:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
While it looks like he hasn't violated Ohio state law, some of the sources say that city and county laws require licensing. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe is a plumber and he can work as a plumber. He just can't hire out to the public or operate as an independent plumber. His work has to be supervised by a licensed plumber, as he is doing working for Newell. But he still is a plumber regardless. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I now understand Collect's tit-for-tat approach - he feels that if the union endorsement of Obama is irrelevant, then he wants the whole section related to Joe's licensing removed. Hence his somewhat tortured logic suggesting his objection to this section is about whether or not Joe can legally perform plumbing tasks. There is no debate about that, and the section covers that detail already.
By contrast, one can readily understand an editorial position that the view of Local Union on professional licensing is separate from the National Union's endorsement of Obama. We can disagree on whether these should be linked, but we're not inventing an issue.
Other editors have pointed out that Joe's licensing is about the credibility of his claim that he might take over the business some day, as well as a relevant juxtaposition to McCains's sobriquet of "Joe the Plumber". Also, it's part of the objection to calling Joe a "plumber" (which could be what Collect is really after). I'll do some work on the article to make that context clearer since Collect has misunderstood the purpose of that line of exposition. Mattnad ( talk) 12:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Saying that he does not have a plumbing license but also saying that he does not need one while working for Newell is fine with me. Since there was press coverage of the license issue and since the union's comments on it, although not very relevant in the greater scheme, was covered by reliable sources, I guess it can stay in the article (although I'm not enthusiastic about it). Basically I'm fine with presenting both sides of any of the issues that are sufficiently notable. Personally I think that all of us (including myself) have spent way more time on this entire article, and certainly on these particular issues than it's worth, so if we can finally cone to some kind of a compromise consensus, let's go for it. — Becksguy ( talk) 16:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposed: Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a separate license as a plumber in Ohio, nor does he need one as he is employed by a licensed plumbing contractor. Place under personal, and delete "plumbing career" in toto. Collect ( talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Calling Good Faith edits "vandalism" does not work. Collect ( talk) 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is a 2008 D&B copyright report more accurate on the financial state of the /Newell Corporation than comments by SJW? I submit that removing a cited D&B report with a 2008 copyright is improper, as it is a "reliable source" under all WP guidelines. Collect ( talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Does someone want to create a workshop page and invite an editor or two to work on improvements then invite others to comment while the article is in lockdown? We may be able to settle some disputes prior to the re-opening of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that one of the two persistent edit-warrers on this page, Collect, has made no effort to discuss anything during the page lockdown. This is very telling, and will be given due weight if edit wars continue. Tan | 39 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Temporary workshop page per above suggestion and WP:SUBPAGES created at subpage of this talk page Talk:Joe the Plumber/Temp since since no one else didit. Contains the single section entitled Plumbing career and licensing and references. I suggest we work on one section at a time and this seems to be a contentious one. — Becksguy ( talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure it's the best place to start. But it's the section that had the most edits just before the current full protection and it has an open RfC. And much of the debate has been about whether Joe is, or is not a plumber and about the licensing issue. I'm open to discussing anything on the subpage that may lead to a resolution, so if you or others think this section is not the best place to start, we can always change it. If editors are willing to thrash out their differences on a temporary workshop page, that has to be better for the article, as we can change content there as much as we want until we are happy with it. Thoughts? — Becksguy ( talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Has Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher's notability extended beyond "Joe the Plumber" to the point that it makes sense to create separate articles - one a biographical article about the living person SJW and one about the "concept"/"meme" 'Joe the Plumber'? Would such a division help stabilize the article(s)? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we have a solid point of consensus - where can we go from here to continue to build on our points of agreement? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
While you all are bickering over whether he's a plumber or not, Joe has been trashing John McCain's campaign. [8] His book should make for some interesting reading. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 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)
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)
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)
see http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/Joe.html and his footnote 2. Mulp ( talk) 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above four comments are in the wrong thread, please move them to the plumber thread below. Thanks. Back to sobriquet.
There are more than just "people won't understand it" arguments against sobriquet:
I could add more, but the sobriquet camp arguments are essentially: It's neat, it's a vocabulary word of the day, and it's more descriptive; none of which are compelling or sufficient. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following argument:
I might add more points as fits my fancy. Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Another possible compromise - How about we say that it is a "sobriquet or nickname referring to..."? Aleta Sing 20:24, 15 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)
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)
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)
Why aren't more editors interested in Aleta's compromise? — Becksguy ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Well, lets bring it back, as Aleta suggested here in her 2nd compromise offering. — Becksguy ( talk) 02:40, 27 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 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)
Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet [1] or nickname [2] referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher,
TerriersFan (
talk)
04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
24.184.184.130 ( talk) 05:11, December 1 2008 ( UTC)
The other possibility is to recast the lede to include his symbolic status (which is sadly lacking anyway). Joe the Plumber is an election theme, metaphor, symbol, and cultural icon, as well as a reference to Joe the person. Here, from an earlier post of mine, are several news quotes using terms other than nickname or sobriquet:
We could recast the lede to take this concept into account (example 2):
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)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 20:34, 1 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)
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. -Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 17:14, 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)
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)
-Alan 24.184.184.130 ( talk) 19:29, 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)
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)
-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)
No nicknme or sobriquet in lede -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC):
or
back to sobriquet, i saw it got changed here [17]. was there consensus for that? Brendan19 ( talk) 18:17, 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)
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)
-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)
The phrase "Joe the Plumber" has been found in reliable sources going back to at least 1948, as pointed our before. — Becksguy ( talk) 09:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any agreement on the accuracy of the WP definitions of sobriquet and nickname? Just an idea to move this forwards. Druidpld ( talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was to use neither term. Thus discussing them now is not moving anything forwards <g>. Collect ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher made public statements in which he asked why Senator Chris Dodd "hasn't been strung up yet?"
It has been documented and reported in numerous credible publications. Those publications describe Joe's statement as a "suggested lynching" of a senior U.S. senator by "Joe The Plumber". Some of those publications have been included to document the sources. They are independently verifiable sources.
It has bearing on Joe's sentiments, tea party activities, and his personal controversies in the 2009 post-election period.
One editor's deletion of this sourced material was based on the pretext that it is libelous to include Joe's own public, sourced, statements in an article about him.
Legally, a statement is libelous if it is untrue.
But, again, this info has been verified by numerous credible sources, who saw fit to inform the public that Wurzelbacher has said it, and it has even received direct commentary and response from Senator Chris Dodd's camp.
Why are wikipedians going rogue and deleting this pertinent, interesting, relevant, sourced information?
24.143.66.205 ( talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Jordgette, Collect and Mattnad all essentially voice the same objection: what is the relevance of Joe the Plumber's controversial statements, if they were made AFTER the election?
The correct response is: Joe the Plumber's article already has a section entitled: "Since the 2008 election". The purpose of this section is to group Joe the Plumber's most noteworthy statements and actions since the 2008 election.
The info about Joe the Plumber publicly calling for an active U.S. senator to be lynched, is, by any impartial editor's reckoning, an extremely controversial and noteworthy occurrence. It happened not decades after the election, but within a year of it. So it's factual, extremely noteworthy, timely, and the article already a section established for it.
It was certainly noteworthy to the press, and has even received attention and a public response from the senator's spokesperson.
Why would wikipedia editors seek to passive-aggressively shape wiki-articles by selectively omitting such highly descriptive, newsworthy facts? 174.21.18.111 ( talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've made the edits suggested above, to keep consistency per Mattnad's remarks. Thanks. 174.21.18.111 ( talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)