Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Would an administrator please make this edit

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

Unemployed

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

An editor added false, outdated information to the article.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

I'd have to say that he's still a plumber, though he's not working as one at the moment. It's his profession. For example, Caroline Kennedy is still an attorney, even though she's not practicing. For that matter, Joe Biden is still a lawyer. If his profession isn't "plumber" then what is it? Kelly hi! 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Joe is not a professional plumber. He used to work for one.Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me of a line, probably from Henny Youngman, who was employed pretty much every day of his adult life, directed at his brother-in-law: "Why don't you learn a trade, so we'll know what kind of work you're out of?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
And while I'm waiting for the laughter to die down from that one, here's one that's definitely from Henny the Great: "My brother-in-law says his occupation is 'Diamond Cutter'. He mows the lawn at Yankee Stadium!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As Wurzelbacher has been quoted in reliable sources as stating that he is unemployed, then this is clearly notable are should be mentioned in the article concerning his profession. Also, as he is out actively promoting his book, and as there are multiple current reliable sources that address his new position as author, the profession he is practicing is that of an Author. This is what current reliable sources verify. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Ironically, this reminds me of another line, from Groucho Marx, who was a part-time author himself. One of his contestants said his occupation was writer. Groucho came back with, "In other words, you're unemployed!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That's funny, and there is a lot of truth to that. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Wurzelbacher was an active plumber and now he is an active author. One is past, the other is current. I dont see why both cant be mentioned in the article. But, it is misleading to say he is employed by a company that he is not employed by - as the article had previously stated. He is unemployed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Truman is listed as having occupations which were clearly not concurrent. "Unemployed" is not, moreover, an "occupation." Seems to me this is yet one more example of silly argumentation over something which had been settled long ago. Collect (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    Then please do not add information to the article that says he is employed when he is not and it is clearly outdated information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is something that was not settled long ago when we have new information about his occupation. Unemployed (author) is correct. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with QuackGuru. Unemployed (author) is correct. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree - Joe was never legally a plumber (according to reliable sources) and now he's no longer working in a plumbing capacity. By his own admission he's not employed. Given he has no accreditation as a plumber (unlicensed), what grounds do we have to say he is NOW a plumber. Occupation is present tense, not historic. Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    Just a question - is Barack Obama an attorney then? Is Sarah Palin a sportscaster? Kelly hi! 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. GW Bush is not an oilman or a sports team owner either. And I used to be a student, but that's the past.Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree - If he's currently not working, what is his occupation? If it's changed to "none," that might be a reasonable compromise. - SluggoOne (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Although he is unemployed, he is still an author - as shown by the additon of updated reliable sources. Also, Wurzelbacher has recieved substantial media attention for his book Fighting for the American Dream. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment By the reasoning abouve, Truman's current occupation is "dead." Collect (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    For the same reason the Truman article does NOT list his occupation as Timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, even though that was his occupation at one point in his career. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
His listed occupations are haberdasher and farmer. I still think he is dead and not currently employed in either capacity. Collect (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you should update that so there's no occupation for Truman. Anyway, here there's a pretty strong consensus here that Joe's most recent occupation of "Author" is the better and more accurate choice.Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the above discusson, there have been no arguements for keeping Jtp's employment as with a plumbing company and as a plumber. This wording will be removed until a verifiable reliable sources have been added to replace the outdated [1]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I suggest his occupation is still "plumber" regardless of who is employing him. Collect (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What are your reliable sources to verify this? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Normal use of the English language. An unemployed teacher is no longer a teacher as occupation? Teachers during vacation are not teachers? A person who is dead can no have been a "farmer"? A person who is serving in Iraq can not be a UPS truckdriver because he is now a soldier? Nope. An "occupation" is anything the person would ordinarily be engaged in provided he has the opportunity. " a person's usual or principal work or business" covers this well -- it means that if a person is unemployed he does not lose his "usual or principal work or business." Collect (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Truman's occupation is still not listed as, Timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, even though he held that position. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Gratuitiously irrelevant as he did not consider it his "usual or principal work or business" - recall the use of (all things) a dictionary? I would suggest that Joe does consider "plumber" to be his "usual or principal work or business." Adding something a person did not consider their "usual work" is irrelevant. Collect (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
And what are your reliable sources to verify this? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
AHD, RHD, M-W, OED -- how many dictionaries do you need to define "occupation"? By the way, each and every one of them is considered a "rel;iable source" on meanings of words. Collect (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are reliable sources that show Wurzelbacher to be an author. These are not debatable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant -- his "usual and principal work or business" is still "plumber." BTW, watch out for 3RR on this one. Collect (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source that show's he's now a plumber. We have one, quoting him, that say's he unemployed. We have others that say he was never a plumber. What do you have aside from your application of the dictionary to Joe? Looks like OR to me. Mattnad (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also reliable sources that show Barack Obama to be President-elect. Does that mean he is no longer a lawyer? Kelly hi! 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Kelly Obama's current Ocupation is not a lawyer - there is a difference between the degree and ones work. In fact, before he won the election, he was a Senator. Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Career and Licensing

Collect removed expanded information on Joe's professional credentials and licensing with this edit [2]. He claims this is "contentious". The sources are Newsweek, the Toledo Blade, MSNBC. I'll let the content speak for itself. I'm looking for comments from other editors. I also removed a section of Ohio law that collect added to the article since it does not apply to Joe's situation in the context of whether he can work as a plumber. I think that section is WP:OR given what we now see in the reports.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ill-formed RfC. Seeks to remove prior material that was in the article by consensus. Seeks to add contentous material which specifically falls under WP:BLP. Seeks to remove occupation from infobox without removing entire infobox, thus removing the only actual cite in the infobox. Makes personal attack on another editor, including calling a good faith edit "vandalism." Makes a claim of OR which was not accepted by prior consensus. And, all in all, seeeks to make a terrible upset of every applecart. Seeks to add material which was not found proper at the time it was first submitted. Seeks to COATRACK McCain. And a few more if you need them. Collect (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite - what part of the Toledo Blade, MSNBC, or Nesweek quotes violated WP:BLP and how?Mattnad (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The material is, on its face, contentious. Now let's see how others weigh in on the issue of your major change to a stable section. Collect (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Note the non-answer. I just don't think Collect understands what contentious means per WP:BLP. WP:BLP allows for contentious material, provided it's well sourced, " Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." The material was direct quotes, well sourced and verifiable. Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Quod erat demonstrandum about personal attacks. Collect (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The removing, adding, or changing of content, especially by established editors, in which they disagree about the encyclopedic value of that content is not vandalism. It's a content dispute, and if carried to extremes, then an edit war. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. per WP:VANDAL policy. — Becksguy (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
ReCollect's profferred "proof" of ad hominem: there's no QED there. Re "contentious", how so? We need more than just a drive-by word flung about during the removal of items that meet WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we need some time of logical, cogent argumentation. I'm sensing an attempt to whitwash here, and yes Beck, such attempts can be considered more than a content dispute, and if it is continued may very well fit the definition of WP:VAND. Remember, Joe's sobriquet is "Joe the Plumber", not "Joe the Saint". Of course, were this article written about the meme and not the person all of this could be avoided. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Contentious" isn't reason for removal, only contentious and not backed up by sources. The material that Collect has been revert warring over is sourced, so it's definitely allowed by BLP. Honestly, I don't know why this article is even locked, looking at the edit history it's one editor repeatedly reverting to his version with not only no consensus, but doesn't even seem to have support from a single other person. --Minderbinder (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just had time to fly quick over this edit and if the sources, (which I didn't check to be clear), are backing up the "contentious" edit, I don't see as such. I see it more as a content dispute and the only question would be how much detail we ought to include here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Contentious -- the section where the claim is that a paper "surmised" something (actually one person's editorial opinion) meets "contentious" to a T. And does not meet NPOV by a mile. The cites are all from circa October 16 and 17, which means they do not provide any info not already known and fully discussed here. And removal of a consensus statement concerning the fact that nothing illegal occurred is contentious in itself. Lastly, the article is evolving away from personalities into discussion of the use of JtP as a paradigm or example - rather than of him as a specific person. Again per consensus. Collect (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Which part of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump WP:CON is unclear? It's really a rather simple concept. We can form a consensus that the sun is cold, but per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV we'd lose. Really. No shit, we'd lose. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, please stop editing the section until this is resolved. You may have crossed 3RR already. Mattnad (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The material is well sourced and meets all guidelines. I am troubled by the amount of contention that Collect has caused here by massive deletions of several pages of text including hundreds of citations and references, with no discussion before hand; the twisting of policy (BLP in particular); and the wikilawyering. (removed) Inclusionist (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making a simple personal attack. I have nowhere near the greatest number of edits on this article, or any other one, nor have I removed "hundreds" of citations and references, nor have I mmade "massive deletions." The accusation of "vandalism" over good faith edits is reprehensible. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Please save the poster child comments about vandalism since this appears to a content dispute. --Tom 21:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Also note that one editor has canvassed for support in this. Amazingly enough, he canvassed for supporters of his position, and not all the editors on this page. WP:CANVASS applies. Collect (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please. Grasping at any straw to save one's POV is hardly dignified. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, if you spent more time supporting your views with referenced sources, then deleting everyone elses, Joe the Plumber would be featured article. I think there is a little fatigue with your behavior here Collect. Once again, you never discussed this most recent large scale deletion on the talk page before you deleted it. You cry "good faith", but what about your good faith towards other editors contributions? Is deleting pages and pages of other editors well cited collected works good faith? Be careful, because when someone demands that a spotlight be put on someone elses behavior, that spotlight often comes back and shine on them too.Inclusionist (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is a request for comment on the content of the article: The material is clearly reliably sourced and removal on the sole basis that the items contain "contentous material" is not at all supported by WP:BLP. Whether or not the material Collect removed is necessary and helpful to understanding the topic of "Joe the Plumber" and whether the volume of material gave such comments WP:UNDUE weight are debatable. Perhaps the material from the multiple sources can be combined into a more condensed statement that is more fully expounded in a referenced footnote. If this is a request for comment on one or more editor's behavior, I would have additional opinions too.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

