Talk:Joe the Plumber

Template:Multidel

Not a plumber....

Shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to reflect that he is not acutally a plumber - i.e. he does not hold a liscense? He may be referred to as such, but technically he does not hold that position.

It's discussed under the Plumbing career section. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is a plumber. It's what he does. What difference does it make whether he has a license? A license doesn't make someone a plumber. Plumbing is a trade, not a "position", whatever that means. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy is one persistent sock, it's getting old. Tan | 39 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, he's a "plumber's helper," in light of the fact that he's not completed his apprenticeship and hasn't attained his own license. If we wanted to get technical. So who cares? Wikipedia cares about the technical crap of that sort, I guess. The red press probably tagged him with the "plumber" moniker, probably most journalists wouldn't have gotten the distinction between "plumber" and "plumber's helper." --VictorC (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to me. I was answering the user's question; not even trying to change the article or anything. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary does not distinguish between "licensed plumber" and anyone else who works on plumbing. Originally plumbers worked on roofs. Collect (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that your interpretation of what's in a dictionary isn't applicable in real life. There actually is a difference between licensed plumbers, pirate plumbers operating with no licenses, and plumber's helpers operating under the license of a licensed plumber. It doesn't take much thought to realize this distinction exists, might not be in every dictionary, and is a pertinent distinction in the real world. --VictorC (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the silliest discussion yet to infect this talk page. If someone fixes toilets for a living then they are a plumber. Period. If someone fixes toilets for a living and also has a license to do so then they are a licensed plumber. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I assure you. This isn't silly. Perhaps because you aren't a pipefitter you might find it so. It isn't. Ignorance or unfamiliarity with a facet of professional life won't ever equate it to silliness. We might find it silly or humorous, but to aficionados of the topic believe me it is quite serious. It is not at all silly. It is a real discussion, and an interchange of ideas. What is posted about this being silly isn't adding to the discussion, it's detracting from it. I hope this is clearer now. --VictorC (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it's slightly ridiculous that people are arguing that unlicensed plumbers aren't plumbers? (Oh, and pipefitting and plumbing are not the same thing.) CIreland (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please confine your discussion on this article talk page to items directly concerned with improving the article content. Side discusions will be removed to user talk pages per our talk page guidelines.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the pertinency of this topic which has to do with one of the topics in the article. Article content. The fact that the subject of the article is a plumber, one of the topics in the article has to do with the subject's professional life, the discussion on whether or not it is silly to discuss facets of the profession of the subject of this article has to do with the improvement of the article. I'm frankly surprised that you (REDPEN) are even making this interpretation. It seems clear. I admire your zealousness, but I see it as very misplaced. --VictorC (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "plumber" (meaning master plumber) and "plumber's helper" is significant. I disagree that we should say Joe is NOT a plumber, but he certainly isn't a "master" plumber. He is clearly a "plumber's helper," and might be termed to be an "assistant plumber." Here are two links to job descriptions which provide some clarity as to the distinction (from a plumber or "master" plumber) and pay that a plumber's helper might receive:
PLUMBER'S HELPER (1) Annual Gross Salary: $58,100

PLUMBER'S HELPER (2) Annual Gross Salary: $57,700 --VictorC (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All plumbers are "plumbers." Not all plumbers are "master plumbers." There is no rational case to be made that this is important in the case at hand. By the way, "plumber's helper" has a specific meaning in the US which is totally inapplicable here. Collect (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious issue. People go to school for years, apprentice for years and are trained correctly to become plumbers. Other professions, doctors, nurses, dentists, all have specific titles that entitle them to legally do work. An RN does not prescribe drugs, but a NP is allowed to prescribe under a doctors supervision. This is the same issue under a different profession. A plumber's assistant can not legally do work without the supervision and guidance of a licensed plumber. He is not a plumber. He is an assistant. He may plumb or install plumbing, that does not make him a plumber. Here is an article that has a person in the said profession describing exactly what this man does for a living.

"But it wasn't long before the Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics revealed that Wurzelbacher was not a licensed member of their trade.

"That means that he has not completed the training program necessary for him to sit for a licence test," said Tony Herrera, market recovery specialist for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 50 in Toledo, Ohio.

