We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.

Advertiser Disclosure

Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

How We Make Money

We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently from our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

Who is John Q. Public?

Michael Pollick
Updated Mar 06, 2024
Our promise to you
PublicPeople is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At PublicPeople, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

Politicians and other professionals often divide the world into two groups: those who are "in the know" and those who are average, uninformed citizens. This second group is commonly represented by a hypothetical "common man" named John Q. Public, or his adoring hypothetical wife, Jane Q. Public. Together, the Publics represent the sensibilities and beliefs of the typical man or woman on the street. This name represents the ideal everyman for the purposes of gauging public opinion on an issue or theorizing on how an average citizen will react to a political or professional decision.

The idea of a hypothetical Everyman dates back a number of centuries. Before he became John Q. Public, this "common man" could have been John Doe or Richard Roe in court documents designed to protect the privacy of the plaintiff or defendant during a hearing. An unidentified body in a morgue may have been tagged with the names John Doe or Jane Roe until identification became possible. The concept of creating a hypothetical name for a theoretical citizen also became popular in early politics, as legislators argued over the effects of a proposed law or tax on John Q. Citizen, John Q. Taxpayer, or Jane Q. Public.

The name "John Q. Public" may have been a reference to president John Quincy Adams, at least in the sense of creating an innocuous full name for a theoretical citizen. The name John is very common, and the uncommon last name would most likely keep hundreds of actual John Q. Public's from receiving unwanted attention.

While the use of this name is still used quite often to describe an average citizen with no apparent political leanings or defined social classification, other names have also been created. A working class male, for example, might be considered "Joe Six-Pack" for the sake of an argument, while his wife might be "Jane Wine-cooler". This application of personal alcoholic identifiers arguably brings the concept of a generic John Q. Public to a more specific type of average citizen. While John Q. Public might represent the citizenry at large, Joe Six-Pack and Jane Wine-cooler represent a certain faction of working-class citizens within that group.

PublicPeople is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Michael Pollick
By Michael Pollick , Writer
As a frequent contributor to PublicPeople, Michael Pollick uses his passion for research and writing to cover a wide range of topics. His curiosity drives him to study subjects in-depth, resulting in informative and engaging articles. Prior to becoming a professional writer, Michael honed his skills as an English tutor, poet, voice-over artist, and DJ.

Related Articles

Discussion Comments

By Terrificli — On Jun 07, 2014

@Melonlity -- you probably shouldn't take it that way. The problem with the government is too much of a disconnect with the average citizen. Perhaps those politicians that are smart will get back to the business of trying to figure out what the average citizen wants from government and taking stands based on that.

Hey, we can always hope can't we?

By Melonlity — On Jun 06, 2014

Always hated this term because it is more than a bit insulting. Politicians use it to separate the reasonable people (those who agree with their enlightened views) from the unreasonable ones (those who disagree). How about viewing us all as just voters and trying to do what is best with us instead of shoving people into categories and only caring what the "right" people think?

Michael Pollick

Michael Pollick


As a frequent contributor to PublicPeople, Michael Pollick uses his passion for research and writing to cover a wide...
Learn more
PublicPeople, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

PublicPeople, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.