As it happens, I did mention a couple of days ago I would work on this section. Aside from doing the changes, I'm not sure how else Collect could react to them (negatively it appears). As far as my rationale goes, these reliable sources help explain what is required to be a plumber in Toledo, where Joe works, including reporting on the view by local officials and building inspectors that Joe is not legally allowed to work as a plumber. This topic has been debated here and in the media at length and if someone coming to this article had a question about Joe's qualifications, this section provides well-sourced verifiable information.Mattnad (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm really confused by Collect's comment about "old material". If he has newer material relevant to this topic, he can certainly add it. I will say his interpretation of Ohio law as it applies to Joe's situation is probably WP:OR.Mattnad (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hell, I'm still laughing about the October comment. Does "truth" have a sell-by date? ROFL. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You gotta pay more attention. There is an expiration date on everything nowadays, even on news (and therefore history)  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If you make me laugh more I'll die. *lol* . But that's off topic so back to more serious "business"  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I should surmise that if the usage of "surmise" were problematic, the editor who removed it would have stated so, rather than merely labling it contentious. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG Oppose. The childish smearing of Joe the Plumber has just got to stop because it's getting beyond ridiculous. This is elementary duck testing; Wurzelbacher is clearly a plumber. Mentioning his licensing status is appropriate, but it's getting out of control and has a clearly non-neutral slant. Collect's edit reverts a lot of minutiae and irrelevant bullshit -- I mean c'mon, John McCain calling Wurzelbacher "Joe the Plumber" leading to questions about McCain's vetting of Sarah Palin has got to be some of the most blatant, ill-conceived, bad faith POV pushing that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. In addition, the primary source should be used here since I'm positive Ohio plumbing licensing laws are available online (which I'm almost certain was once included as a source in this article). All cited sources from the reverted entry that have made claims about required licensing have simply said "local officials" without actually naming anyone -- if they actually called up these local officials, I'm sure they would've been able to get at least one name. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) [Addendum: Ah-ha! I knew there was a contribution about the Ohio laws regarding contracting that vandals had removed: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740.07. This source has much more validity than news sources which can't specifically cite a person in regard to the issue. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]
Thanks for the rant. When JW became a public figure, he became open to scrutiny, no matter how fair or unfair that is. His licensing status is not a smear, it is an attempt to clarify. Hell, if I wanted to smear JW I'd point out that he was bereft of any understanding of both Obama'stax plan and the standard (since 1913) US progressive tax system. Of course, given that McCain took the misperceptions and ran with them says much about McCain's understanding of the prgressive tax concept and the fact that they garnered such wide support shows that many Americans don't understad either. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Wanting to include unfair information, now that's a warning flag for bad faith. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral store of notable information, but that doesn't appear to be your intent judging by comments like that. And I always appreciate your pretentious comments. (SARCASM) You're really leaping to new bounds thinking that you have more understanding of the American tax system than a four term senator. Hey, why aren't you running the government already? Is it because we're all too stupid to vote you for president? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow you Amwestover - are you suggesting that the reporters and editors from Newsweek, The Toledo Blade, and MSNBC made this all up because they didn't provide names of local officials? That seems like a stretch.
Also, we as editors should not being doing our own research on Ohio laws and adding it to article 'assuming it applies to Joe is definitely OR. Laws are complicated and have layers - just ask any lawyer. What we need instead is a published reliable source that makes the claims that Joe is in compliance with laws. I actually tried to find material that said Joe is plumber per local law but couldn't. There were some political commentators who made points like yours that say he does plumbing work, ergo he's a plumber. But that's different from being legally allowed to be a plumber which is what that section is about.
As for the McCain part, it's absolutely POV, but no more so than including McCain's spin on "Joe the Plumber". That's also POV and I think it should be in the article.Mattnad (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your argument Mattnad -- you are suggesting its okay to be critical of some sources, such as a primary source that specifically says Joe the Plumber is operating legally i.e. the actual law, but not critical of sources which don't specifically mention sources that claim otherwise. Oh wait, I do follow it! You've been trying to push your own conclusion (which you share with many liberal media outlets) that Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber, and actually including the text of the law would shoot your argument to shit. So let's call it original research, that's always a trump card in these discussions. Now I get it! Jeez... And your only defense is "laws are complicated", are you kidding me? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no paradox in my approach. I'm sharing the content of media outlets - this is true. I've found and quoted reliable sources on the topic. No argument with you on that point. What I'm not condoning is an editor doing his own research on what Ohio laws say, interpreting this research, and connecting his interpretation to Joe the Plumber. If you can find a reliable, verifiable source, and I'll guote you, "that specifically says Joe the Plumber is operating legally" then by all means add it. But the legal citation I removed did not do that at all. It was some general language about workers being deemed to be under the supervision of a licensed contractor. Very different and our connecting that to JtP is our own Original Research. Regards.Mattnad (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a paradox to your approach. And you're claiming that it's "research" to do a Google search to find the Ohio laws on construction trade licensing, but it's "not research" to do a Google search for media outlets that can't specifically name anyone who claims that Joe the Plumber isn't properly licensed. And if you didn't have such an itchy trigger finger and actually bothered to read the source that you deleted, you would've quickly found that plumbers, and all construction trades actually, fall under the term "licensed contractor". I'd think that an editor editing in good faith would've enhanced the contribution rather than removing it. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Beg your pardon??? "plumbers, and all construction trades actually, fall under the term "licensed contractor".
Either you don't live in the US, misunderstood something or more likely you just have non experiance and expertise in regard of that matter. There are rare circumstances where you actually can apply for a license depending on the trade but you "always" have to get a license if you want to work officially on you own at most construction jobs. Even as a "handy man" you need a license. That doesn't mean that all people doing such work have indeed a license and are therefore officially allowed work on whatever they're working on but they can be penalized if caught by the state, the county or the city. This is a fact! I'm was in that business and have plenty of books and paperwork on this. No, Sir or Madam. It is not as easy as you stated. There are indeed states where a contractors license is not needed (excluding plumbers and electricians) but you have to get special insurance and other "stuff" like as an example a certain amount of cash in your bank account(s) (for a certain preset time which can vary but usually is at least three month).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The McCain use of JtP as an example in the debate in POV to you? BTW, you had earlier accepted the union rep statement that Joe could legally work in the townships (from one of your own cites!) -- do you feel that you can cherry-pick from your own cites? Collect (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: McCain creation of JtP as POV - sure it is, just as including editorial comments on McCain's use of "Joe the Plumber" in light of his non-compliance with plumbing licensing rules. Article always include POV material.Mattnad (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If the use if JtP as an exemplar is removed, on what grounds does JtP have any notability at all? Seems to me that under such an edit that JtP would properly be deleted as non-notable entirely. And I will note that you did not answer the fact about the union rep's statement that Joe could legally be a plumber in the townships ... as you had agreed previously.
re: Townships... I'm not sure what you are writing about - can you show me the quote you have in mind? As for the rest of your comment .... what are you talking about? Nobody is saying we remove JtP from this article.Mattnad (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(from archive here) Per Toledo Blade cited supra: "Mr. Joseph said Mr. Wurzelbacher could only legally work in the townships, but not in any municipality in Lucas County or elsewhere in the country." Note that the Union rep is the one who said Joe could "legally work" where Newell had a license. So much for a claim that it is "not legal" for him to work as a plumber. As for "in the country" I take that as hyperbole on Mr. Joseph's part. Collect (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [3]