"It's a shame that this guy has ended up in this situation because it seems like he's misrepresented himself -- and for that matter the plumbing and pipefitting industry."

Without a licence, Wurzelbacher cannot practice in the city of Toledo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urewrong (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. He is not a plumber in the same way I am not an electrician (even though I can fix some loose wires.) Performing unlicensed work on installations of any kind is hazardous and irresponsible, and without a proper license, one is not a plumber. Dario1250 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. He has been a plumber for some years and in other states. Working under the direction of a licensed plumber is what you get 99% of the time on construction jobs. Collect (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he not a plumber, he did not pay any taxes last year. This guy is a liar and it should be mentioned in this article.Ithaka84 (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Anger? This is a BLP, and we are sorta required to stick to real facts. Sorry. Collect (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with saying he is not a plumber. As someone pointed out you wouldn't call a medical assistant a doctor unless they are a licensed with a doctorate degree. This is the same situation, technically speaking. I'm sure there are licensed plumbers out there who would be offended if you called someone a plumber who skipped all the certifications and training required to be officially called a plumber. The same way you wouldn't refer to back alley or black market surgeon as a "doctor" and I'm sure calling him one who offend those who spent years training and attending medical school. The dictionary definition of a plumber is irrelevant, in my opinion at least. To officially be a called a plumber in the US and by the Association of Plumbers you are required to finish all the training and certifications. It is the same with any other profession (either trade or professional) and should be treated as such. We try to be professional as possible Wikipedia and that should include paying attention to any technicalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.183.205 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Apples. Oranges. "Doctor" is a specific degree (usually not medical, in fact). "Plumber" is not an academic degree. Anywhere. Nor does any organization have the right to insist on membership to claim that one is skilled in the art (Ohio does not require union membership). Thus Mr. IP, your points are ill taken indeed. Collect (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a bit out of touch with how the trades define their membership and the qualifications. If fact it's extremely common for professional organizations, including plumbers and MDs like neurosurgeons, to have training, testing, and licensing requirments. Seem a little elitist to think that Doctors are somehow worthy of licenses to practice, whereas plumbers are not. Mattnad (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, consensus is against you. This is a dead horse. Collect (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't realize there's any consensus here. Perhaps there's a consensus between you and you, but I for one would prefer we use accurate terms, as have others. This discussion was not closed and I don't think it's a dead horse by any means. Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, it is up to you to get a new consensus, not to assert a right to deny the previous one. Thanks! If you get a consensus, then change away all you want. I do not think you will get one from the actual editors on the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, please demonstrate "consensus" - all I see is you claiming consensus. A consensus of one does not a consensus make. You're claiming something that does not exist to my eyes. Where exactly was this consensus declared? Mattnad (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_4#Plumbing_career for example. In all the entire set of archives, you are the single and only edtor using the term "plumber's asistant." That's right. Out of more than fifty editors leaving comments, you think that the other 49 who have used the term "plumber" are wrong. I submit, indeed, that it is up to you to get a consensus to change what fifty already settled on without argument about it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly consensus and the discussion was not centered on the point here. You're skirting the central issue. I'll also point out that there's an existing RFC below on how to handle the plumber's union view that Joe should not be called a plumber either. I'm actually a bit annoyed that we need to go through this process to use accurate terminology on an article that demands it. Anyway, since you've unilaterally decided that this matter is settled, I'll put it up for RFC. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Good gawd, another RFC? 50-1 is not a consensus? There is nothing to discuss or comment on. He is a plumber. It's what he is, regardless of whether he has a piece of paper that says so. Get over it. -- Zsero (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is not on this topic which is how his occupation is listed. Sorry Matt -- your chorus is missing a few voices still. I also posted on the WT:OR board asking for input in a neutral manner. Let's see what people who have not been here think about sources being SYN within a single sentence <g>. Collect (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks collect for skipping the issue and trying to discredit my input by calling me Mr. IP. I didn't know having a wiki user account qualifies you to provide scholarly input. I guess my years of school was a mistake, all I needed was a wiki account. I have edited and provided input on numerous articles, and all i was doing was trying to provide my input here. So instead skipping the issue with insults why not answer the question. The point was why not use proper terminology. Yes I know there are many types of doctorate degrees. The point remains, you don't call someone a doctor unless they have a accredited doctorate degree. A licensed M.D. has to go through all the proper certifications and testings to practice and called a doctor. I know for a fact you would offended many people by calling someone a doctor who isn't licensed or hasn't passed his boards. This is an example, but it is the point remains. They belong to a professorial organization who goes through and make sure each member has the proper certification. Obviously plumbing school is not as intense, but they too go through certification, training and license procedures to be called a plumber. I am sure there are plumbers out there who would not be happy if you called someone a plumber who is not licensed. What does the level of prestige or difficulty have to do with the certification ? Many trade and professional organizations go through the same process. It is def elitist to not treat the trade of plumbing not in the same light. In any case we are splitting hairs over terminology and technicalities. But these technicalities should be given certain attention to maintain a certain level of integrity. You don't call someone an electrician if they do not have the proper licensing, they are called an electrician's apprentice, so why not plumbers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.204.167 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Israel comments

