This is an archive of past discussions about Joe the Plumber. 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.
Could someone please explain Tito Muñoz's relationship to Joe the Plumber. Tito's wiki page shows no indication or references to "Tito the Builder". Thanks! Hans404 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I am reminded of an old song "We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun..." While Joe lines up a publicist, the 15 minutes of fame have ended with McCain's concession speech. Yet for a few days he was discussed in every McCain and Palin campaign speech, and had sufficient substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources to sustain notabiity. The article about the meme "Joe the Plumber" should remain a Wikipedia article even as the career of the real life inspiration returns to "plumber's assistant striving for job as product endorser." Edison (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And that's why we have encyclopedias, so that in some future election, people can look up this everyman metaphor and the person behind it. — Becksguy (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The metaphor is far more important. However, it is tied to charges of socialism, so its staying power may be quite limited. Joe the person is being crucified for a number of reasonsthat were in his control. Essentially, McCain used him with utter diregard for his humanity. •Jim62sch•dissera!20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Joe's Welfare Two Times?
Joe has been on welfare two times, despite the disdain he purported about the "spread the wealth" statement. Is this important to show - (hypocrisy)? Anyone else seen anything to corroborate this? VictorC (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Collect on this one. Joe's not perfect in how he positioned himself v. reality, but there comes a point when we should focus on what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Mattnad (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
If true, no matter whether we do Joe the Person or Joe the Concept, the apparent hypocrisy needs to be addressed. As I've note several ytimes before, pretend we're writing for a PoliSci textbook. •Jim62sch•dissera!20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ever heard of the famous "15 minutes of fame"? Npyability is very often transitory. Of course, were this article to be treated properly from a PoliSci standpoint, i.e., an article on the concept rather than on the person, the notability might be longer-lasting. •Jim62sch•dissera!10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is too much personal data on Joe the person that has nothing to do with Joe the Plumber. However once the 15 minutes are over, then this becomes a historical article, much like Rosie the Riveter. The importance of this election campaign metaphor or cultural icon outlives the importance of Joe the person, unless he manages to become notable independently of his Joe the Plumber persona. Notability is not transitory from a historical viewpoint, even if he fades from current events. The public famously only has a 15 second attention span, and people in the future will have this to look up, warts and all. So I disagree with deletion or merging. — Becksguy (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Re "Notability is not transitory from a historical viewpoint" -- this makes the assumption that the person will be a historical figure, which is unlikely. The concept, however, may be of historical value so long asit is treated properly: id est, the purpose of creatin the concept, any impact it had on the election, whether it was successful, etc. In other words, it should be treated as it might be in a PoliSci textbook: analytically. •Jim62sch•dissera!17:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you, Jim62sch, in that it's as an election campaign metaphor, and as a cultural icon that transcends the election, that this article is important and notable historically. And yes, it should be restructured as you suggested. Joe W., as a person, was not notable, which was my reason for renaming the article to "Joe the Plumber" from Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, JtP was the popular name. So to clarify: Notability of this cultural icon is not transitory from a historical viewpoint. People remember Rosie the Riveter, but don't remember the actual person behind that American icon. If Joe W. as a person becomes notable, we can create an article on him with cross references. — Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree on trimming the article - there is a difference between "Joe the Plummer" the political symbol, and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher the person. Cut all of the personal stuff about Mr. Wurzelbacher (at least the stuff that does not directly relate to his questioning Obama), and concentrate on "Joe the Plummer" as a symbol. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so what do you do? Instead of cutting personal details, you immediately delete the entire paragraph about the illegal searches of government databases, as if that were irrelevant to his symbolic value. The whole point was to warn anyone else who might question Obama what will happen to them. It's very relevant, while his exact job description is completely irrelevant, so why didn't you start by cutting that, if you were acting in good faith? -- Zsero (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I saw the paragraphs in question as being about Mr. Wurzelbacher and not "Joe the Plumber"... it was a good faith attempt to trim the article... if you feel I acted in haste or in error, just revert me. No problem. Perhaps it is too soon to trim. We can re-visit in a few months. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not as such (that is, there is no official close or vote as "Keep for now"), however, there is WP:CCC, a guideline that says "Consensus can change", although there is also WP:NTEMP that says "Notability is not temporary". There is tension between those two concepts. When the AfD was discussed, JtP was not as notable as a cultural icon as it became post 3rd presidential debate. Or as notable as it is now. — Becksguy (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher has made many public appearances. I think we should change it back to his real name and expand the article further. QuackGuru18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As the change to this title was unanimous, I would suggest you have a lot of consensus-building ahead of you for such a U-turn. Collect (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The change of the title was when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was barely notable. Things have changed and now he is very notable. QuackGuru19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The issue about it being a BLP, whether he was notable etc. was contentious, and the consensus ended up here well after he first appeared on the scene. Unless, of course, you consider 20 October to be ancient history here. Collect (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What, specifically, made him notable as a person between 20 October and 9 November? I note the same issue was also raised in 27 October -- a full WEEK after the unanimous decision <g>. Collect (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Looking at the large amount of news articles from mainstream media - which are the reliable sources we have until credible books and essays are written on the 2008 election - its seems clear that the information at hand is mostly about the person Joe Wurzelbacher and not the metaphor. From meeting Obama in person, to going on the campaign trail for John McCain, Wurzelbacher has been the subject of attention, not the metaphor. It was Wurzelbacher the person whose records were looked up by Helen Jones-Kelley. It is Wurzelbacher the person who has formed the watchdog group called Secure Our Dream. The metaphor does not have a book on the way, the person does. For these reasons, each of which has recieved substantial media attention, the article should be about Wurzelbacher the person - regardless of the article's name, like Hulk Hogan. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly the present title Joe the Plumber should be kept, since the meme is far more notable than Wurzelbacher. Remember the McCain appearances where many people held up signs saying "I am Joe the Plumber?" They were not Wurzelbacher. Remember the TV commercials where numerous people not named Wurzelbacher said "I am Joe the Plumber?" It is like "Johnny Reb" not being one man in the Confederate Army in the American Civil War who was named "Johnny," or Rosie the Riviter not being memories of a lady named "Rose Will Monroe" who worked in a defense plant in the U.S. in World War 2. My mother and grandmother were both "Rosie the Riveter." Neither was named "Rosie." When angry U.S. blacks in the 1960's said they wanted to Get Whitey" they were not talking about Whitey Ford. Edison (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Rose Will Monroe, Rosie the Riviter, is not a proper comparison as she was only notable for one event. Joe Wurzelbacher is notable for numerous events; 1) questioning Obama 2) campaigning for McCain/Palin, 3) the Helen Jones-Kelley record search, 4) the watchdog group Secure Our Concern... Each of these events is notable and each has recieved substantial media coverage from reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The notion that Joe The Plumber should be deleted or retired because the election is over, is ludicrious. Joe the Plumber is a term that has entered the American Lexicon, and will remain just the way "Swift Boating" has endured since the 2004 election.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon23:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Spam website?
Why is there a link from this article to http://www.joewurzelbacher2010.com/ ? All this site appears to be is an attempt to grab some free publicity relative to "Joe the Plumber". There is no outwardly evident signs of any official endorsement of this site from Wurzelbacher or anyone else. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This external link is relevant per the section on the Draft Joe Wurzelbacher campaign, which has recieved substantial media attention. Because of this, I will restore it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a joke, those guys latched onto Wurzelbacher's fame and have advanced their own agendas (and where's Wurzelbacher's support of all of this?) It's a pity that this article is advancing their own gains (I note all of the merchandising links on this website starting with the very first and most prominent link being to cafepress products). 89.159.146.135 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Link Spam to me. I can see mentioning it in the article, but a link gives it too much prominence. They're out to sell t-shirts. Would be nice to keep this article from becoming too much of a joke itself. Mattnad (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, since I protected it, it wasn't a big surprise to me. If you mean in general, probably not... although it will eventually have to cool down. Tan | 3915:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocking improvements without any reason given in the edit summary
Please show and not assert a reason would be more helpful. The edit summary did not give a reason what was wrong with the edit. Consensus should not be used as a reason to block edits. Thoughts? QuackGuru19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"Plumber (unlicensed)" was placed in the Occupation slot. There was not only no consensus for changing his occupation, no consensus for altering his occupation, so therefore asking you to try achieving consensus in Talk was the proper thing to do. Consensus is, indeed, a reason not to change things without getting a new consensus first. If you feel "Plumber (unlicensed)" is what should be listed as "Occupation" try convincing people first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I too have attempted to introduce accuracy into this. Joe is really a plumbers helper or assistant. For some reason, Collect feels that professional titles (of which Plumber is one) do not apply here. Hope he never needs to depend on a "Medical Doctor" with similar views on licensing. See Paper Mask - it's a good film. Mattnad (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Try building a consensus. Absent a new one, the old one stands. That is how WP works. "Plumber" is not a "professional title" as far as I can find. Def: a person who installs and repairs piping, fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances in connection with the water supply, drainage systems, etc., both in and out of buildings. from RHD. Doctor def: 1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian. 2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree: He is a Doctor of Philosophy. Same source. Note the difference in wording. Profession: 2. any vocation or business. Professions do not need special titles or licences as far as normal English language construction is concerned. Now if you can write a different dictionary, fine. I suspect the RHD is fine for everyone else. Collect (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Plumber or Plumber's assistant is the occupation. Whether he's licensed to do his job or not is a completely different issue which is covered adequately in the article. --Onorem♠Dil20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Plumber (unlicensed) would be accurate. Plumbers in Joe's state are licensed. If he cut someone's hair it would not make him a barber, since that field of work is also licensed. If he took care of a sick family member, it would not make him a doctor or nurse, since those are licensed fields. I have also installed plumbing and electrical wiring, but I would not claim to be a plumber or electrician, since those are licensed professions. Edison (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. There is no precedent in WP for such an occupational addition. And since he had been a plumber before going to Ohio, you would then be doing OR to claim he was not a plumber in a place which does not have the same licensing requirements. Can you assert that? Collect (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Collect, "precedence" is an informal fallacy and irrelevant to this particular topic. For all we know, there's precedence, but good luck finding it. It's a weak approach and sidesteps the discussion. I'm not biting.
"Joe the Plumber" is a unique case in which his lack of licensing has been brought up in the media, and by professional organizations in the State of Ohio and beyond. Whether or not he's a licensed plumber has been discussed at length outside of Wikipedia. And I put it back to Collect - what's the problem with using the same terminology used by plumbing professionals and organizations given we're discussing Joe's occupation? In this instance, why use the laypersons (e.g., Collect's) notion of what defines a plumber? See Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Request_for_Comment to see a rich discussion about a news article supporting the view that Joe is not a Plumber.