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

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

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

That someone published something does not mean it belongs in an article. The objective should be to write an article which will still be valid in a year, which means that "not news" and other guidelines do apply. Remember, there were "published" reports that JtP was related to the Keating Five -- and a lot of other rubbish. Collect (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point. So let's put this article on AFD and merge the notable stuff into the appropriate articles (as far as some things where missed) and all problems here are solved. Right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a valid reason for removing sourced text. Vague comments is not a reason to remove published in many major sources information. QuackGuru 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

And are they that negative?Mattnad (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I reverted this as soapboxing because User talk:Anarchangel did nothing to explain why he thought my reasoning was weak yet posted three paras of NPOV not related to my comment. User talk:Mattnad reverted me saying this is all well and good. I won't edit war over something so trivial but can easily defend my position if Anarchangel if he would care to explain why its OK to remove sourced material because it's negative. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see his comment in relation to yours. But I suppose one could read it that way and then I see why you made that edit. It's funny that his comments refer to a version (with the work "surmised") that hasn't existed for over a week. VERY curious. Mattnad (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I was commenting on the Previous text in the diff Mattnad's cited, and Collect's removal of it. I have no comment on Compugeek's edits. Mattnad: "Collect removed expanded information on Joe's professional credentials and licensing with this edit [4]." Do you not see the word 'surmised' in the deleted version of Mattnad's link? Because if not, then yes, there is something strange here, because I do. Perhaps what is confusing you is that I argued points on both sides. Hence, Weak qualification (I qualify it with certain distinctions of how the wording could be changed, rather than state it outright) of a Strong Oppose (to complete deletion) Anarchangel (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

unemployed people do not need a license

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

Agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Separate issue. Per many reliable sources (see Career section), his lack of licensing was and is notable. Lede is simply including that detail. I will also add that Collect expended quite a bit of time explaining how Joe was allowed to be a plumber provided he worked for someone with a license - how times change. However, if you don't think "licensing" is relevant, neither is his former profession. Pick one. Mattnad (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No, HST's status is "corpse". His "occupation" is "Pushing Up Daisies". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No -- I thought that was Chic Young's profession ... Collect (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be Blondie. But that's a different Harry. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Check the dog's name. Who was likely hairy at least. <g> Collect (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Blue hair, yet. A rare breed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe's career is missing

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

Also, the current lead sentence seems to say he's an unemployed author as well as an unemployed plumber. Kelly hi! 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can write a book, and they often do. Obama has written at least two, but his primary occupation is public official, I would say, even though - technically - he is currently unemployed, yes? Unless he gets some kind of allowance while President-elect. I would likewise say Joe the Plumber's occupation is plumber, until he chooses some other occupation. It's also fair to state that he's unemployed. It's even fair to say he's an unemployed plumber. As to whether he's a "certified" plumber - well, as far as I know (1) he has done work that would qualify as plumbing; and (2) he has done such work in accordance with the law. Hence, he's a plumber. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "unlicensed" from the lede as it was contrary to multiple consensuses arrived at here and at BLP/N. The election is OVER folks! There is no need to made silly editorial points in any article (and there never was). Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
He's not a plumber either Collect. You are nearly alone in trying to keep his occupation as plumber. So... if he's not employed as a plumber, not allowed to legally work as a plumber on his own, not working.... why do you insist that we put in his past occupation. If you want that there, we need to qualify it otherwise it's untrue and inaccurate. You have been asked multiple times to provide a source that says he's NOW a plumber. We have many reliable sources that say otherwise.Mattnad (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
"Nearly alone" -- alas nearly twenty edotors have weighed in on this, contrary to your assertion. Nearly unanimous in BLP/N on using "plumber." A compromise was made that his infobox would read "plumber" and he could have the licensing stuff in the corpus of the article after the lede. Remember? Collect (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Collect. That dog won't hunt anymore. You're depending on that so called consensus which is based on incomplete and dated information. Joe has moved on from Plumbing and we now have several reliable sources that demonstrate he was never legally allowed to work as a plumber. You claimed at one time that so long as he was working for a plumber, he could be called a plumber. Now you want to change your position on that too. Please provide a current source that supersedes Joe's admission that he's not working as a plumber. If you cannot, please stop putting that misleading information in the article. Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
What does Joe consider his current occupation to be? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Best we can tell from his activities is spokesperson, author, and perhaps activist. If you have a current reliable source that can help us know his personal thoughts, let's take a look. But right now, the best information we have (that isn't opinion) suggests he's not a plumber - legally or otherwise. Mattnad (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly -- the spokesman for the union said Joe could legally work in the townships. So much for the "illegal" smear. Secondly, Joe was primarily employed as a "plumber" per the definitions in every dictionary I could find. So much for the "he was not a plumber" schtick. Thirdly, the consensus on BLP/N has never been challenged. Fourthly, the consensus here has repeatedly been challenged by you -- even though your allies agreed to the compromise which you now wish to dismantle. Fifthly, precedent across WP has been to list all "occupations" even those not currently used by a person (vide Harry Truman among others). Enough of the presidential politics games already. Collect (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Collect, show us the dictionary that says (quoting you) that "Joe was primarily employed as a plumber" and more importantly, a dictionary that says his current occupation is a plumber. Sounds like WP:OR to me since you are interpreting the dictionary and applying it to Joe despite what's published. As for the BLP/N, it's been challenged several times since on this talk page based on new and relevant information. I find it very telling that you will not provide a source that says Joe is a plumber now. Everything that we have says otherwise. Why won't you provide a source that says Joe is now a plumber even though he's unemployed?Mattnad (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Can the occupation section include how it is Joe came to be unemployed? I'm confused because he spoke out against both Obama AND McCain, and in the past 3 months he was/is (in addition to fixing to be a small plumbing business business owner,) a plumber's assistant, a cable box spokesperson, and a book author, all while collecting unemployment? TheBossOfCollect (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)— TheBossOfCollect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Former communications engineer?

