Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Baghdad Bob. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Baghdad Bob, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Baghdad Bob in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Baghdad Bob you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Baghdad Bob will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Baghdad Bob, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
They are not really SOP, are they? Neither nasty nor Nick helps me figure out who this epithet is commonly used for, same goes for Baghdad and Bob or orange and man. I actually think WT:NAMES is not that clear on epithets for individual persons (it even concedes that much: "but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules"). If it came to a vote to revise WT:NAMES, I think I'd be in favor of including more epithets rather than fewer. @Lingo Bingo Dingo as the creator. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
(reply to Equinox) This came up in the Jar'Edo Wens discussion semi-recently. Nicknames for public figures commonly used in both the media and casual conversation seem to fall under the CFI umbrella. This individual has a Wikipedia article and the epithets are apparently prominent enough to warrant mention in the lede paragraph. So this seems like a question for RfV to sort out. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
There is nothing to verify here; the existence of the name is not seriously in question. The question for RFD is "does this sequence of letters, having appeared three times in citable sources with approximately the same meaning, deserve a definition?" Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
My inclination would be to delete, but in the past we have tended to keep nicknames like Talk:J-Lo, so the general trend / consistency would seem to point in the direction of keeping it. Meh. - -sche(discuss)16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am not hyperpartisan for keeping it despite having created it. I was probably working by analogy from some other nickname and I must have felt that it was in line with WT:NAMES and WT:NSE and also completely not SOP (Baghdad Bob is not a "Bob"). On the other hand I can understand the desire to place some limits on a potentially infinite repository of derogatory nicknames. Abstain for now. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
People are saying "this should get RFV consideration", but why? If the entry were an actual person's name like, say, Edsger W. Dijkstra, we would delete without hesitation. A nickname is the same thing, a "handle" to a specific person. Unless it's a special single word of its own like "BoJo" or "Dubya" I don't see the argument at all. Nicknames are just names. Equinox◑22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Undelete: I like our nickname entries and I have personally found them useful in the past (I also created some like Cheetolini). I don't think multi-wordness is of any relevance for most of them (the exception being things like Vladimir Pootin when we already have Pootin). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Undelete - so long as they pass CFI and aren't personal names, they're fine. What seems particularly compelling to me is that these are monikers, originally used without the consent (or likely knowledge) of the person they refer to. Theknightwho (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Undelete both. For me the criterion whether the term has become lexicalized is not simply whether it is used, but more specifically whether it is used in other contexts than the original and without explanation, as we see for Baghdad Bobhere, here and here, and for Comical Alihere, here and here. As these uses show, the terms also have acquired the (derogatory) meaning of “someone who brazenly maintains a lie in spite of clear evidence to the contrary”. --Lambiam14:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