In the view of professionals Joe's no more a plumber, than a paralegal is a lawyer (and yes, they do a lot of the same things, but one is licensed, and the other isn't). Mattnad (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Iteration does not make consensus. You have stated your position many times now, but unless and until you get a new consensus, the prior consensus remains. Clear? Collect (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like with the exception of Collect, there's consensus here on either having stating he's unlicensed, or calling him a plumber's assistant. Collect, I don't know where you get your process and rules from, but the direction is clear now. Please don't obstruct our consensus. Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Consensus or not, "unlicensed, or calling him a plumber's assistant" is accurate. Hence my desire to see Joe the concept. Whatever. If this guy runs in '10, he's going to be slaughtered. •Jim62sch•dissera!14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This has been covered in this talk page. He is not licensed, but he shouldn't be called "an unlicensed plumber," because that would suggest that he is a pirate or renegade plumber that makes money by doing illegal work, thus stealing jobs from licensed, legitimate professional plumbers. He is a "Plumber's Helper," which means he works under a licensed plumber, and is legally unable to contract out his own, independant jobs. Check the discussion at the top of the talk page. It is a recognized job classification, and usually termed "Plumber's Helper," most commonly. Less commonly it is termed, "Plumber's Assistant." VictorC (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe you have iterated this a bit. Absent you achieving a consensus for getting rid of the old consensus, it is moot. The definition of "Plumber's Helper" is, in fact, "plunger." As I trust you knew. Collect (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Count yourself among those who prefer the less commonly used "Plumber's Assistant." The colloquial term "plumber's helper," isn't the true name for that tool, though. That is a colloquialism. Notwithstanding, you have doubtless seen words or terms that are applicable in more than one situation. This is an obtuse discussion, and frankly I find it slightly tiresome to have been brought into it. I think this should be obvious. Why even bring this up, Collect? I don't pretend to know what your intentions are, but furthering the discussion might be a good idea from now on. Just a suggestion. VictorC (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Collect and VictorC. Plumber is not a "professional" title, it does not require any academic degree, certainly not an advanced degree. One learns plumbing through a trade or vocational process, for example: apprenticeship, on-the-job-training (OJT), or vocational or union schools. Further, declaring him as unlicensed in the article is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, since it's highly negative and also implies that he is violating the law or operating as a renegade. It make no difference if he personally has a license or not, since he is covered under his supervisor's license, while working for him and being supervised by him. This is normal in the construction and maintenance trades and to imply that he is somewhat different is clearly POV. Also, I don't see sufficient consensus that "unlicensed" should be in the article, even if it wasn't policy violating content. I have trouble understanding the extent of the discussion on this irrelevant issue in the press, and here also. And to compare the licensing requirements with the medical or legal profession makes absolutely no sense. They are on radically different planes. To the general public, if a man works on plumbing, he's a plumber, just as someone that builds wood structures is a carpenter. And yes, they do have carpenter's helpers (at a lower pay rate). However the general public is aware of the difference between a MD (An academic doctoral degree, a professional title, and a profession licensed by a state in the USA) and a nurse. (also mostly the same but at a lower level) — Becksguy (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
My position is to use the term: "Plumber's Helper," since that's the term I'm most familiar with (I have personal & professional experience with the trade, actually). However, "Plumber's Assistant" would be fine with me too. I am not fine with calling him a "Plumber." He is definately not a plumber, and there IS a difference. It is wrong to call him "Plumber." Also, it's wrong to call him "Unlicensed Plumber." I disagree with that. Both terms are misleading and inaccurate. So, again I say either "Plumber's Helper," or "Plumber's Assistant." VictorC (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Quackguru, you keep repeating the same thing and addressing a link from a television station report as a reference without addressing any of the additional information that other editors have been introducing. Additionally, according to the link you are referring to, even though the TV report you link to says he is unlicensed, it adds that he works under the license of his employer. That means he is still doing licensed work, making it unfair to call him unlicensed. He may not have his own license, but he is still doing licensed work. Calling him unlicensed isn't a clear representation, leading Wikipedia readers to draw the wrong conclusion. VictorC (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Unlicensed is a WP:BLP and WP:POV violation and is unacceptable, as explained above. I'm OK with: "Plumber", "Plumber's helper", and "Plumber's assistant". But not "Plumber (Unlicensed)" or "Unlicensed Plumber", as they are BLP & POV violations. Plumber's helper seems to be somewhat more used in various state Dept of Labor sites and job listings, but Plumber's assistant shows up also. Here are the US Dept of Labor's official Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) listings for plumbers and plumber's helpers. Plumber's assistant is not listed:
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters
Assemble, install, alter, and repair pipelines or pipe systems that carry water, steam, air, or other liquids or gases. May install heating and cooling equipment and mechanical control systems.
47-3015 Helpers—Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters
Help plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, or pipelayers by performing duties of lesser skill. Duties include using, supplying or holding materials or tools, and cleaning work area and equipment. Exclude apprentice workers and report them with the appropriate skilled construction trade occupation (47-2011 through 47-2221). Exclude construction laborers who do not primarily assist plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, or pipelayers, and classify them under "Construction Laborers" (47-2061).
It doesn't sound as if JtP is merely assisting a plumber by holding his tools for him, or cleaning up after him. As far as I can tell from all the relevant sources, he is doing the work of a plumber; therefore he is a plumber, whether he has a license or not. BTW a fully qualified doctor who is struck off is still a doctor; it may be against the law for him to practise, but he doesn't lose his knowledge or skill, so he doesn't stop being a doctor. Of course if he isn't actually doctoring then his occupation becomes whatever he does instead; but that doesn't change who he is. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"Plumber's helper", and "Plumber's assistant" seems to be unreferenced and "Plumber (Unlicensed)" or "Unlicensed Plumber", is clearly NPOV.
We edit according to the references and not rewrite stuff not in reliable sources. Unlicensed is the most accurate version and is referenced. QuackGuru09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The references establish that he doesn't hold his own license. That doesn't make "unlicensed" part of his job title. The job is Plumber. Unlicensed simply describes his legal status to do that job in the area where he currently lives. If the reference said that he often screwed up jobs, would you want "subpar plumber" listed in the infobox? --Onorem♠Dil12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Becksguy gave a reference to the job description of the US Department of Labor official Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) listings for plumbers and plumber's helpers. Quackguru doesn't see this as a reference. I'll come out and say I will take the US Labor Dept as a good reference as to job descriptions, and as a way to clarify the difference between Master Plumber, Plumber, Plumber's Helper, Plumber's Assistant, and Plumber's Apprentice. Also, Quackguru, to suggest that the US Dept of Labor isn't a reference is not helping this discussion. Please try to avoid stonewalling. This should be a give and take interchange of ideas in order for us to move forward with this decision on job descriptions. VictorC (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The US Department of Labor official Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) listings for plumbers and plumber's helpers do not mention Joe the Plumber. We can't use that reference in this artice. We should stick to the references that mention Joe or that are directly related to Joe. The references demonstrate that he doesn't hold his own license. That means he is unlicensed. To be accurate, we should describe his legal status in the area where he currently lives and works. His job (legal status) is unlincensed. QuackGuru18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You are unable to provide a reason why we should not be more accurate. A qualifying word will make it NPOV. Is there a reason why we should ignore the references? QuackGuru18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: WP:CONSENSUS has what you need to read. A consensus currently exists. It is to use the simple one word occupation "plumber." You wish to change it by iterating your position over, and over , and over, and ... That is not a valid way to alter consensus. Is this quite clear? Collect (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Show me where all the RSs call him a plunger and be done. Nope? They all call him a "plumber"? Sounds like the consensus of news organizations is, in fact, to call him a "plumber." Amazing! Right in line with existing consensus right here! And the US job listing does not say "Plumber's Helper" but as "plumber" UNDER the category of "helpers." Did that elide your attention?
Dictionary def? Joe is a "plumber." News search? NO news organization calls him a "plumber's helper" At leasst not in the Google News Archives search. Over 32,000 articles call him a plumber. Anyone hear the word "consensus"? Collect (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Plunger? Ever seen WP:DENSE? What is your exact issue? Is plumber somehow more illustrious than plumber's assistant? Joe makes $40K per annum, most plumbers make at least $40 per hour. Good grief.
n. See plunger. " WORDNET: "plumber's helper noun hand tool consisting of a stick with a rubber suction cup at one end; used to clean clogged drains [syn: plunger] " Merriam Webster: "Main Entry: plumber's helper Function: noun Date: 1952 : plunger d —called also plumber's friend " How many dictionaries do you want? I just gave four where the meaning of "plumber's helper" is "plundger" and NONE of them say it is an occupation, Not one. Zero. Collect (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the OED as I find it to be far more accurate. Smobbish and elitist though that preferrence mat be, there it is. Your last sentence makes little sense and proves nothing, but enough of this already. One cannot discuss such points with someone who seems to have some sort of personal interest in the subject of a BLP article.
The OED, last I checked, is not authoritative on American usage. Last I checked, Joe is an American. I have no "personal interest" in this, other than a deisre for WP to be a legitimate encyclopedia. I was involved in no campaign in any capacity whatever. Collect (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a linguist either I see. The OED is the' definitive English dictionary: id est, it encompasses Bitish, Commonwealth, American and various pidjin forms of English.
Your interest seems to be in anything but NPOV as others have noted. In fact, you seem to think that NPOV implies neutrality of presentation: it doesn't. 22:12, 14 November 2008 23:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)~
Topic creep on Ohio Database searches
This section is getting a little big for the article and now has unrelated/tangential information:
On November 7, 2008, Governor Strickland placed Jones-Kelley on paid leave “for possibly using a state computer and e-mail account for political fundraising.” Strickland stated that this action was taken "due to the possibility, as yet unconfirmed, that a state computer or state e-mail account was used to assist in political fund raising." According to WYTV, "E-mails released by Strickland show Helen Jones-Kelley used her state-issued e-mail account to send names of potential contributors to the Obama campaign."
This is separate from the Joe the Plumber story and doesn't belong here. And please no WP:OR that this shows motivation or some other invention since that, even if sourced, is pushing the limits on WP:BLP. Mattnad (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment This section does need to be shortened. One problem I see with describing this event is that it is presently developing, and nobody knows where it will end up. The fact that it is ongoing has led to a blow by blow description of the topic, which can be a grey area as its relevance to Wurzelbacher vacilates as the investigation develops. With this though, because the search Jones-Kelley authorized on Wurzelbacher has recieved substantial media coverage, with many articles written on this topic from reliable sources, some mention is required in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. This is absolutely congruent with the material immediately preceding, is relevant to how the campaigns treated the issue of JtP, is relevant to the later section on JtP having a new 501c3 starting up etc. The source is not only reliable, it is succinct and does not use excess verbiage at all. Would you prefer that the emails end up here -- or just the facts as published? Collect (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Should all of the statements related to Helen Jones-Kelley, and the ongoing investigation, be placed in this article? Some, such as her campaign donations, do not seem immediately relevant. Also, the scope of the investigation seems to be growing beyond Wurzelbacher - i.e. the emails to the Obama campaign about fundraising. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense - it's about her, not Joe. We don't put other parts of he bio here either. Collect, attempting to connect her campaign donations to Joe the Plumber is the OR. Furthermore, even if one could find a blog or editorial that suggests that the Obabma donations and the database search are somehow connected, that's potentially libelous and pushing WP:BLP. Now that I've spelled it out again, do you agree? If not, what's your rationale for including this?Mattnad (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The sources for the donation already make the connection, so it's not a SYN problem. They didn't report her donations just out of idle curiosity. And it's relevant because it rebuts her claim that there was nothing political about the database searches. It shows her to be heavily committed to Obama, and therefore likely to have been motivate to help his campaign. If she's been shown to be a McCain supporter, that would have been very interesting, because it would have lent credibility to her claims. -- Zsero (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The WYTV cite is essential as it states explicitly that there were iroper emails. Someone keeps deleting it -- I deleted what appears to be a near duplication without making the explicit factual statement about the emails. And, to that person, there is no "innuendo" about that cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And is directly relevant to the section at hand as well. If you have this section on the misuse of the Ohio government computers at all, thhe facts about the proof of such misuse are relevant here. As ofr anyone saying "Coatrack" one should note that would only apply if this were an unrelated attack on Jones-Kelly. I doubt that such a claim is correct, as Jones-Kelly is not a major political figure. Collect (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Helen Jones-Kelley should be under just as much scrutiny as Joe the Plumber, if not more since instead of merely asking a Democratic candidate a tough question, she potentially broke the law. Judging by the forced leave, I personally think she's screwed. Since the contention here is whether or not Jones-Kelley's motivations were political, all pertinent information about possible biased, political affiliation, and links to the Obama campaign are relevant to the topic. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinions aside, this topic of her donations is still best left on the article dedicated to her. Do we really need to constantly introduce partisan bitching into this article?Mattnad (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you claiming the material placed in the article is not NPOV from a totally neutral RS? The Talk page is for improving the article, not sniping Matt. Collect (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You're claiming in an issue that may have been influenced by political beliefs that a maximum donation isn't relevant? People don't usually contribute to campaigns unless they believe in the politician or believe they have something to gain -- plus it's a public expression of opinion -- so I believe it's very relevant to the matter. And indeed this donation information is perfectly reasonable for her own biography on Wikipedia, that's where I lifted the source, but Wikipedia isn't a scavenger hunt -- all of the relevant information should be easily accessible and presented in the article unless the topic has an article of its own (which in this case it doesn't). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, feel free to expand on the article dedicated to her. Your drawing a connection between JtP and whether she used her e-mail for political purposes exceeds the scope of this article. We've kept out a lot about Joe's personal life for similar reasons.