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

He also states in that interview that he is "absolutely" going to sue the Democratic Ohio government apparatchiks like Helen Jones-Kelley who allegedly violated his privacy with illegal records searches. Kelly hi! 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is a reliable source, then this information should be added to the article. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a passing mention may be OK, but given there's no detail on this beyond his statement, we shouldn't make it anymore than his uncorroborated claim. What exactly does he mean by "communications engineer"? It this a professional title, or his spin on what he was doing? Could be along the lines of garbage men positioning themselves as "sanitation engineers." Without third-party corroboration (which the reporter didn't do), his statement should not be given any more credibility that its due. As for his plans to to sue the democrats - when he does it, perhaps it could be mentioned (maybe), but a Wikipedia article should not be a catalog of every detail of every interview he's done. Likewise, we don't have to include every editorial comment on him etc. etc. By the way, the Jones-Kelly requested searches were not found to be "illegal" according to the official inquiry.Mattnad (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Robert Wurzelbacher?

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

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

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

that he no longer plumbs

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

Would you propose that in BLP for all such articles? If you could gain consensus over there that all people who no longer practice the occupation listed should have it noted as "former" that would be an interesting proposal. I would also, moreover, concur that one is not an "author" until one has been remunerated for one's writing, or an "artist" unless one has actually sold one's artwork. Collect (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Authors and artists don't need licenses. Plumbers do. travb (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
See above. The union stated he could legally be a plumber - which should be dispositive. Licensing requirements are far from universal and far from uniform on this. The issue, moreover, is whether the proposed change to BLP practice would be made were an editor to propose it. Collect (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah Collect ... taking one bit of evidence and making your whole case on it. Yes, one union rep said he could work in the townships, but we have the same union saying he's not really a plumber. And then there are several other sources in that section, including reference to local officials, that say he can't work legally anywhere, and that he's not a plumber. Of course you tried so hard to keep this information out (wonder why). And Collect, you earlier wrote that Joe's allowed to be a plumber when working for a licensed plumber. Have you forgotten your own argument that you made so extensively? You are much less firm on that point now that Joe's unemployed. Now you say that licensing requirements are "far from uniform" (to you at least). But for the local officials that sent a letter to Newell threatening the company with the loss of their license for having Joe on the job, the rules were clear enough. Mattnad (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Um -- you leave out the other editors who made the same points. And the Ohio contractor laws. And a bunch more. And there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY LETTER WAS SENT. Sorry to burst that bubble <g>. No letter was sent threatening any loss of license at all as far as any source I can find says. Seems to me that election games are still running rampant on your part -- did you see how the RfC is progressing on this page? Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ain't you the little parser. OK, here we go: "Wurzelbacher said he did not need a plumber's license to do residential work with Newell Heating & Plumbing, but David Golis, a Toledo building-inspections official, disputed that. "We were just discussing that we will send a letter to the owner of Newell reminding him" of the city's requirement that all who do plumbing work be licensed or in apprentice or journeyman programs, Golis said."[5]. So now you're demanding evidence that they sent the letter - even when we have reliable sources that show they intended to send a letter. You demand so much from reporters to show that actions were taken by the city against JWS and his employer..... but all you require for yourself is opinion and a dictionary. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You stated that the letter WAS sent. No source for that claim. The union said he could legally be a plumber in the townships. There is a source for that claim. Claims with sources are proper in articles. Claims without any source are not. Collect (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This is your best argument? OK. Letter was not sent. The officials just said they will send a warning letter because Joe is not allowed to work as a plumber, per multiple source. Here's an observation: other editors might respect you more if you'd argue the major points rather than going off on tangents. Mattnad (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

silly argument, collect. its well sourced that he cannot work as a plumber, but he can work for a plumber. your attempts to confuse the matter are fairly transparent. i find it interesting that republicans and democrats will paint themselves into tiny corners to defend silly arguments just because that is the party line. i seriously doubt anyone would try so hard to call s. joe a plumber if there werent political reasons behind it. of course the same could be argued for saying he is not a plumber- except for the fact that there are sources which directly dispute calling him a plumber. Brendan19 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
All of this points to why I wanted the article to be about the meme not about the person. However, as near as I can tell Joe is not licensed as a plumber; and I know for a fact he could not present himself legally asa plumber in Philly: note, that the Ohio and Philly laws are essentially the same.
I'm afraid I simply cannot uderstand the logic of trying to warp the facts simply to call this guy a plumber in the appropriate legal sense.
As for the party-line crap above, the party-line is utterly irrelevant: what is relevant here, to chew my cud for the tenth time, is WP:RS and WP:V. PERIOD. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW: dispositive is rarely used. Second "could" in the same post is a subjunctive conditional. I "could" be a pope based on the standard requirements. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • From above: "The union stated he could legally be a plumber".
Yes, indeed he could as could anybody as long as s/he gets a license. Plumbers and electricians are in most if not in all states required to hold a license to do work on their own as a contractor if not working under another contractors license where their not official plumbers or electricians. Fact.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

taxes again?

No mention of the "tax lien" has been in the article for ages -- yet someone wishes to place it in the lede. Also adding "unlicensed" about his plumbing into the lede which was decided multiple times not to belong in the lede by consensus. Again -- the unpaid tax bit is not in the body of the article per consensus, hence doies not belong in the lede, and the bit about the license was also by consensus not allowed in the lede. Is this actually clear? Collect (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Was told to go to Talk -- where I have been already <g>. Still feel that we hhad already REMOVED the "unpaid tax" bits from the entire article and that it does not, therefore, belong in the lede. Also that consensus has said NO to putting the license in the lede, but one editor, who told an admin his intent, has now tried to edge it in quoite deliberately. This is not proper in WP to say "I know the minute we try to change the infobox and lede, Collect will revert saying there's no consensus for change. Any advice on approach? I'm trying to avoid the likely edit war on this one." Dang straight -- and laying out a game plan does not make your "we" any stronger. Collect (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect, there have been several RCF on this talk page that show the consensus is against you on this point. Most editors think his licensing status is relevant. Furthermore, it's relevant that Joe owed taxes at the time that McCain made him a "mascot". Per the latest issue of Newsweek, "Starting point: After grilling Barack Obama about his tax plan during an Ohio rally, "Joe the Plumber" comes up 25 times in the final debate and becomes a John McCain mascot. Turns out his name isn't Joe, he's not a licensed plumber and he owes taxes."[6]. You have worked very hard to eliminate his tax issues and his licensing issues from the article. If you like, I can more fully develop a section on his tax problems and the reaction to it. I'd love to bring back some more balance to this article.Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You have not given a RfC for the tax issue at all, so I take it that you will drop that claim. Second, there have been ACCEPTED COMPROMISES here which said licensing was not to be in the lede. Care to try for a consensus on the tax inanity? And his name IS "Joe"? just like Woodrow Wilson's name is "Woodrow." Did you wish to elide that? As for deliberatey saying you would try to introduce stuff into the lede -- that is contrary to WP policy. You already got "has worked" into the lede -- now you wish to push POV as hard as you can? Sorry -- it will not work. Collect (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The tax lien information is in the article and has been there for quite a while - months I'd guess.. You need to read more closely. And please don't censor it now. As for changes to the lede - I was referring to clarifying that he's not a plumber - separate from the licensing issue. See RFC above. Also, what are you talking about regarding his name. I didn't mention that in my edit to the article. Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Most editors overall did not find the license issue germane to his occupation. As for his name, you raised the issue here, and your post to an admin stating your intent to keep adding material to the lede is suspicious. As for the lien -- it has been paid, and you should note in the lede that there was a "99% chance " he did not know about it (actually 100% since the notice was not sent to a current address). As for accusations of "censorship" I find that extraordinarily amusing! Collect (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unindent: So now lets get to the meat of this (if that's OK with you Collect):