I'm unimpressed this article has become a focus for conspiracy theories, innuendo, and the like. Facts are woven in to spin the story of how Joe is being picked on by the Obama campaign. We can and should do better than this. So where there's a clear break from Joe the Plumber - how an Ohio official may, or may not have used her email to lobby for Obama - we should draw the line.Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This isn't original research. There's an investigation going on to determine whether or not she broke the law, and she herself has invited the scrutiny of political bias by stating she has not been swayed by her political beliefs. Not to mention she's on paid leave by order of the governor explicitly for possibly using her computer for political reasons. This makes entries covering her political affiliations appropriate for this topic. The incident of her pulling up records on Joe the Plumber directly relates him to all this, which is why this is all being mentioned on his page as well. Just because her possible illegal actions do not centrally revolve around Joe the Plumber does not make this inappropriate to cover on his article -- and it goes without saying that this should be covered on her article as well. Perhaps if this becomes a bigger issues and warrants its own Wikipedia article, then only a summary of the issue and a link to the main article would be necessary. Until then, if that ever happens, this article as well as Jones-Kelley's article are the places to cover this. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As you admit, "her possible illegal actions do not centrally revolve around Joe" is all we need to read. It's over. Please stop trying to connect the two unnecessarily.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well actually, you picked that right out of the middle of a sentence which gives it context. And as I admit, he directly is part of it and he is affected by it even though it may not completely revolve around him. So no, it's not over, but I welcome constructive comments. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like her e-mails are a different topic, unless you want to make the case (like Amwestover) that she's an Obama supporter which is why she had someone check on Joe's records. Even then, these are two different allegations. This may be connected later with the investigations, but now it's kinda cat & dog and speculative to have them together. Even her article separates the two issues. I've seem the searches and the e-mails mentioned together in articles, but it's more like a list of bad things she's done. Anyway, this is wikipedia - the details on the e-mails are only a click away if someone cares. And to be honest, I don't think most people do in the way that you guys here make it out to be. Time to lighten up and have some fun. Bruno23 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been numerious articles in mainstream media about the controversial situation involving the use of Ohio State University computers to do background checks on Wurzelbacher. As the Helen Jones-Kelley investigation is presently ongoing, new developments have been discussed in mainstream media, and as a result Wurzelbacher continues to receive substantial media coverage.
On November 13, 2008, the Columbus Dispatch reported that, in response to a public records request, the Department of Job and Family Services stated that "it had no records involving prior checks of the type that Director Helen Jones-Kelley authorized on "Joe the Plumber."[16]
Shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to reflect that he is not actually a plumber - i.e. he does not hold a liscense? He may be referred to as such, but technically he does not hold that position.
He is a plumber. It's what he does. What difference does it make whether he has a license? A license doesn't make someone a plumber. Plumbing is a trade, not a "position", whatever that means. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, he's a "plumber's helper," in light of the fact that he's not completed his apprenticeship and hasn't attained his own license. If we wanted to get technical. So who cares? Wikipedia cares about the technical crap of that sort, I guess. The red press probably tagged him with the "plumber" moniker, probably most journalists wouldn't have gotten the distinction between "plumber" and "plumber's helper." --VictorC (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What bugs me is the constant denigration of a fine profession. Plumbers are top of the manual labor food chain. They are hughly skilled well trained well paid workers. Sam J. W. is not fully a master plumber and cannot ge the high income of such a professional. To call him a plumber reduces the esteem with which the profession should be held. But sadly, many uninformed people think poorly o plumbers... until they need one. Indoor plumbing has done more to increase life expectancy that all the work of doctors! 17:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)LaidOff (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary does not distinguish between "licensed plumber" and anyone else who works on plumbing. Originally plumbers worked on roofs. Collect (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that your interpretation of what's in a dictionary isn't applicable in real life. There actually is a difference between licensed plumbers, pirate plumbers operating with no licenses, and plumber's helpers operating under the license of a licensed plumber. It doesn't take much thought to realize this distinction exists, might not be in every dictionary, and is a pertinent distinction in the real world. --VictorC (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the silliest discussion yet to infect this talk page. If someone fixes toilets for a living then they are a plumber. Period. If someone fixes toilets for a living and also has a license to do so then they are a licensed plumber. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I assure you. This isn't silly. Perhaps because you aren't a pipefitter you might find it so. It isn't. Ignorance or unfamiliarity with a facet of professional life won't ever equate it to silliness. We might find it silly or humorous, but to aficionados of the topic believe me it is quite serious. It is not at all silly. It is a real discussion, and an interchange of ideas. What is posted about this being silly isn't adding to the discussion, it's detracting from it. I hope this is clearer now. --VictorC (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't think it's slightly ridiculous that people are arguing that unlicensed plumbers aren't plumbers? (Oh, and pipefitting and plumbing are not the same thing.) CIreland (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing the pertinency of this topic which has to do with one of the topics in the article. Article content. The fact that the subject of the article is a plumber, one of the topics in the article has to do with the subject's professional life, the discussion on whether or not it is silly to discuss facets of the profession of the subject of this article has to do with the improvement of the article. I'm frankly surprised that you (REDPEN) are even making this interpretation. It seems clear. I admire your zealousness, but I see it as very misplaced. --VictorC (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between "plumber" (meaning master plumber) and "plumber's helper" is significant. I disagree that we should say Joe is NOT a plumber, but he certainly isn't a "master" plumber. He is clearly a "plumber's helper," and might be termed to be an "assistant plumber." Here are two links to job descriptions which provide some clarity as to the distinction (from a plumber or "master" plumber) and pay that a plumber's helper might receive: PLUMBER'S HELPER (1) Annual Gross Salary: $58,100
All plumbers are "plumbers." Not all plumbers are "master plumbers." There is no rational case to be made that this is important in the case at hand. By the way, "plumber's helper" has a specific meaning in the US which is totally inapplicable here. Collect (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Plumbers and pipefitters are serious men and on the top of the manual labor food chain. AFL-CIO chief George Meany had a master plumber license. Just because some people have university degrees should not down grade the high esteem in which the plumbing profession is held. LaidOff (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a serious issue. People go to school for years, apprentice for years and are trained correctly to become plumbers. Other professions, doctors, nurses, dentists, all have specific titles that entitle them to legally do work. An RN does not prescribe drugs, but a NP is allowed to prescribe under a doctors supervision. This is the same issue under a different profession. A plumber's assistant can not legally do work without the supervision and guidance of a licensed plumber. He is not a plumber. He is an assistant. He may plumb or install plumbing, that does not make him a plumber. Here is an article that has a person in the said profession describing exactly what this man does for a living.
"But it wasn't long before the Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics revealed that Wurzelbacher was not a licensed member of their trade.
"That means that he has not completed the training program necessary for him to sit for a licence test," said Tony Herrera, market recovery specialist for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50 in Toledo, Ohio.
"It's a shame that this guy has ended up in this situation because it seems like he's misrepresented himself -- and for that matter the plumbing and pipefitting industry."
I agree. He is not a plumber in the same way I am not an electrician (even though I can fix some loose wires.) Performing unlicensed work on installations of any kind is hazardous and irresponsible, and without a proper license, one is not a plumber. Dario1250 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. He has been a plumber for some years and in other states. Working under the direction of a licensed plumber is what you get 99% of the time on construction jobs. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only is he not a plumber, he did not pay any taxes last year. This guy is a liar and it should be mentioned in this article.Ithaka84 (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree with saying he is not a plumber. As someone pointed out you wouldn't call a medical assistant a doctor unless they are a licensed with a doctorate degree. This is the same situation, technically speaking. I'm sure there are licensed plumbers out there who would be offended if you called someone a plumber who skipped all the certifications and training required to be officially called a plumber. The same way you wouldn't refer to back alley or black market surgeon as a "doctor" and I'm sure calling him one who offend those who spent years training and attending medical school. The dictionary definition of a plumber is irrelevant, in my opinion at least. To officially be a called a plumber in the US and by the Association of Plumbers you are required to finish all the training and certifications. It is the same with any other profession (either trade or professional) and should be treated as such. We try to be professional as possible Wikipedia and that should include paying attention to any technicalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.183.205 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Apples. Oranges. "Doctor" is a specific degree (usually not medical, in fact). "Plumber" is not an academic degree. Anywhere. Nor does any organization have the right to insist on membership to claim that one is skilled in the art (Ohio does not require union membership). Thus Mr. IP, your points are ill taken indeed. Collect (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You're a bit out of touch with how the trades define their membership and the qualifications. If fact it's extremely common for professional organizations, including plumbers and MDs like neurosurgeons, to have training, testing, and licensing requirments. Seem a little elitist to think that Doctors are somehow worthy of licenses to practice, whereas plumbers are not. Mattnad (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? I didn't realize there's any consensus here. Perhaps there's a consensus between you and you, but I for one would prefer we use accurate terms, as have others. This discussion was not closed and I don't think it's a dead horse by any means. Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, it is up to you to get a new consensus, not to assert a right to deny the previous one. Thanks! If you get a consensus, then change away all you want. I do not think you will get one from the actual editors on the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, please demonstrate "consensus" - all I see is you claiming consensus. A consensus of one does not a consensus make. You're claiming something that does not exist to my eyes. Where exactly was this consensus declared? Mattnad (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_4#Plumbing_career for example. In all the entire set of archives, you are the single and only edtor using the term "plumber's asistant." That's right. Out of more than fifty editors leaving comments, you think that the other 49 who have used the term "plumber" are wrong. I submit, indeed, that it is up to you to get a consensus to change what fifty already settled on without argument about it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly consensus and the discussion was not centered on the point here. You're skirting the central issue. I'll also point out that there's an existing RFC below on how to handle the plumber's union view that Joe should not be called a plumber either. I'm actually a bit annoyed that we need to go through this process to use accurate terminology on an article that demands it. Anyway, since you've unilaterally decided that this matter is settled, I'll put it up for RFC. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Good gawd, another RFC? 50-1 is not a consensus? There is nothing to discuss or comment on. He is a plumber. It's what he is, regardless of whether he has a piece of paper that says so. Get over it. -- Zsero (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The RfC is not on this topic which is how his occupation is listed. Sorry Matt -- your chorus is missing a few voices still. I also posted on the WT:OR board asking for input in a neutral manner. Let's see what people who have not been here think about sources being SYN within a single sentence <g>. Collect (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks collect for skipping the issue and trying to discredit my input by calling me Mr. IP. I didn't know having a wiki user account qualifies you to provide scholarly input. I guess my years of school was a mistake, all I needed was a wiki account. I have edited and provided input on numerous articles, and all i was doing was trying to provide my input here. So instead skipping the issue with insults why not answer the question. The point was why not use proper terminology. Yes I know there are many types of doctorate degrees. The point remains, you don't call someone a doctor unless they have a accredited doctorate degree. A licensed M.D. has to go through all the proper certifications and testings to practice and called a doctor. I know for a fact you would offended many people by calling someone a doctor who isn't licensed or hasn't passed his boards. This is an example, but it is the point remains. They belong to a professorial organization who goes through and make sure each member has the proper certification. Obviously plumbing school is not as intense, but they too go through certification, training and license procedures to be called a plumber. I am sure there are plumbers out there who would not be happy if you called someone a plumber who is not licensed. What does the level of prestige or difficulty have to do with the certification ? Many trade and professional organizations go through the same process. It is def elitist to not treat the trade of plumbing not in the same light. In any case we are splitting hairs over terminology and technicalities. But these technicalities should be given certain attention to maintain a certain level of integrity. You don't call someone an electrician if they do not have the proper licensing, they are called an electrician's apprentice, so why not plumbers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.204.167 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your claim does not agree with dictionaries. Sorry, but that appears to be what you need to check. There is absolutely no requirement that a "plumber" belong to any professional organization. So much for this silliness. Unless and until one changes the consensus, there is no reason to keep re-editing the "occupation" box for JtP. All it is , is inane editwarring when you do not have consensus on your side. Work on changing consensus? Fine. Until then, abide by the current consensus. BTW, it does help to register on WP a lot! Collect (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no requirement that a "plumber" belong to any professional organization. There is if he wants to work legally in many parts of Ohio. (or at least proper licensing) -- The Red Pen of Doom20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
What has that got to do with anything. There is no requirement, legal or otherwise, that he belong to an organisation. And in any case no law can change what he is; all the law can control is whether he can work legally. A plumber is a plumber, whether he has a license or not; if some legislature or bureaucrat has made a regulation preventing him from working, then the problem is with them, not with him. They can control their laws, but they can't change facts. -- Zsero (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
So? Note Truman's occupations, or the occupations of many people on WP. The info box almost invariably states occupations which they no longer practice. Including occupations for dead people. (Harry S Truman, Barack Obama, George Washington, John McCain and a few thousand more. Collect (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
collect, i read all of your disagreements (on this page as well as the blp page) with the other editors who keep making the same change i made BEFORE i made the change. how many times will you continue to single-handedly revert the plumber's assistant? isnt there a limit on reverts? arent you concerned that you seem to be the only one constantly changing our (jim, redpen and myself) edits back to what you want the article to say? when jim and redpen made the same change you told them that there was no consensus. will you say the same to me?
my argument is that the man works as a plumbers assistant. its an actual job, why call it something else? a parallel would be physician and physician assistant(PA). PAs can work for physicians doing the same things as physicians, but one wouldnt call them physicians. explain why it should be different with plumbers and plumbers assistants. if s. joe had finished his apprenticeship this wouldnt be an issue, but he didnt.
as for your nytimes article... it was published the day of the debate (when s. joe was first brought to everyones attention). the controversy over his not really being a plumber had not yet been brought to light when that article was written. neither had the fact that his first name was really samuel. read the article. to use the oct 15 nytimes article as proof that he is in fact a plumber and not a plumbers assistant is being sneaky. thats why i am changing it and providing a source that accurately describes his occupation. show me a more recent article that argues against calling him a plumbers assistant and we can go from there. Brendan19 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Union identifing who has completed their apprenticeship
Yes, Zsero, a Union will certainly identify those who have completed their apprenticeship programs. Your claim that they are only identifing Mr. W.'s incomplete status because they have endorsed Obama is entirely a matter of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that they would have done so for an Obama supporter. Why would they? Do they comment on every plumber who appears in the news? The article doesn't say this, however; it merely identifies the union as having endorsed Obama, so that the reader is not misled into thinking that it's neutral, and the reader can then judge whether this influenced the union's statement. -- Zsero (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
When's the last time they made such an announcement, sua sponte, about any other plumber? Beside which, it's just obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Of course I would not put that in the article, source or no source. It's not encyclopaedic. But the mere fact that the union endorsed Obama is easily sourced, and in itself should be unobjectionable. The explanation is merely about why it's relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The article originally cited stated the union's endorsement -- thus not WP:SYNTH. Inclusion of material in the article is proper. Collect (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope this isn't taken wrong, but I'm suspicious that any Plumber's (or Journeyman's) Union might have a rule or requirement saying that anyone who calls them can verify the qualifications of a plumber or contractor, just as a matter of course. Perhaps it's not a matter of the union coming out to proclaim Joe's membership status, it's more of a matter of news reporters calling the union, doing their research and asking about Joe. Then the union answered the question just the way they would have to of any potential person who'd want to hire a union plumber. As far as the endorsement, we all know that unions pretty much always endorse a candidate in every election, and they publicly announce it and they make campaign donations. VictorC (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are LOTS of things that are cited in reliable sources that we shouldnt include either because they are off topic or because the are WP:SYN. In this case it is completely obvious that the intent of including the Union's endorsement is to encourage the reader to make some conclusion not made by the source, which is the underlying admonishion for WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
-editconflict- Come to think of it, the way the section on Plumbing Career does kind of read that way. I'll admit that. But in context, it's pretty commonly known that unions regularly endorse candidates, additionally unions are pretty much always behind the Democratic candidate. So. You have a good point. But when in context? VictorC (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Post article stresses the union's endorsement of Obama. Seems that it is proper then to retain the statement. Thus, not WP:OR one whit. Nor WP:SYN. nor WP:ALPHABET Collect (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless the Wash Post article makes the analysis that the Union released Mr. W's status BECASUE they had endorsed Obama (and the Wahs Post article doesnt) it does not belong in this article about JtP. -- The Red Pen of Doom01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Pretty much all unions endorse the Democrat. To the point which sourcing it is tantamount to being superfluous. Even if it were left out, people would just assume union bias. VictorC (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you've got that wrong. The WaPo says the union endorsed Obama, but doesn't make the analysis; therefore, you'd be quite right to protest any attempt for our article to make the analysis itself. That would be SYNTH. But merely stating the fact that the union did make this endorsement is not SYNTH, because that's exactly what the WaPo article says. The WaPo gives both facts, and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions, so it's OK for WP to do exactly the same thing, sourcing it to the WaPo. It's not as if the conclusion the reader might draw is unreasonable; it's almost certainly the truth, but it's not for us to say so. -- Zsero (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The only reason to mention that the Union had endorsed Obama - neither of which is the topic of this article mind you - would be because the Union had either illegally released the fact that Mr. W had not completed his certification because they supported Obama or that somehow the Union had prevented Mr. W from completting his apprentishship because the Union supported Obama. Now, until you have a source that directly makes either of those claims, the fact that the Union has endorsed Obama is completely off topic for this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but without the same justification. Leave the endorsement out. Agreed, (for the reasons made clear already). I don't have anything against leaving it, but frankly don't see the point. It just clutters up the article and confuses the issue. VictorC (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Look, it's in the source. The same source that we rely on for the union having said this in the first place. In the same sentence, even! This is not SYNTH. The WaPo think it was relevant, and that should be good enough. What conclusions will people draw? Probably the ones the WaPo intended them to. -- Zsero (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That essay is about what incidents are notable and worth including in an encylopaedia. This discussion is about an incident that we are including, and about a detail of that incident that our source thought relevant to include. So I don't see what the essay has to do with it. Of course we don't have to include every detail, but there's no reason why we shouldn't, and I think we should, because it is relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Our source is a newspaper and a newspaper is not an encyclopedia. You have yet to say anything why this should be included other than "it exists". So does mount everest, but we're not including that. What specifically does that WP:INFOpiece of information give that the reader should know about Joe the Plumber? -- The Red Pen of Doom00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You can say exactly the same about the entire union statement. It all comes from the same newspaper story - in fact from the same sentence. Why is one part of the sentence so important that it must go into the article, and another part so irrelevant that you will fight tooth and nail to keep it out? The WaPo does the SYNTH of putting them together, without drawing any explicit conclusions; we should do the same. BTW, WP:INFO doesn't go where you seem to think it does. -- Zsero (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The completion of official requirements to become a "plumber" are clearly related to someone called, if you look at the title of the article, "Joe the Plumber". Re: INFO - oops the relevant quote was: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from WP:NOT (And if I were to discuss contributor motives and not content, I would ask why you are fighting tooth and nail to keep such an insignificant phrase in the article, but I am not - I am asking to justify the inclusion by our guidelines.)-- The Red Pen of Doom12:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are no "official requirements" to become a plumber. Anyone who plumbs for a living is a plumber, just as anyone who arranges flowers for a living is a flower arranger and anyone who writes for a living is an writer. Various governments may impose bureaucratic restrictions on who may practise plumbing, or flower arranging, or writing in their jurisdiction, but they can't control who is a plumber or a flower arranger or a writer. (Thank God, in the USA no government can impose licensing on writers; plumbers and flower arrangers are less lucky.)
As for the current discussion, the source we have for the fact that the union made this statement mentions that it endorsed Obama; that should be enough to include it. Either that bit goes in, or the whole sentence should go out.