  • Joe's unpaid taxes are relevant in that they undermined McCain's use of him as metaphor. This is why Newsweek, ABC news, and other reliable sources mentioned it. I'll add that just because he didn't know about the lien doesn't mean he didn't know about owing taxes. And even if he didn't know he owed taxes, it still didn't help McCain's efforts. Per the quote from Andrew Sullivan of the The Atlantic that you removed (or is that censorship), "Why am I not surprised? No license and a lien for unpaid taxes. Like Sarah Palin, a great concept. But the McCain campaign needs to be able to vet its hood ornaments." [7]
  • Early discussions about his taxes focused on how wikipedia should not include something that can harm a private citizen. SJW has since proven himself to be a public person, and as you've allowed in the lede, a celebrity.
  • Likewise, his status of a plumber was also relevant per McCain's use of Joe the Plumber metaphor.
  • Multiple RFC and discussion on this talk page in the last month have shown that most editors accepts that Joe was not licensed and was not a real plumber. And the latest RFC shows that most also think that his occupation should not be "plumber"either.Mattnad (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
He is nit a plombier, ni sans license sans capacite pour plumbing. C'est indisputable. LaidOff (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Seulement un homme qui a pris un parti croyait qu'il est un plombier.
1. Notice of the debt was sent to the wrong address. ESP is not rquired of people, last I heard, and JtP paid his debt when he was told of it. 2. I would prefer NOT to have everyone sift every jot and tille of anyone's life in the Ohio state databases. You apparently see nothing wrong with it. 3. Opinions must be citesd as opiniond per WP:BLP. 4. We had an agreement on use of "plumber" in lede and infobox, remember? 5. Posting that you intend to keep adding to the lede and infobox is strange. 6. I would remove "celebrity" from the lede, but consider it a relatively minor cavil. Collect (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see that both WP:CON and WP:BLP are still being misunderstood/abused on the JtP page. Not real clear how WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV are being missed (whether intentionally or unintentionally), nor how the interrelationship with WP:BLP and WP:CON is being mangled. BTW, WP:CON does not override/overrule/trump WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP is still held to the standards of that triad of policies. WP:BLP does not mean "no 'negative' or 'controversial' facts allowed": so long as these facts, such as the fact that Joe is unlicensed, meet WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV they can indeed be included. It really is that simple. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't understand the above gobbledegook, but Sam is still not a plombier. LaidOff (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Just because a fanatic wants to make hime one does not force Sammy from actually completing his apprenticeship. LaidOff (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Correspondent

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/joe-the-plumber-headed-to-middle-east/ This should def. be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmccann (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected for a long time due to chronic edit warring. It seems when one group is forced out (through final edit war warning), another group of edit warriors move in with fresh reverts and no consideration of months of talk page discussion. Tan | 39 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, you new here? :) j/k --Tom 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Former plumber

I have changed the lead to read, former plumber rather than the "he was called a plumber...". Pretty straight forward it seems. Anyways, --Tom 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My one question is do the sources agree that he ever was an actual plumber? From what I have seen there seems to be dispute over that. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That had been addressed ad nasium in here it seems. Yes, sources say that he was/is a plumber. --Tom 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It is seriously disputed among reliable sources that he was a plumber. See here. We can't assert he was a plumber or former plumber. See WP:ASF. Violating ASF is a serious matter. Over time it seems things are rewritten and facts change. I thought we can't rewrite history on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The link says he didn't have a license? So what, he did "plumbing" for a company or something, this is still just silly semantic agenda pushing, nothing else. Anyways, no biggie--Tom 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Multiple sources say flat out that he's not a plumber. Other sources say he is. The only safe way to go is to use something that sources agree on, and "he was called/described as a plumber" fits the bill. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What sources say he isn't a plumber? I don't think that is the same thing as saying he wasn't licensed. Anyways, --Tom 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
According to what source an unlicensed person is a real plumber? Tom has acknowledged "The link says he didn't have a license". We can comply with WP:ASF in this situation. Asserting that he was a plumber is a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[8] One source, ironically enough one that has been used to try and insist he IS one even though the article says otherwise in the opening sentence. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I like how Minderbinder seems to be completely ignorant of three months of discussion, arguing, vituperation, increasingly long sysop page protection, edit warring, and an RfC. Tan | 39 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm giving my opinion on the article. Do you have a point to make or could you just not resist the chance to call me ignorant? --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Calling someone "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult. My mother is ignorant that Wikipidia exists; this does not make her a bad person. However, you are right that I was trying to make a point - that was either you are willfully ignoring hundreds of kilobytes of previous discussion, or you just plain didn't notice it. Either way is remarkable. Tan | 39 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Just jumping back into the fray - Joe's was absolutely a plumber in the conventional sense (he did plumbing), but not from a legal or professional sense (he's not a licensed plumber, apprentice, or journeyman). These fruitless binary arguments would have been rendered moot if the article had been allowed to simply include a qualifier, like "unlicensed plumber", from the outset. The recent RFCs all point to this tension.Mattnad (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted many times, infoboxes do not generally say "former" or have any qualifiers at all. Pushing such is a POV exercise. Collect (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted many times, since this guy is famous because he became part of a political campaign and not because of his job, why is it even necessary to include "plumber" (whether he is or not) in the infobox? What is the big objection to just leaving it out of the infobox if there's no agreement about wording/qualifiers? --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The way around" or "How to make him a plumber even if he isn't one by law".

What we can do to kinda make him a plumber in the main body of the article, (not the info box) is to leave "unlicensed" out (since it has a negative "touch") and go with something similar to this:"Wurzelbacher stated/acknowledged [or whatever] (at the time) that he was working as a plumber under anothers contractor's license." Readers who want to know details (and don't know them yet???) can find them in the sources (we provide) and can paint their own picture in whatever color they want so we don't have to bend or worry about WP rules.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. He says he's a plumber. All sources agree on that. Since sources don't agree that he is a plumber (and we have no way of knowing which sources are right in this particular case), just say what the sources say, which can include mentioning the disagreement if editors feel it's relevant. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant to bring editors together by leaving the disagreement out of the article.
PS: Thanks for the "spell check" ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a former plumber because that would mean he was a plumber. But he was called a plumber. Hammer of the year (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - updated final paragraph for the section "Ohio government database searches"

The "Joe the Plumber" bill was signed into law by the Governor of Ohio on January 6, 2009. This subject has recieved substantial and ongoing media attention. Please see; House passes “Joe the Plumber” legislation, Senate Approves “Joe the Plumber” bill 'Joe the Plumber' bill OK'd by Strickland, Wagoner secures bill to safeguard personal information, State moves to change privacy laws, and “Joe the Plumber” legislation protects Ohioans' privacy.Below is the information with citations;

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information".[1] On December 10, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 69 to 26.[2] On December 17, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio Senate by a vote of 30 to 2.[3] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed House Bill 648, creating civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.[4]

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable content, but do we need the details of all of the votes? Seems like a lot for such a peripheral point. How about:
In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones, sponsored House Bill 648 which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information".[5] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation.[4]
The idea is to focus on "what is it" and when did it go into law.Mattnad (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers noted that it was nearly veto-proof in support. Earlier discussion had the Governor and key Democrats questioning the costs of such a bill. Would you like that added info to make the reasons for the votes clear? Total length of this is far less than devoted to material which is likely of less long-term significance at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then the relevant material is something along the lines of "The bill passed the house and senate with veto proof majorities" with an appropriate citation. The idea is to be concise and encyclopedic. Mattnad (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"Nearly" in one, actually in the other --- also make sure the "civil and criminal penalties" does not get elided. I have now edited down (I think) more than 250,000 characters from the "largest articles" list on WP, so you know I like conciseness. Collect (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That'll teach someone who tries to challenge a public figure's self-promotional stories. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones, sponsored House Bill 648 which mandates civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.[6] The bill passed the house and senate with nearly veto proof majorities. [citation needed]On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation.[4]
Instead of the slightly awkward "for violations of rules concerning ..." why not "improper access of personal information on state databases"? I think that might be a tad clearer? Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure.Mattnad (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the majorities cites -- just use the newspaper cites in the first draft above. I think that should cover it. Collect (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Below is a proposed text.