The relevance is obvious: you cannot honestly believe that the union would have made this statement had JtP supported Obama. Why would it? -- Zsero (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, your only reason for including it is that "it is in the source article". But its link to THIS article you are basing solely on your suppositions of why the source article included it. Not a valid reason. -- The Red Pen of Doom21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to suppose anything. You're the one who's "supposing" things in order to keep it out. Why is this part of the source less significant than the rest? And again, do you really think that had JtP supported Obama, or had the union supported McCain, the union would still have made this statement? Do unions generally make statements sua sponte, about plumbers who are in the news? -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It is "less" significant for this article because it is in no way related to the article topic: Joe the Plumber. Or if it is, there has been no identificaion of why the union's polical endorsement would be related to the fact other than the insinuation that the union's endorsement of Obama is somehow related to either Mr. W. not completing his plumbing requirements (absurd) or that the release of the incomplete status was politically motivated - which is unsourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed (much to my surprise given past debates). If you can find a reliable source that makes the connection that you'd like, then I'm open to seeing it. Otherwise, I see it as an attempt to manufacture innuendo.Mattnad (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The reliable source that makes the connection is the same source that we are using for the statement itself. How many times do I have to say this? Both facts are in the same sentence. Obviously the WaPo reporter who wrote the article, who is very unlikely to be a McCain supporter, and the editor and fact checker and all that other good stuff that makes the WaPo a RS, all thought that the connection was a valid one to make. The most natural thing is for our article to do the same. -- Zsero (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you that just because it is in a news paper article it does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article? The unions did not endorse Obama because of JtP, Mr. W. was not denied his plumbing credentials because the union endorsed Obama and even the source does not state that the union released the information about Mr. W's plumbing status because they had endorsed Obama. Your only reason for including it in this article is your claim that "Do unions generally make statements sua sponte, about plumbers who are in the news?" and if that is the only reason, it is clearly an analysis that is not made by the current source. Find a source that makes a direct analysis or the statement goes. You are stacking "facts" together in a manner that promotes the reader to make certain deductions that is not explicite in the source. -- The Red Pen of Doom03:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So we should "pick and choose" from newspaper articles instead of accurately stating what is in them? That would be an "interesting" addition to WP for sure! The Washington Post definitely felt the fact was relevant -- have you experience as a newspaper editor at least? Collect (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I AM saying that we "pick and choose" what is ON TOPIC FOR A PARTICULAR ARTICLE. There are many many pieces of fact and information even in that particular WaPo article that we are not including in the article on JtP and if you look, there are tons and tons of facts from the other sources that we are not including in this article. The WaPo felt that the particular fact was on topic for A NEWSPAPER article which, WP:NOT#NEWS we have been over.-- The Red Pen of Doom17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You assert a need for consensus BEFORE you will remove the "irrelevant" template. Alas for you, it appears from here that you are the only one asseting that the endorsement FOUND IN THE CITE is "irrelevant." Further you assert that we should "pick and choose" what we include from a cite, which is directly contrary to WP policy. " You do not get to pick and choose what you personally feel is notable " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard/Archive_2 "You can not pick and choose within the source and say the positive comments are reliable, but the negative ones are not"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Bias.2C_emotional_arguments_and_reliable_sources , and another 2K or so where the dicta are the same. If you use a source, you accept it for facts you like and for facts you do not like. Absent anyone else actually joining in on your "pick and choose" claim, I asseet you do not have consensus on your side here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
One) You dont get to _remove_ a tag until there is consensus that the issue is settled.
Two) I have in no way ever stated that some facts within a source are unreliable and others are reliable. I have stated that some are off topic and not rellavant for _this article_. When I have asked for you to demonstrate why this particular fact is relevant, the only answer that has been provided is "that the unions endorsement is in the source". I ask, and what does the unions endorsment of one candidate have to do with whether or not Mr. W has recieved his license from the union? To which the answer has been "Well its obvious that they released the information because they endorsed Obama." To which I have stated, "however obvious it may be to you, that is not what is stated in the source and to suggest that within our article without a source making that analysis is Original Research." -- The Red Pen of Doom23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
When the source makes it clear that the source considers the two facts are connected, it is not up to us to "pick and choose". As there was NO reason for the tag, and consensus had previously been reached, adding the tag required you to get a consensus for it. That is how consensus works. Get consensus for the tag, and then add the tag. By the way, people who keep adding tags without seeking a consensus tend to get 3RR warnings pretty fast. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What specifically is the "connecting fact" that the source makes between the Unions endorsement and Mr. W. not having completed the requirements? -- The Red Pen of Doom04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
When a soucre in a SINGLE SENTENCE makes a connection, it is reasonable for us to state that the source considered the facts to be relevant to each other. Otherwise we would be free to cite parts of sentences, and deny the other halves of sentences. This is made quite clear supra. Tearing sentences apart because you think they do not fit waht you wish to claim is not kosher by a long shot. Collect (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
DIRECT QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, 'which had endorsed Obama,' stated that Wurzelbacher has not yet completed the apprentice program he began in 2003." How can you read it and say that the endorsement is not mentioned? Collect (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the source, thank you. Now as you read the source, please tell me what the explicict connection of the union endorsement to the fact that Mr. W. has not completed his union training program? Or as you (or Zsero?) has stated, the fact that the union has made public Mr. W's incomplete training status? There is no explicit connection at all, thus we approach WP:SYN as the material in our article is likely to make readers suspect a connection which is not explicit in the source. -- The Red Pen of Doom19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for Comment
To make this easier, here is the relevant quote from the source cited: "'Joe the Plumber really isn't a plumber,' said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. " Note that this is a simple declarative sentence. One ought not cite PART of a sentence and elide the rest per WP rules. This is the key sentence in the article, identifying the spokesman, the organization, the endorsement by the organization, and the salient issue. Amazing -- all in one sentence, from which part is desired to "untimely ripped."
The Politics request claims " it leads readers to draw conclusions not explicit in the source material" which is, as shown above, a clearly errant claim as not only is the statement "explicit" in the source material, it is in precisely one key sentence in that source material! Collect (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous facts in that single sentance, and none of the "facts" or any analysis actually links the Union endorsement to anything about "Joe the Plumber" - the topic of this article, hence including the statement about the Union endorsement is WP:SYN - urging the reader to make a connection/analysis/conclusion not explicit in the original source. -- The Red Pen of Doom13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
IOW, you would claim it is SYN to quote an intact sentence from a newspaper article? OTOH, I consider an intact sentence to be -- an intact sentence! The statement is about as explicit as is possible to be. Collect (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed a SYN issue. The Washington Post article that contains the quote about Joe not being a plumber does not mention the union's support for Obama (which is a statement that needs to be cited by the way). To put them together in one sentence is a synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? It's right there, quoted in full right above for your convenience. Whom are you trying to fool? -- Zsero (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, and appologize. I did not see that the Post article had two pages. I only looked at the second page. You are absolutely correct... it is right there in the source... and thus is NOT a WP:SYN issue. Sorry. (I will say the same at WT:NOR) Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone seems not to accept what appears to be the consensus and has removed the endorsement yet again. Please give a reason here for ignoring what appears to be consensus that it is all found in a single sentence in the cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I said nothing about voting anywhere. I said I think claiming some sort of consensus exists for one position when half of the voices speaking are voicing a different opinion is a rather facetious statement. -- The Red Pen of Doom17:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And you still have not shown at all how the Union's endorsment has to do with their releasing the fact that Mr. W has not yet completed their program. -- The Red Pen of Doom15:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Introduction
The introduction currently has the following:
Wurzelbacher was recorded questioning Democratic candidate Barack Obama about his small business tax policy during a campaign stop in Ohio.
I don't think that is entirely accurate or true to the events. I would propose:
Wurzelbacher was introduced in a campaign ad wherein Democratic candidate Barack Obama was explaining his small business tax policy during a campaign stop in Ohio.
The original way raises question as to who/why the individual is important. The original way also implies that his introduction was perceived as critical initially, but he was introduced as part of democratic ad. The second way indicates that he was introduced by the Democratic Party. I think this is a key part to the Joe the Plumber story.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. He was featured in Republican ads, not Democratic. He was the one who questioned Obama during Obama's campaign stop which was (I believe) while the then candidate walked through a residential street shaking hands and answering questions, which happened to be the street on which Joe (the plumber) lived. Joe was only one of the residents there who asked Obama questions. McCain's campaign decided to use the interaction as a major part of their platform and took it to the end of the election, eventualy ending up in making Joe an actual member of the McCain campaign. VictorC (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. Obama was campaigning in a neighborhood where Joe was playing football with his son in his front yard. Obama was taped talking with the people in the neighborhood, of whom Joe was one. The conversation was on tv news long before any ads were made about it. Had Obama not been literally at Joe's front yard, nothing would have occurred. Obama definitely never used the footage in an ad. And most people who saw the footage saw it on news programs - the GOP did not use the full interview for ads as it ran too long. And the owner of the copyright, IIRC, is Fox News. Collect (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
i watch the news everyday and the first i heard of s. joe was during the debate. i looked around and cant find anything about him before the night of the debate. i would dare say that most people were not aware of him until mccain brought him up in the debate. i did find one mention of obama questioning "a" plumber prior to the debate, but it didnt mention his name. and yes, jim, it was fox. fair and balanced, as they make sure to tell us. i dont know of any other news outlet that has to tell us to trust them. do you? i never hear "nbc news, we arent pushing any agenda". or "pbs, everything we say is true".
Brendan19 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Fox broadcast the campaign interview the day it happened. As for Godwin -- he now works for WP unless he also got laid off. Collect (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, he be the mouthpiece, but his law still stands. Oh, that was friggin' bad. 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquote
As this one has been removed and readded a couple of times, I think it should be mentioned here. The page in question is a stub with an inherent POV, and according to WP:BLP#External_links, external links "must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles". Thus, I have removed the link. CenariumTalk02:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A quote is not an external link per se. Do you think Joe was misquoted? If not, I'm not sure I agree with your objection. Mattnad (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
While it is still debated if sister links are considered external links and so in particular if the relevant guideline applies to them, in this case, it's a stub and as I said, there's an obvious inherent lack of NPOV in it, and BLP being a policy, it overrides WP:SISTER. I add that this guideline reads "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to high-quality pages on sister projects where useful", which is, however, disputed. CenariumTalk14:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That's great. I didn't know we could just do that. So we can just call sister links external links now when we want to based on our own "quality" assessment. Cool. Now that you've established that, why's the quote POV? Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not about quality assessment, it's about representing a person fairly, without bias, which should also be the case for external links per BLP. The quotes in itself are not POV, but they clearly lack context making them inherently biased. The second one is doubtful, too. If the stub can be expanded to a more complete list, it may be a better representation of the person's quotes and comply with NPOV and BLP. Since there is no global consensus that sister links should be considered external links, it's up to a local consensus to decide for this case. CenariumTalk17:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough assessment IF there are other notable quotes from the individual that are missing. if the only significant quotes are those that present the speaker in a certain light, then they cannot be considered POV. -- The Red Pen of Doom17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you need to take the Stephen Colbert approach. He has two articles - one for himself, and one for his TV character. So you could have an article called Joe W-whatever, which is a bio; and an article called Joe the Plumber (character) which is about the renaissance man he plays on TV. Although the guidelines are a little murky. There is an article about Daniel Lawrence Whitney but it's lumped in with his character, Larry the Cable Guy. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Y'know Bugs, that's a perfect solution. One on good ole Joe and one on the meme and its usage and significance and how it lead to the charges of socialism when all Obama was stating was our adherence to a progressive income tax since 1913. (OK, everything after "socialism" is editorial. Seriously though, I have my dad's tax return frpm 1947, and yes, the tax was progressive with a goal of "spreading the wealth". (OK, everything after 1947 looks like editorialising, but it isn't if you read any economics or poli-sci text books). Are we having fun yet? ;) •Jim62sch•dissera!23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Joe the person is relevant primarily because of the "research" done on him by campaign staffers, including, apparently, officials in Ohio. That "research" and the way it was carried out are relevant to how the campaigns handled him. Other personal matters, IMHO, don't really belong here at all. Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment Looking at the large amount of news articles from mainstream media, its seems clear that the information is mostly about the person Joe Wurzelbacher and not the metaphor. From meeting Obama in person, to going on the campaign trail for John McCain, Wurzelbacher has been the subject of attention, not the metaphor. It was Wurzelbacher the person whose records were looked up by Helen Jones-Kelley. It is Wurzelbacher the person who has formed the watchdog group called Secure Our Dream. The metaphor does not have a book on the way, the person does. For these reasons, each of which has recieved substantial media attention, the article should be about Wurzelbacher the person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that no one here was either a PoliSci or History major. The person is largely irrelevant and will continue to be smeared as smearing him isquite easy. The concept, while largely unsuccessful, is the key issue. Do what you want, but expect and accept the worst. •Jim62sch•dissera!20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The meme is notable, since the McCain campaign applied it to numerous people. The individual is less notable, but deserves mention in the Joe the Plumber article, just as Rose Will Monroe gets a brief mention in the Rosie the Riveter article. Rose played Rosie the Riveter in a film promoting war bonds, and tried unsuccessfully to promote that moment of fame into a show biz career. In reality there were tens of thousands of "Rosie the Riveters" just as the McCain campaign said many thousands of people were "Joe the Plumber" whatever their name and line of work. Edison (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the title should be kept, the article should include all of the events he is notable for including; 1) questioning Obama 2) campaigning for McCain/Palin, 3) the Helen Jones-Kelley record search, 4) the watchdog group Secure Our Concern. Each of these events is notable and each has recieved substantial media coverage from reliable sources. While the name of the article can be kept, the subject matter should include the person when and where there are mutltiple reliable sources, as is the case for each of these four events listed above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd want to force a dichotomy. Joe W. and Joe the Plumber are meshed together. You need to understand both and it's easy for the article to manage that (and it does). Mattnad (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
"force a dichotomy"? Uh, no. If this article were turned in as a term paper, I'd give it an F for missing the point. Joe W should be discussed briefly at the beginning, and then the concept and its use or misuse should be the key point. Whatever. •Jim62sch•dissera!11:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I trust you feel the scandal unfolding about the Obama campaign having direct contact with Jones-Kelly be email etc. ought to remain, as it has become quite noteworthy by itself, and is not biographical on SJW in nature, but directly related to JtP and the political campaign? Collect (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we need to cover this item - not sure where it will head, but I do suggest we trim it down a bit. I don't think we need to have blow by blow developments as it now reads - see WP:Weight. Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that we need to cover this item, with respect to both Weight and BLP, because it alone has recieved substantial media coverage. Considering all of the articles written on this topic, from reliable sources, some mention is required in the article. Such media coverage can not be ignored. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Joe Wurzelbacher, which is how it should be and how it should remain. For articles about average Americans, you can refer to Average Joe or Joe Six-pack. Wurzelbacher himself is a notable person, originally for only one event but now for multiple events, and he is commonly known as Joe the Plumber. The idea that Joe the Plumber is a "concept" or "metaphor" is extremely thin at the moment with essentially no backing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And my guess is that you somehow think that has any relevance. It doesn't. Wikipedia is not your personal term paper; we contribute the conclusions of reliable sources, not our own. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Joe the person is relevant - because he is a real person who has made and continues to make choices to be in the public eye as a way to express and defend his political agenda. He is not an actor. He is not a myth. He (the person) has been used by the McCain campaign, and he (the person) has used himself to promote himself and his agenda. Kingturtle (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was a Poli Sci major ;)
Also, just to clarify, the name of this article Joe the Plummer...this article title is not because the article is meant to explore the meme or snowcone, but because it is Wikipedia policy to go with the more commonly used term. Few know Joe's last name, but many know who you're talking about when you say Joe the Plummer. That's why the article André the Giant isn't called André Roussimoff. Kingturtle (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Kingturtle is wise: when he stated "used" he was quite correct. Yes, he is a real person, and he is getting raked over the coals. Yes he was used by the McCainaanites. No he does not understand the tax code, just as the McCainaanites conflate a progesssive tax with socialism.
Amwestover, yes, it does make a difference: most Americans have a far better understanding of American Idol than they do of PoliSci. As for this being a term paper, it never could be -- it's too poorly written. •Jim62sch•dissera!19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant, Jim. Saying that you're a PoliSci major or professor or whatever isn't going to win you any arguments here. It's not a trump card for politically-oriented articles. My personal qualifications or the personal qualifications of any other editor on Wikipedia do not matter. The quality of the opinions and contributions is what matters, not who gives those opinions or makes those contributions. Additionally, we do not express our own research for a number of reasons. You may only express the conclusions of reliable sources. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You've missed the point -- you're resisting the PoliSci argument out of either unwillingness or lack of comprehension of just how it's a PoliSci issue. As for the rest, I think I'm pretty well up on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc., etc., etc., and yes, there have been a number of external articles covering the issue. But, I'll wait until after the silliness dies down before I bother with trying to cast this article in its proper light. •Jim62sch•dissera!17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You continue to miss the point. I'm not resisting the "PoliSci argument" because it's not an argument. For some reason you believe that commenting on arguments that you disagree with by questioning the editor's PoliSci knowledge is a.) constructive and b.) gives you intellectual authority. Here's a reality check: a.) it's the exact opposite of constructive, especially because you don't bother to actually include anything else in the response, and b.) I could be a janitor who scrubs shit off of toilet seats all day, and my opinions would have just as much credence as yours on Wikipedia. In fact, for all we know you're a janitor who scrubs shit off of toilet seats all day, so bringing up your own personal credentials and expecting them to have any sway is futile.
And while you were listing off your Wikipedia alphabet you unsurprisingly forgot WP:CONSENSUS. You should give it a read since unilaterally changing the entire subject of the article will almost certainly result in a rollback, no matter what you singularly believe is the "proper light". --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wanna make a bet how quickly your unilateral edit changing the entire subject matter of the article will be completely reverted? 1 hour? 30 minutes? What's your Paypal account? How 'bout you save your time and just turn in your term paper to your professor instead of pushing it on Wikipedia cuz we don't care. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I remember a news item that a Republican donor paid the lien for him. Anyone want to add that to the article? I can try to find a citation. VictorC (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That has to be one of the most churlish comments I have heard in a long time. You really hate this guy, don't you? -- Zsero (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Or, if Sam J did service for it, then Sam would have taxable income even if he does see the cash. Why is this an important issue? Well lots of lefty libs are now touting "barter" as a non-market alternative because they are such losers who can't find jobs. Well just because you don't get cash in exchange for service does not remove the accrual of taxable income. Barter is just as taxable as receiving cash for service. Promoter of barter are encouraging tax evasion if they claim that they are bypassing the market world. LaidOff (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct, I suppose, but "lefty libs"? As opposed to? 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a citation. From the Washington wire of the Wall Street Journal website. It links to here www.savejoetheplumber.net! Ironically amusing or tragic depending on your perspective (or both). The drive to pay the tax lien has ended but a new drive has started there to raise $500 to pay the plumber's licensing costs. VictorC (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Joe's not a man of many resources if he needs help scraping together $500 for a license. So getting back to the origins of this article - this is the same guy who plans to buy a business he thought might net more than $250K. Not very likely. Meme v. Man - one more reason we should keep both in the article. Mattnad (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, Collect. Please refrain from interfering with discussions. If there is something you object to, simply say so instead making obscure, blanket references. We are simply discussing a current topic in a recent report having to do with the subject of this Wikipedia page. Please let us know what you have to contribute to the discussion, instead. All ideas should be welcome here, I am certain that freedom of expression on the talk page is to be encouraged rather than quelled. So, please make your point Collect, and please to make it clearly and succinctly. VictorC (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I had not thought that posting my views on improving the article was "interfering." As for lectures, I have now read more than 400 pages on WP policies and guidelines, and suggest you do the same. Collect (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In any case, let's think about adding to the section mentioning the lien (Opinions on taxation) that the lien has been paid through a fund raiser website initiated by Portland radio station 1190 KEX’s afternoon news radio hosts Mark Mason and Dave Anderson, not only raising the $1,200 Joe the Plumber needed to pay his taxes, but also the $500 he’ll need to get his plumber’s license, citing the October 20 WSJ wire article and the web address (www.savejoetheplumber.net without linking). VictorC (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone want to add anything before I start updating the section on the lien, how it got paid, etcetera? Or does anyone want to beat me to it? All the refs are right above this sentence. Additionally, you should add this reference to the Lucas County Court docket which dates the original lien and dates the release of the lien as 06DEC2008 in lieu of any news item saying he paid the lien. If you click on it you can see it's an image of the actual court record showing the lien and release. VictorC (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
neutrality disputed?
"Plumber" in the lede is now marked as "neutrality disputed" without the editor involved posting it here. Consider it posted as yet another step in the 40,000 word essay on whether a person who plumbs is a plumber.Collect (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
We reap what we sow.
Now that it's getting silly, how about you considering a way out. How about "Plumber's Apprentice" - it's a real occupation and it's what Joe is. I and others have proposed this in the past. I don't recall any pronouncement by you on this compromise. Care to respond? Mattnad (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Infobox should be "plumber" and in lede. If you want a sentence under plumbing career section calling him an "apprentice" fine. OK? Collect (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My family had newspapermen, and the word "lede" is spelled that way to avoid confusion with the word "lead" which refers to line spacing. And you have iterated your points, such as they are, quite sufficiently for everyone to be aware of them. Collect (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh? As my family owned newspapers, and a cousin was a VP of the NY Times, I would suggest my c.v. is sufficient for the statements I made. As for "personal attacks" I do not recall making such. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that "plumber" needs a source in the infobox when that is not done on any other BLPs? I would be glad to furnish such a source if that is all you concerned about. Collect (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The ref you provided does not specifically cover the plumber debate about unlicenced plumber. Here are a few references that cover the unlicensed plumber specifically.[5][6][7][8]QuackGuru03:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The NYTimes said he was a plumber. Sufficient. As for the edit war you want. and posting a thousand cites does not change the result from WP:BLP/N . Collect (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying the NY Times article does not meet RS? That it does not say he is an "Ohio plumber"? Or are you just upset that WP:BLP/N does not back your position which you have iterated ad infinitum? Collect (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious that we'll be able to find some reliable sources that simply call him a plumber, and others that also note that he's unlicensed. The discussion here should be about how much weight the lack of a license deserves in the infobox and lede. --Onorem♠Dil03:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Cite provided from NY Times calling him an "Ohio plumber." That and the fact that every single neutral editor on WP:BLP/N said "plumber" was correct. Even hearing iterations from the usual editors here (I voiced no long opinion there at all) Collect (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reread it too. Everything in the NY Times citation that Collect refers to seems to be based on Joe's testimony. We know that just because the NY Times regurgitates Joe's presentation of himself isn't enough for a RS. That's tantamount to self-promotion. Also, more neutral sources don't depend on Joe's testimony. Certainly no one expects Joe to come out and independently and impartially proclaim that he has been working on an apprenticeship since 2003 and has no independent plumbing license. Only an independent, neutral source is likely to do so. Collect, it seems we have to reject the citation on that basis, even though it is definitely from the honorable NY Times. VictorC (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Think about it. Perhaps the reason why there is no RS to back up the claim is because claiming to be a plumber is hardly a prestigious or controversial career choice. It is a skilled labour job, typically learned on the job. And I would hardly would consider it to be self-promotion since he has stated in the past that he is "Just a plumber from Ohio." Doesn't sound much like self-promotion to me. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) OK. Well in case anyone's paying attention, let's reject Collect's citation from the NY Times. I have three possible reasons for this: 1) There are more recent citations; 2) The reason we are using the citation is based on Joe's statements - not an impartial source - and; 3) The statements are among the quotes from Joe that he is "getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” that he "told Mr. Obama he has been a plumber for 15 years," the first of which has been debunked as not too reliable, the second of which Collect is basing his RS on. So, I propose that this source is no longer reliable: 1) it's outdated; 2) it's not based on an impartial source; 3) the source has been shown to have dubious reliability. If we can agree to drop this specific NY Times citation, let's agree on using a different source. Let's find one that's more up to date; uses a more impartial source (than the individual himself); and shows itself to be less dubious. VictorC (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Rejecting a RS cite because you do not like it? Amazing! NO cite has denied his statement that he has plumbed for 15 years. None. I would like to see you find a cite for the claim that this is a lie or wrong. Collect (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect. Please reread my entry. Please respond in a civil manner. Thanks. I admire your zealousness. Please try to apply that spirit to addressing the three points in my entry. VictorC (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - We all know that there are different sources that differ oh whether Joe's a plumber, or not.... I don't think we'll satisfy the separate parties here. We need an alternative to the fruitless back and forth. Suggestions? Mattnad (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Technical point: in English, someone who plumbs is more likely to be a brickie or a steel erector setting work vertically, as in "plumb, line and level". Joe, on his own testimony, has been a plumber for 15 years, but we would not say that he has "plumbed" for that period. Now, as to the debated description, there's a parallel where "architect" is a protected term, but unqualified people doing similar work can legally describe themselves as "architectural designers" or the like. Thus, in the infobox Joe's occupation could be given as "plumbing", which is incontrovertible, and carries no implication as to whether he is qualified or not. Similarly, the lead (or lede for newsmen) could accurately and informatively read "Joe the Plumber is a sobriquet referring to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an unlicensed plumber who was used as an example of an aspiring middle classAmerican..." Must say that "sobriquet" is so uncommon here that I had to click on the link, and it just seems to be a synonym for nickname – it would probably be a good idea to merge the two articles unless someone shows and defines a clear distinction, and what's wrong with nickname in this article? Well, that's about plumbed the depths of this question, and hope you won't think I'm swinging the lead if I leave you to it. . . dave souza, talk09:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You know, jumping into the middle of this and adding cavalier remarks without having fully read all the entries must be quite hilarious for you both. However, it might not add to the discussion. Instead it just takes us a little further away from reaching a conclusion. For example, Dave souza, you reintroduce the use of the word "unlicensed," which we've dropped - read the previous entries for why and what is objectionable about it. I won't be a parrot for you, and all the arguments are still on the page. I'm glad you seem to be enjoying yourselves, and that you, Mattnad think this is a game. Please play your game elsewhere or instead, please, try to make an earnest contribution to the discussion if you find it frustrating that it's taking a while to reach a conclusion. Being obtuse and making wry remarks must be fun, I agree. Please think about making your next entries in a more informed and serious manner, Mattnad and Dave souza. It's just going to help us reach a conclusion sooner, rather than later. Now that I've filled up a good chunk of this section with a bunch of stuff having nothing to do with what we're discussing, I'll shut up. VictorC (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been gone for a while, but to come back and see the current state makes little sense. The primary argument against is based on the fact that he does not have a plumbers license. But a plumber is not a professional job in the sense that most people think about what is a professional position. For example, a MD or lawyer or CPA is considered a professional position. You