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases.[7] The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate in December of 2008.[2][3] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation[4] which will become effective after 90 days.[8]

  • Strong support I support adding the above text, as it is, as the final paragraph in the section "Ohio government database searches". Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - Wurzelbacher has a new Job as "War Correspondent/Reporter"

Joe Wurzelbacher has taken on an additional job as a war correspondent. CBS News reports that Wurzelbacher will spend 10 days in Israel covering the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas.[9]

Additional reporting from "Joe the Plumber" becomes "Joe the Reporter", Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, and other exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is too much. Good for him.... but why would they hire him? Life is stranger than fiction. Mattnad (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Below is a proposed text;

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher took on the job of a war correspondent. From Israel, Wurzelbacher's reports on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas.[9] Wurzelbacher works for Pajamas Media.[10] Wurzelbacher's focus in on the Israeli experience of the conflict.[11]

  • Support I support adding the above text, as it is, as the 5th subsection of the section titled "Career". Also, I am open to any suggestions. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the mention - by the way, PJTV is a part of Pajamas Media if you need a wikilink. Kelly hi! 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I added the wikilink to the proposed text. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support and oppose. WP is not news so why not wait till he's "over there" and starts his coverage of the events?! "Widely reported" as Ism schism puts it is just plain wrong or I would have heard of this before (and not on WP). If the media keeps on reporting on this (and I think they will) we can include it without doubt. And if we do so we ought to make clear for who he is reporting. The proposed edit sounds like he was hired for this job by a major known network. Other than that, again, I would like to see it in the article as a job he was offered as a follow-up of his election notability and therefore notable.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • support No need to wait to put this in. He's been reported that he will go over. If this article weren't protected it would already be there. It has been reported in multiple news sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The Jerusalem Post reports that Wurzelbacher is spending "10 days covering the fighting and explaining why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas. He tells WNWO-TV in Toledo that he wants "go over there and let their 'Average Joes' share their story." Please see Joe the Plumber to become 'war correspondent in Israel' Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Still not a former plumber That he may be a reporter now does not make him a legitimate plumber in the past. His occupation should not be listed as a plumber or former plumber. He has done plumbing work, but that did nit make him a plumber,. LaidOff (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the term "war correspondent" is being used almost a bit facetiously by the headlines; let's be clear that this is a 10-day stint, not (yet) a new career. I think the real career move here is Joe the celebrity, but whatever. I support mention of this going in the article but I think it should be clear what's going on. Cheers, csloat (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: where precisely do you want this to go? (FYI, it was on the BBC this morning... first time ever for me that "I saw it on WP first"). If there's no further objection and you tell me where to put it, I don't see any reason not to add it to the article. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply It should be added as the 5th subsection of the section titled "Career." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll need a section title then, please. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Try "journalist" as a catchall category for all news correspondents, perhaps? Collect (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Collect, journalist is a catchall. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Joe the Journalist? You gotta be kidding me. Where did he go to J-school? When did he join SPJ? Let's just keep it clear the circumstances of his employment here. A 10-day celebrity stint with no background in the field hardly makes him a "journalist." csloat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please just give me a "nowikied" version of what you want (including the header!), and I'll put it in for you :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this one fascinating - you people argue until you're blue in the faces about whether or not a man who gets paid to plumb is actually a plumber, but you're more than happy to refer to him as a "war correspondent." Even Joe himself has said in interviews that "correspondent" is stretching the term, and the media that refer to him as such are just trying to be sensationalist about it. Joe's job will be more akin to a commentator, reporting from Israel where he will be interviewing "regular Joes" like himself about the effect the war is having on them. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree "commentator" is a much better description. "Journalist" is just insulting, and I seriously doubt Joe (or Sam or whoever) would even embrace the term himself. csloat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"Commentator" would work just as good. The important part is that the information be added to the article, and that this not become another word war. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put it in under "commentator". Next time an admin (who is, after all, just a volunteer wanting to help) asks a simple question, please just give a simple answer. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - done, but copyediting needed

It's in there, but the current wording is pretty lame. Fix it please, so an admin can make the edit. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher began work as a war correspondent for Pajamas Media[10] commenting, from Israel, on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas.[9] Wurzelbacher's focus is on the Israeli experience of the conflict.[11]

Is this better? I tried to make it more simple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the opening line of the entry still refers to him as a "war correspondent," which he is not. Perhaps "war correspondent/commentator" might work better - at least the slash would help make it clear he's not a correspondent in the way most would think of the term. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see; The Guardian Joe the War Correspondent, The Telegraph Joe the Plumber to head to Israel to become Joe the War Correspondent, Associated Press Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, Baltimore Sun Joe the Plumber: war correspondent, etc... These reliable sources refer to Wurzelbacher as a war correspondent, that is why it was placed in the above proposed edit. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen them. In most reports, "war correspondent" is reserved for the headline (which are often written in a manner as to be attention-getting), but other language is used in the body of the story. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is supposed to be striving for accuracy, not attention. Is that not why this article spawned an edit war over whether or not the man qualifies to be called a plumber? He never went to journalism school, he's not reporting on the war itself. As someone who actually has worked on newspaper staffs, I find references to Joe being a "correspondent" or "journalist" to be offensive; he's never been to journalism school, never involved in any of the unions - he's less qualified to be called a correspondent than he is a plumber. Regardless of what wording other sources may use, it's still possible for Wikipedia to rise above it and strive to be truly accurate by using some other language that is just as technically accurate, but not quite as misleading. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have an alternative proposal, based on reliable sources, please share it. I am open to all suggestions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "commentator"? If we're going to use "war correspondent," let's at least keep the quotation marks around it to show that it is being used in a way that is different from the way you might describe, say, Edward R. Murrow. Otherwise this is just completely insulting in addition to inaccurate. csloat (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ?

Joe the Plumber is mentioned on various jewish websites [9], and now he is going to Israel. It is not a bad thing to inquire if he is jewish, since the names Samuel and Joseph are both hebrew. ADM (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Iffy at best. The majority of common names in the U.S. are "Jewish." Collect (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it really much matter? James is from Hebrew as well, and I'm not Jewish. But then, George is from Greek and Dubya's not Greek. Victor is from Latin, and I don't think Vic Snyder is Roman. Bottom line: does it really matter? Personally, I wish we coud all get past this ethic/religion stuff ... it serves to create prejudice. Alas, like MLK, I dream. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant without sourcing saying he's Jewish. Also, I'm not sure there's any context in which the JDL would be a reliable source anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seem like a "so what" fact (even if sourced). Until he or someone else makes his religion (whatever that might be) notable, I don't see a reason to include it. And right now it's pure speculation. In the US, supporting Israel seems to cross religions and political parties.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "so what" sentiment. Jewish or not Jewish, none of what Joe the Plumber has done yet makes his religion (or potential lack thereof) significant. The closest would be his new job, as a reporter/commentator in Israel, that *might* make it significant, but even that would be a stretch. But then I also have the same attitude in regards to the whole is-he-or-is-he-not-a-plumber argument - what the man does or did for a living, and whether or not it was he or someone else who held the license, is insignificant, it's not why he was ever in the spotlight. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to have to change the title to "Joe the Correspondent"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe’s Jobs

There’s a tremendous amount of discussion going on here about whether or not Joe the Plumber is really a plumber, and it seems most of it centers around the info box. Oddly, no one is challenging him being listed there as “author”, even though he’s written only one book, and really, I’d venture he just provided the facts but the co-writer he’s working with is the one who’s really writing the thing.