cannot declare yourself one of these without passing various tests or boards, and generally cannot even apply to take the boards without completion of a university degree from an accredited university. Compare this to my job of a statistician where a degree in statistics is not a requirement, and indeed is not even a professional job, it is a white-collar job. It is clear that this whole issue here is a political issue. His status as a plumber versus a licensed plumber is being used purely for a political purposes, yet the fact is that he has worked as a plumber for the past several years in the capacity of a blue-collar worker. A plumber is a blue-collar worker, not a professional employee, so I think we should stop trying to treat it like it a professional position. Arzel (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. I see why you think so, though. You've made your point pretty clearly. The primary argument has moved beyond whether he has a license or not. We are disputing something else now. Evidently it's not the way you perceive it. In the USA due to sanitary issues and other factors plumbing is a regulated profession. They work on gas lines, potable water lines, and sewage lines, each of which encompass specific safety and health issues. They work on furnaces, which entails many safety issues (houses have burned down due to unsafe furnace designs - and plumbers inspect furnaces for safe operation - for example - even an otherwise safe furnace may produce potentially lethal amounts of carbon monoxide in a living space and plumbers need to be able to test for that - for example). That's why licensing for plumbers exists. That's why it's a potential hazard to employ an unlicensed plumber and in many cases it's illegal for both the person doing the work and the person doing the hiring. Licensing means passing tests and logging in years of experience. It means familiarization with the plumbing codes that are regulated by municipalities and other government institutions. The codes aren't just randomly put together but have to do with safety and health of the population. Please take the time to review the several threads that we have all been working on, rather expect someone to laboriously repeat what is still up on this page. Thanks so much for taking an interest here. Welcome back. VictorC (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
How about checking for CO? How about finding a cracked firebox in a water heater, furnace, or pool heater? How about pressure testing a gas or water delivery system? How many PSI and for how long does a residential system need to be tested to be safe? What about a flue and exhaust system? How many CFM in an exhaust flue does an active system need for the BTUs that a unit is rated for? What type of furnaces are prone to bursting into flames and are under a national recall? How many inches of water column do most gas appliances require and how is it adjusted? How do you test for a faulty thermocouple in an appliance? Collect, you bring up the topic of leak testing and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Additionally I would like to formally request that you read the entries that you are replying to. Nothing in anyone's post mentions anything about testing for gas leaks, yet you provide a linkk for a combustible gas tester on the Home Depot website. That's a little inconsiderate, and if someone takes the time and trouble to post an entry and you wish to reply, I think it's fair to ask that you at least read what you are replying to. VictorC (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
He was "working" as a plumber and needed $500 to get a licence? This is so funny it hurts. Do us a favour, stop defending him. 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In Ohio plumbers must take a test and complete an apprenticeship. Errors untrained plumbers might make can cause sewage to back up into drinking water lines if antisiphon provision are not made, and can cause the obvious problems of water leakage, but can allow sewer gas to excape into a dwelling if the upvents are not properly designed and installed. It is an unconvincing bit of original research to tell us how easy plumbing is and how licensure should not be required. The fact is, it is required, before a handyman or helper can call himself a plumber for business purposes. Helping a plumber does not qualify one to call himself a plumber in a jurisdiction where a license is required, regardless of how simple a Wikipedia editor feels the trade is. Does he have a license number? Can he sign off on building permits? Or is he only allowed to work under the supervision of a licensed plumber? Edison (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It is hard to understand why this is such a disputed issue. Why not look at the simple facts. He works for a plumbing company where there are apparently 3 people. His employeer has a plumbing license under which he worked. There is no evidence that the company broke any laws regarding their work. His employeer hired him to do the work of a plumber, ergo he was a plumber. This whole issue comes down to semantics of whether or not he should be called a plumber because he didn't have a plumber's license, or even more so that people that don't like him don't want him to be called a plumber. I say we get over it. Obama won, the election is over, call him the plumber he was because that is what he was doing and lets get past this pointless bickering. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's simple. I don't think it helps to characterize our discussion as if we are bickering though. If it's so pointless, and if he's only a plumber's apprentice, why would you have an objection to calling him that instead? He hasn't yet attained the title of a master plumber. Simple as that. If he had, he would have passed the licensing exam and this would not even be a point of contention. VictorC (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
" His employeer hired him to do the work of a plumber ummm I am betting that the employer didn't hire him as a "plumber" , and that Joe isn't getting paid the rate of a plumber and that clients arent getting billed at a plumbers rate .. or if they are they are REALLY pissed. -- The Red Pen of Doom02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
No more valid than your assertions that he is a plumber (but more valid than Arzel's assertion "But a plumber is not a professional job in the sense that most people think about what is a professional position. For example, a MD or lawyer or CPA is considered a professional position. You cannot declare yourself one of these without passing various tests or boards". since we have multiple sources that identify that people DO need prof. credentials to do plumbing in OH as well as other states and communities) I have previously asked if there are any sources that show what Mr. W's current job title is, but aparently there arent any. -- The Red Pen of Doom03:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Brendan19, you are officially now my hero, lol. I wish I could give you a booby prize or something. Your citation is more recent than Collect's NY Times citation by one day (Oct 17), and gets to the point that we've been discussing here - directly addressing and making the distinction between plumber and plumber's assistant. Thanks for this contribution. You've gotten us closer to reaching a solution to this long quandary .VictorC (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Good gawd, are we still at this? I've had it. A plumber is what he is, and I will not stand for any more of this petty yammering. I don't give a damn what the law in Ohio might say; lawmakers can no more turn a plumber into a non-plumber than they can turn a dog into a cat. All they can do is forbid a plumber from plying his trade, but he remains a plumber for all that. As soon as the article is unprotected I intend to change it back to "plumber", with no qualifiers, and I find it difficult to think of anything that might dissuade me from that intention. And I will change it back as often as I need to, because I have become convinced that those arguing against this are not interested in the truth, they're just engaged in a petty bad-faith campaign. -- Zsero (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When a handful of editors keep arguing so vigorously and tendentiously in support of a position for which no good-faith argument can be made, it's time to call a spade a spade and ignore them. -- Zsero (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thumb|right|250px|National Post Cover, 2007:::Collect, you're too much. You comment really undermines your credibility. A tabloid simply refers to the size of the printed page (vs. broadsheet). Oh, by the way, the Wipedia article classifies the NP as "Broadsheet." The National Post has editors, circulation, readers, reporters, and the same elements any other reliable source. If you read the linked article, they cite their sources, which happen to be US Broadsheet papers and news outlets. Now.... this is called an Ad Hominem attack. You're attacking the source based on a spurious claim, rather than the content itself. Take a look at their website: it's basically the news (and by the way, they tend to be right wing in case you were wondering).Mattnad (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You're quoting the dictionary definition of the term "tabloid", but the term has come to signify low-quality journalism, which is why rags like the National Enquirer are not considered reliable sources unless their stories are corroborated by legitimate sources. And while we're discussing dictionary definitions, criticizing a newspaper is not an ad hominem attack, as a newspaper is not a man. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?14:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This "tabloid" is now one in the National Enquirer mold. I use the term not to refer to "compact size" but to its actual outlook. And I do not care what their politics are one whit -- my background here has been consistently to look for facts, not to value one opinion over another. It has a "downmarket" look, it features lurid and overstated stories (such as headlines that Iran was going to force Jews to wear special badges), the "Canadian Islamic Congress" has singled it out for its "anti-Islamic outlook", and so on. The WP article says "Pyette, a former publisher of the racy tabloid, Toronto Sun, aggressively took the Post downmarket with splashy tabloid-style tone and look." And, as always, anything which smacks of "editorial position" must be clearly identified as such. It is quite defionitely not a competitor to the NY Times. Collect (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
When the Times takes a controversial editorial stance, they get criticized by other media. When the Enquirer does something controversial - well, that's par for the course, and they're simply ridiculed, not taken seriously enough to actually criticize. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And I think we can agree that the NP is not the Enquirer. When the NP takes a controversial position, they get criticized - see the Wikipedia article .... so I'm assuming they are taken seriously enough. As for the Ad homimem, Collect is of course criticizing the writers and editors, and not the physical paper. And note he dismissed the article because of his personal views of the overall editoral bent of the paper. Based on his approach, we could dismiss anything from Fox News, or Mother Jones, because we think they are biased. But we don't.Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the misue of "ad hominem" <g>. The NP is not National any more (half of Canada can not get it) and it remains sensationalist in outlook. I do not care if it is "right" or "left" as that is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I do care whether they have been found reliable on news (alas, not) and reliable in tone (alas, not). Reliable in fact (alas, not.) Collect (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
So far, the RS Noticeboard has agreed that te hNP is reliable source for wikipedia, but if we had to pick only one, then NYT comes out is as more reliable (no argument there). Now Collect, if I were to find a NYT article that calls Joe "an unlicensed plumber" would you accept that definition given your stated preferences here? Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You must be reading a different board than I read. Why not use the Washington Post if you are dead set against a valid NYT cite already in place? WP also calls him a "plumber." Or any of the Ohio newspapers which say that Jones-Kelley investigated a "plumber."? Or just keep the NYT cite <g>. Collect (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's another NYT Article around that same date that calls him an "unlicensed plumber." They made that distinction too. [9]Mattnad (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
When you use "quotation marks" it is supposed to indicate a precise quotation. Or a word not in common usage, etc. Alas for you, "unlicensed plumber" does NOT appear in your cite. Now some would ascribe this to accident on your part. The article you cite is also OLDER than the other articles, and is the one where the Union says he does not have a license. On that you are resting your prolonged argument? -- and a fake quote? Sorry, it does not wash. Collect (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Washington Post 8 Nov. : "Director goes on leave amid probe of Ohio plumber" Singletary on 9 Nov. : " Obama explained in a now infamous encounter with an Ohio plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher" [10] "Jones-Kelley has said the records check on plumber Joe Wurzelbacher was prompted by his public statements that he had an outstanding tax lien." [11] "Jones-Kelley has said the records check on plumber Samuel J. Wurzelbacher was prompted by his public statements that he had an outstanding tax lien." also in [12] and more. Collect (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Your sources The sources that you linked are quoting Jones-Kelley callng him a plumber, they are not calling him a plumber themselves. If you notice, the newspapers are very careful in how they actually describe mr. w.: "northwest Ohio man who became known as "Joe the Plumber"" ; "a northwest Ohio man who became known as "Joe the Plumber"" ; "a man who became known as "Joe the Plumber" during the presidential campaign"-- The Red Pen of Doom19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The WP article does not quote Jones-Kelly, nor does it use "plumber" in quotation marks where it calls him a plumber. Singletary does not quote Jones-Kelly nor does she use quotation marks when calling him a plumber. The other articles do not quote Jones-Kelly and do not use quotation marks when calling him a plumber. Sorry there -- it is the article which calls him a plumber and not Jones-Kelly calling him a plumber. Collect (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
collect, you are only furthering my point... it doesnt look like you are going to agree with us. so what can we do to reconcile? i am fine with saying his occupation is plumbing in the infobox and then mentioning the fact that there is disagreement over whether he is a plumber or plumber's assistant in the text. that leaves it to the reader to decide.
if you continue arguing i must ask you to show me these other people on your side. at present i only hear your voice against many. or we could compromise as i am suggesting.
Brendan19 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have repeatedly said that anything is fine in the corpus as long as it has the best available solid cite and as long as "plumber" is the infobox entry. OK? Collect (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is intended for improving the article, not for snide comments. You are perilously close the the edge. Collect (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect. JtP is a "plumber" in the infobox and the lede. All the nuances on qualifying plumber with unlicensed, helper, assistance, and apprentice, and such should be covered in the plumbing section text. McCain referred to him as a plumber, without any qualifications and went on a "Joe the Plumber" bus tour through Florida, not a "Joe the Plumber's Helper" or Plumber' Assistant tour. Making JtP a major cultural icon/metaphor. The President-Elect of the US referred to him as a plumber. So did the the NYT and many other newspapers and broadcasts. Yes, you can find articles that refer to him with one of the qualifiers, but the vast majority simply call him a plumber. We reflect what the majority viewpoint is per WP:V. Anything else is wrong and is violating WP:NPOV, unless you have the space to present all the differing viewpoints. Bottom line: A plumber is a person who does plumbing work, just as a gardener is a person that does gardening work, pure and simple. The very name of the article includes the unqualified term "Plumber". — Becksguy (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is that there is actually a technical definition of "plumber" which Joe does not meet among people in his profession and in his state. So what we have is a stand-off:
There a some editors who favor broadest use of the term Plumber since that's the activity of Joe's work, the term used for the meme of "Joe the Plumber"
The there are other editors who view Plumber as a profession which has a technically accurate definition, according the NYT Times [13] and other papers who say Joe is unlicensed, or some other term.
A compromise term "Plumbing" has been offered for the Occupation line in the infobox. This is sufficiently broad in my view that it covers the both the activity and the profession.
Your views have been iterated. Argument by sheer iteration is weak. When you are faced with overwhelming consensus on WP:BLP/N your response is to attack others instead of accepting it. Collect (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Try avoiding silly personal stuff. I have agreed three times to compromises on this -- and, for some outre reason, you seem to demur every time. Collect (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of the trouble here is that "Joe the Plumber" is a political invention, a metaphor for hard-working Americans (as characterized by the McCain campaign) and in that sense is notable - whereas Joe W. himself is NOT notable by wikipedia standards. He's just some guy. Maybe unless that record deal comes through. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Although the use of government records improperly would appear relevant even when all the "biographical" material leaves as it raises substantial and real issues about privacy (vide the ACLU letters on the topic). And I really, really doubt any record deal will ensue <g>. Collect (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's ironic he's griping about "privacy" mostly over the revelation of facts that counter his false or misleading public persona. If he wants to sue anyone, he should sue the McCain campaign for using him. In fact, if he stops and thinks (which might be a stretch), he's been turned into a cartoon character - an effort which he himself aided and abetted. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?12:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet another example of ignoring all the previously accepted compromises? Keep adjectives in the section on "plumbing career." Elsewhere, use "plumber." Joe is not a bunch of pipes, is he? Will someone say his occupation is "toilet" or "WC"? We did already have someone say he was a plunger ... Collect (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, you have a habit of seeing consensus and compromise where others don't. Seriously. Anyway, can you just for a few minutes hold off on commenting. I'm looking see where this goes if you don't mind.Mattnad (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was just me. 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Outdent (again) So I'd really like an opinion on Brendan's proposed compromise term, "plumbing" for the infobox. Collect, please resist commenting so others can - we know your position.Mattnad (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Curiously enough, I see no crown on your head as owner of the talk page. I would, moreover, suggest that my short comments do not injure discussion on improving this article one whit, especially since I have now agreed to three separate compromises on one issue, and you have agreed to absolutely none. Joe is not a toilet. Honest. He is not a plunger. Honest. Your "cite" for "unlicensed p;umber" (using quotation marks!) was errant as it did not support your claim. Joe is, of all things, a person with the simple occupation of "plumber." Collect (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, I tire of your obstructionism and pettiness. It's sad really. So here's partial quote from the times article, "As it turns out, Joe the Plumber, as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday’s final presidential debate, may work in the plumbing business, but he is not a licensed plumber." and it goes on from there to explain how he has not met many requirements to be a plumber. Other sources, like the NP which elaborate you say are not RS because they go counter to your position. Fine. So we won't have a compromise on any terms except that which pleases you. You sir, have no shame. Mattnad (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, the problem is in trying to distinguish between the person and the caricature. "Joe the Plumber" is unequivocally a plumber. Joe W. is apparently NOT a licensed plumber. So is the article about the media character, or is it about the guy? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that he works for a licensed plumbing contractor. As he would only need a separate license if he were working independently, the whole issue of "license" may well be joyfully irrelevant. If he were breaking the law, I am sure Jones-Kelly would have had him arrested. Personally I think the entire bio stuff should be deleted, but that did not get consensus. Collect (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If Joe W. is legally considered to be a plumber, then that's what he is. To further complicate matters, I take back what I said. "Joe the Plumber" is not a plumber. He's not anything except a media driven icon. "Joe the Plumber" is merely a metaphor. The McCain ad which had lots of different people saying, "I'm Joe the Plumber", demonstrates that. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The NYT cite has been given before. It does NOT use the term "plumber's assistant." It does NOT use the term "illegal plumber." It does not say "unlicensed plumber." It does not say "plumber's helper." Your "National Post" story says ihe is not "registered" whatever that means. As a source, it is lame. It does not call him "unlicensed plumber" or "plunger" at all. It claims he is an "unlicensed employee" whatever that is supposed to mean. TB story stresses" A.W. Newell Corp. has a state plumbing license and one with the city of Toledo." Which is all that is legally required, in case you forgot <g>. All cites from Oct 16 and 17 when the push was on to dig up dirt. [17] a NOVEMBER Toledo Blade article refers to " plumber Samuel J. Wurzelbacher." [18] Toledo Blade November article "The plumber from Springfield Township became a household name." And the "piece de resistance" [19] from your beloved National Post: " Ordinary citizens, journalists, plumbers and even liberal stalwarts were made to pay dearly for their insolence. ... The same folks who tut-tutted that Obama's 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright should be off-limits were eager to root through the tax, divorce, custody, employment and licensing records of Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher because when the man saw an apparition of Obama at the end of his driveway, he had the nerve to ask The Anointed a tough question." Want more National Post? [20] "The outrageous denigration heaped by the pro-Obama media on Joe the Plumber over his taxes and tradesman's certificate indicates Democratic sensitivity on this issue. Joe was playing with his son in his own yard when Obama and his entourage arrived on foot at his front door as election canvassers; he wasn't looking for controversy." Really want those cites? Collect (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He is a plumber, there is no such thing as "legally" a plumber. Some localities may require plumber's to be licenced or bonded, but that does not change the fact that he is a plumber, just as someone with a plumber's licence does not become a plumber. Additionally, he is working under the plumbing licence of his employeer, and is not apparently required to have his own licence (or be personally bonded). The synthesis being used here to try and prove that he is not a plumber is getting quite old. This is not a research paper, and the overwhelming number of reference refer to him as a plumber. Via WP:V and WP:RS we have all the sources we need to state that he is a plumber without qualifiers. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have seen many sources saying that he IS required to be licensed and that in the state of Ohio it's not legal to simply work for a company that is licensed. The reason it's relevant to mention at the very least that there is debate whether he is technically a real plumber or not is because MANY sources have talked about him not being a licensed plumber. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Per Toledo Blade cited supra: "Mr. Joseph said Mr. Wurzelbacher could only legally work in the townships, but not in any municipality in Lucas County or elsewhere in the country." Note that the Union rep is the one who said Joe could "legally work" where Newell had a license. So much for a claim that it is "not legal" for him to work as a plumber. As for "in the country" I take that as hyperbole on Mr. Joseph's part. Collect (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
And other sources have given conflicting info, I'm not sure how we'd determine which sources are right. What about saying something along the lines of him not having a license but sources have disagreed about whether he needs one to work as a plumber or not? --Minderbinder (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I cite the UNION REP. Who, if anything, would want to say Joe was illegal, but he pointed out that Joe is working legally. Do you not trust the voice of the plumber's union? <g>. BTW, other sources specifically state that a license is only needed for independent work. Care to give your source that the Union rep was lying here? Collect (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the source is the Toledo Blade article [21]: "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber." As I said, different sources disagree on this point, if we can't get a confirmed answer we should just note the disagreement and source it. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
UIm -- might you try reading the discussions supra and on WP:BLP/N before making such unsupportable claims? We have established that he can legally act as a plumber per the union rep's statement. I note you made him just an "employee" which is inaccurate. He is employed "as a plumber" and any other statement is counting angels on the head of a pin. Collect (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Undent - I'm not sure what you think are unsupportable claims, that bold text is a direct quote from the source and the change I made is straight from sources as well. You may consider the changed description to be incomplete, but it's certainly not inaccurate. Some sources say he's a plumber, others explicitly say he is not. The safest option for this site is to stick to the facts that are not in dispute and describe the disputed ones as disputed. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In the "p. a." section, I cite the Ohio law, and legal cites for Ohio and other states. All of which make Joe's legal occupation as a plumber clear. Unless, of course, you dispute the Ohio law about plumbing contractors? Collect (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