I’d venture removing reference to Joe’s career in the info box, be it plumber, author, correspondent or whatever. In my mind, the info box should be a brief snapshot of why I should care about the person who’s biography this is. In Joe’s case, he’s not famous for being a plumber (or someone who did plumbing work, whatever), he’s famous for asking Barack Obama one question. Therefore, his job(s) is irrelevant in a snapshot situation.

As for the opening paragraph, I think it’s clear enough as written. He was called “Joe the Plumber,” though background research says he wasn’t a licensed plumber, yadda yadda yadda. No need to go into it any deeper than that, at least in the intro, since, as I noted, plumbing isn’t why the man is famous.

As for “Joe the war correspondent,” he’s neither a correspondent or a journalist. He’s actually less qualified to carry either of those titles than he is plumber or author. Certainly that he will be reporting from Israel is worthy of including in his Wiki article, but the best term to refer to him as would be a “commentator”. Nolefan32 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence we return to the meme. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nolefan; there's no need for any occupation to be listed in the infobox at all. The article can make clear what he did and/or does and/or is described as doing. csloat (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is brillant; I had never thought of that. he is not notable because of his occupation, ergo no occupation sb listed on any infobox. The logic is sound. I cannot find any fault. I must agree that the info box should not list occupation. LaidOff (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ioici
IPOF, there is scarcely any valid reason to have an infobox at all since the real article is about the campaign, and not about SJW as a person. That would, of course, entail removal of the "stuff" which has been added to this article which aims at him as an individual, of course. Collect (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he made fun of Joe the Plombier tonight. Did we make him more important the other more deserving people? Or is he just too funny and we couldn't resist? LaidOff (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) In which case we would merely be giving in to popular interest LaidOff (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

<undent> A couple of people made good points above, in that the article is evolving more toward being about Joe Wurzelbacher than about the campaign concept "Joe the Plumber". Should the debate on article name be re-opened? (cringing) Kelly hi! 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Meme. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not the first time that removing the occupation from the infobox has been made. Last few efforts have been met by unyielding resistance by one editor. Given the recent RFCs, I think its fair to say most editors don't think we need "plumber" in the infobox, or many of his newer occupations.Mattnad (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Um -- try six editors and more ... and don;t forget the other 15 before ... Collect (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

very simple edit requested

{{editprotected}} The text contains the phrase "An advanced copy of his book . . " The word "advanced" should be "advance" - there's nothing particularly advanced about a book received ahead of time, but it is received in advance of publication. A very common mistake, sadly. Cigar95 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)cigar95

Admins: licet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done Oren0 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRESERVE

Another editor just shared this gem with me: Wikipedia:PRESERVE:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:
  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

Wikipedia:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline. The only Biographies of living persons excepetion is unsourced controversial claims about living persons.

This policy means that the removal of cited materials is not allowed. travb (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You "forgot" some.
Exceptions include:
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Nope: "The only Biographies of living persons excepetion is unsourced controversial claims about living persons." travb (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." and "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." Note the only requirement is that the material be "disputed." Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
To be forthright, "preserve" is part of a policy, not necessarily meant to be taken out of context. For the definition of "neutral" see WP:NPOV and its related policies. BTW, the burden of proof is always upon he who asserts. Even IRL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." When editing a page, what does editing policy say? Are editors supposed to remove the material that they feel violates BLP? Only if the material is "unsourced controversial claims about living persons". With sourced, well cited claims, even controversial claims about living persons:
  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
Discuss proposed changes on the talk page, do not remove those changes.
WP:BLP When can editors remove material?
  1. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
  2. "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability."
  3. "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." (twice)
The first two reasons are specific: Remove only material that:
  1. unsourced or poorly sourced material
  2. which violates Wikipedia:No original research
  3. from a self-published sources
  4. sources that fail Wikipedia:Verifiability
The sources provided here all meet these guidelines.
The third is simply reiterates the first and second. travb (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where material is in dispute, and there is no consensus for its retention, deletion of the material is acceptable for any editor. "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. " (stress added) Although it appears some regard following this explicit rule as "forum shopping", it is what is called for in WP:3RR and is not "forum shopping" at all. Collect (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:3RR. Please report your concerns to BLP, but please follow Wikipedia:PRESERVE before deleting well sourced material, this will avoid a lot of the contention. What I like the best about that policy is the invitation it gives to editors to "add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced".travb (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazing -- BLP, 3RR, RS, V all agree and you hang your hat in PRESERVE even where other rules specifically state something else <g>. "Editing Policy" is, in fact, lower in level than the others cited. Collect (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As User:DGG says: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience."
I am showing the audience here how to counter effectively the next mass deletion. travb (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I encourage you too, "add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced". Thanks Collect :) travb (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since i've been watching this, if i'm the audience you're showing me wikilawyering at it's worst.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The indents might have gotten misplaced, my reply is to Inclusionist, not collect.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I do not recall being the one who is editing the pages he references as guidelines -- seems that is rather "wikilawyering" fer shure ... Collect (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I also found this post: "*Per both the wording and spirit of WP:BLP we should keep it out of the article till we have agreement on it's inclusion. Not the other way around, warring to include it because "there's no consensus to keep it out." Seems you agree. Collect (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it whenever anyone is painted into a corner with policy, they whine "wikilayering"? I wonder how many people have actually read WP:wikilawyering.

I would like to share wikipedia policy which will hopefully avoid edit wars caused by mass removal of referenced material. travb (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you should take in consideration that you might be just plain wrong regarding your interpretation of policies. Second, none of the above does improve the article, as a matter of fact you didn't mentioned any specifics about the subject and therefore just misusing this talk page as a personal forum for your interest in soaping. Please keep such on the appropriate talk pages or start trying to be more constructive and comment on the issues for which this page is intended for. Thank you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikilawyering labels are usually followed by piety insults. sigh. Please teach me mag how to write eloquent prose, as you do, instead of just "soap". I started editing on this page before you Mag (2 days after the 3rd presidential debate), my first edit here was restoring an edit which violated WP:PRESERVE. I am aware of many of the players and most of the issues. If you ever want any insight about this page, let me know. I do know that their are editors who persistently delete well referenced material repeatedly on this page (I can provide edit diffs if you are not familiar with this). I came here to express how these deletions are against policy.
Deletion editors here seem to have bad vision, on the top of this very page, they read: "Controversial material about living persons...must be removed immediately..."
But they seem to somehow miss this middle section: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately..."
Mag, If all you can do in response to my postings is to call me names and accuse me of advertently leaving out policy ("Forgot") then you really have nothing to add to this discussion, and you are simply wasting my time with your piety remarks.travb (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to make the same points based on WP:V and WP:RS to no avail. It's pretty much hopeless. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing it works. I don't agree with the essay at all. Editors when edit wars all the time by being tedious. travb (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - final paragraph for the section "Ohio government database searches."

  • Comment Other information needs to be updated in the article as well. The information below needs to be added as the final paragraph for the section "Ohio government database searches."
In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information".[12] On December 10, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 69 to 26.[2] On December 17, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio Senate by a vote of 30 to 2.[3] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed House Bill 648, creating civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.[4]

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we come up with a different version above. The last variation you wrote was:
  • In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases.[13] The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate in December of 2008.[2][3] On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation[4] which will become effective after 90 days.[8] Mattnad (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The text you propose is the most updated. The above text you have provided is the consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support I support adding the above text, as it was agreed upon by consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree looks like consensus from here for sure. Collect (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support and comment, as long as this text is not deleting cited text already in the article, I strongly support the inclusion of any well cited material, no matter what the position. travb (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks accurate and NPOV. csloat (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Oren0 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let’s Improve this article

Let’s Improve this article.

This Joe the Plumber article showcases the reoccurring complaints about Wikipedia acting less as an encyclopedia and increasingly as a faux-resource. Truth, facts, historically documented events, accuracy and overall impression of the article’s subject, are all unusually wiki-malleable and subjected to irregular decisions about what should and shouldn’t be included.

This article seems especially prone to certain notoriously contentious editors with idiosyncratic beliefs hovering over it, blocking, shaping, culling, selective wiki-rules-spewing and otherwise attempting to dominate and shape the article’s outcome in order to push their own points of view.

Please allow a reasonably appropriate time for discussion before deleting, valid, relevant, newsworthy, timely and sourced material from its appropriate article section.

"Joe the Plumber Suggests Lynching Senator Chris Dodd" is well-sourced info.

If the info has been deleted too soon, other editors will not be aware that their voices are needed in the matter.

Let's also be consistent in applying the rules here.

If consensus is that we are drilling down too much by mentioning Wurzelbacher's lynch Senator Chris Dodd statements, why are we repeatedly mentioning the company names of his various gigs?

I have removed this material, but -again - an article-hovering editor has reverted my edit, without even checking the TALK page re: why the edit was made.

I think if we all get consistent here, this article can become a standout for wikipedia, not a continuous embarrassment and hassle. Thanks 174.21.18.111 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd be better off avoiding phrases like "Sam Wurzelbacher, the living twit." It exposes that you are editing this article with an emotional agenda. Emotional agendas are inconsistent with WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia principle. Your opinions are now considered accordingly. -Jordgette (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My only opinion is in regards to this concept: Please allow a reasonably appropriate time for discussion before deleting... When making edits regarding living people we need to show great caution. With controversial material, the default position is leaving the info out. It has to be due too WP:BLP. No harm will come if it's not in the article. Discuss it on the talk page before placing it in the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with the the Anon editor that the minutia of Wurzelbacher's post election activities also missed the boat on where the article (in retrospect) should probably go.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a good example of an article that picks up a lot of crap as it is written during current events. Not every silly statement that Joe says is worthy of inclusion. I did a little reworking to the opening paragraph of the article, but the whole thing is really a bit lengthy at this point.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Josephine the Plumber

Is his nickname a reference to Josephine the Plumber? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Collect (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the article title be changed if he is technically not a plumber

Since he (1) worked as a plumber's assistant, not a plumber, (2) did not have a license that would be needed to call himself a plumber, and (3) is not currently working in the plumbing industry, it is inaccurate to title the article "Joe the Plumber", unless the article is about the nickname and not the person. If it is about the person, then it should use his real name as its title (conveniently, a page with that name already exists, and redirects here), and "Joe the Plumber" should redirect to that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.162.173 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME --Onorem♠Dil 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME -- says to avoid "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject... even though they may be more common". Since the man is not a plumber, the exception for "inaccurate" descriptions applies. (P.S. I am the same person as 71.109.162.173, dynamic IP address) 71.109.149.102 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
He is know by this name, not for his technical professional credentials, but for what the McCain presidential campaign, as well as the media, called him. And Joe the Plumber is broader than the individual. The McCain campaign recast him as a personification of how Obama's tax plans would hurt the aspirational small business person. "Joe the Plumber" caught on. "Joe, the person who used to work for a plumber" did not. Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No publication used anything other than "Joe the Plumber", thus readers are apt to only look for that title. Collect (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

I thought there was a See also section that wikilinked to similar articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Early life and education

"Early life and education" is a standard section in many Wikipedia biographies, especially longer ones. This article seems to ignore the subject's life prior to 2008. I'm sure we can find at least a few of the usual biographical details, like where he was born and went to school. Even a short paragraph on the topic would round out this article.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If he were notable for anything other than the incidents related to the campaign, you might have a point. He appears quite an "average Joe" including the fact that his early life was quite unremarkable -- to the extent that incidents which would never be noted about others, have been noted about him. He is not a "noted scientist" or "noted author." He is not a famous athlete, or movie star. Absent a reason to include such stuff as "he attended a local elementary shcool, a local junior high school, and a local high school" type stuff - what do you expect will be of value to readers? Collect (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this section should be added, I was just thinking that the article is probably due for another major trim-down. -Jordgette (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We include basic biographical statements in biographies. Who cares which college an army general went to? I don't know, but it's standard information, just like date of birth, which we include in this article. An alternative is to change this from a biography to an article on the political phenomenon of the 2008 election, leaving out the before and after. Those questions aside, perhaps this article has nothing before 2008 because it appears there isn't much known about those years. I did a newspaper search and all I could find is that he lived in Arizona and Alaska at various times, and that he attended the same high school as a politician he endorsed this year. But the subject has a book out and I assume there's more info about him there.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I scanned the archives and didn't see any previous discussion, so I assume there's no existing consensus to omit any pre-2008 material. If we can find even the scant few details normally in a biography, like birthplace and education, then that'd help the article. I partly agree with Jordgette - it's always good to review articles for balance and relevance. But I don't see any obvious areas for major cutting. That said, if it could be shorter overall that might make it better. I can picture a four-line version. ;)   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
While this article contains biographic material, it's not a biography per se. Its core is the political campaign and the material covering Joe's other activities (like being a web commentator) is off topic and can be cut out (which I suspect is what User:Jordgette has in mind). His life outside of what was reported during the campaign is not really notable.Mattnad (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that making it an article about the event rather than the person is an acceptable choice. It would involve deleting the (minimal) biographical material and the information on what "Joe" did after the campaign. However that's a big change so I'd suggest using an RfC to make that determination.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of just paring down the details. Even the section on the campaign still feels like the campaign ended yesterday, and all of that specific detail will get increasingly trivial as time goes on. But I don't see a problem with having a paragraph of background if someone wants to go get it. -Jordgette (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would want to shorten a mid-sized article. This article is not long. Do editors want to shorten a few specific sections or the whole article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any references to start an Early life and education section. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Abridgment needed?

A couple of years ago, I went through this article and cut it down by about one-third. It's looking like it might be time for another round of cutting. If Joe had been involved in Obama's campaign, there might be some lasting historical importance of this person. But since he campaigned for McCain, who lost, Joe is becoming more and more of a minor footnote as the months go by. I mention this because people are still adding current events involving Joe; I'm not sure it's Wikipedia-worthy that he showed up this week at a rally in Wisconsin. Would like to hear others' opinions. -Jordgette (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Or a new article that would link to this one. His participation in the 2008 campaign has enough reliable sources, and topics, to be worthy of its own article. This would help shorten this article, and provide a link to the other... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If the guy shows up again during the 2012 primaries the article will once again be barnstormed by political activists trying to pitch their "home truths" all over again.

October 2011

If he's running for Congress, shouldn't this article be under his real name? I doubt "Joe the Plumber" is going to appear on the ballot. 169.231.76.88 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This has come up in the past - real name or what he's know as. He is notable by the pseudonym and his congressional run is for now a footnote unless it goes somewhere (tbd).Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A separate issue: The article is getting increasingly out of order chronologically. The 2011 campaign is now somewhere in the middle of the article, with earlier events covered later. I suggest that we work towards putting the article into a more chronological order for the sake of both readers and future editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  2. ^ a b c d ""House passses "Joe the Plumber" legislation"". Dayton Daily News. 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2008-12-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "The dayton daily News" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c d ""Senate Approves "Joe the Plumber" bill"". Dayton Daily News. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2008-12-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d e f ""'Joe the Plumber' bill OK'd by Strickland"". The Western Star. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  6. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  7. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  8. ^ a b ""Legislative floor actions"". Associated Press. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ a b c ""Joe The War Correspondent?"". CBS News. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ a b [httphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/jan/07/republicans-gaza ""Joe The War Correspondent""]. The Guardian. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "the Guardian" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b ""Joe the plumber headed to Middle East"". CNN. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  12. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  13. ^ Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_8&oldid=1140127850"