The bit about Shepard Smith's interview makes this section terribly long, thus giving it undue weight, and doesn't really add anything. It's not as if there isn't good reason to believe Obama's policies to be bad for Israel. JtP invited people to research it for themselves and come to their own conclusion; it's not his obligation to spell out the entire record in a short interview. The fact that Smith read some pro-Israel statement from the platform means less than nothing; JtP, like the rest of us, is entitled to take that with an appropriate dosage of salt.

The comment was rather insignificant to start with, and all the WP article should do is report it, not add reams of commentary. Just say: this is what he said, and leave it at that. Let readers form their own conclusion on whether what he said made any sense. -- Zsero (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT editorial page thought it was significant, as have others. What's most remarkable (to me anyway) is that a Fox commentator thought Joe was reckless in his unsupportable statements - hence Smith's comments that Joe was not correct (and I'm paraphrasing nicely - Smith was not so kind). We cover a lot of that in this article, but you want to eliminate two sentences that are "terribly long". You also removed a link to an article that has the full transcript - thereby making it hard for our readers to see what really happened.

Your concerns about of length seems one sided. Take for instance this section on database searches in the article. It's nearly 500 words, and 5 long paragraphs. Comparing the two - you find details of Joe's interview too long, whereas 500 words critiquing bureaucrat who was also an Obama donor is free from your urge to cut the article down. Some might call this a double standard. Mattnad (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about cutting the article down. I'm concerned about giving a trivial incident undue weight by sheer space devoted to it. The database searches are a serious matter - quite possibly a criminal matter; this is a throwaway line at one rally. A NYT editorial makes no difference - the NYT editorial page is going to say whatever is most convenient for the Democratic Party on that day. And I don't know why you're so shocked that someone on Fox would do this; Fox actually does have balance, unlike the NYT. But the fact is that JtP was not "reckless" and his statement is hardly "unsupportable". A brief survey of Obama's history on this matter, and who has his ear, can certainly lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion as JtP. The evidence is far from conclusive, but it can't be dismissed as easily as you seem to imagine. The fact that JtP wasn't prepared to give a mini-lecture on the subject at a moment's notice is irrelevant. -- Zsero (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The day a majority of wikipedians ranks Fox News a better sorce than The NYT is the day Wikipedia looses all credibility.65.54.154.41 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All of Joe is trivial in the broader scheme of things. He's a prop for the McCain campaign. But in the context of the is article, what he says and does is relevant. And while you think it was a throwaway line at a rally, others see it otherwise. This has received a LOT of coverage in media. And Smith wasn't asking for a mini-lecture. He was just asking why Joe thought Obama was a threat. Joe had no answer. As for what this means, we can let the readers decide - per your recommendation. So in summary, the interview happened, it was public, the Mass Media (on the right, center, and left) think it's worth covering. I think you're in the minority on this. And in the end, it's only a couple of sentences - why are you getting so bent out of shape over it? Mattnad (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Mattnad. Joe is used as vox populi by McCain's campaign, so Joe's comments on Israel are just as relevant as his comments on taxes. VG ☎ 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The line itself is worth covering; the subsequent commentary is not. The fact that Shepard thought it appropriate to read some press release from Obama's campaign, as though it somehow disproved JtP, shows how smart JtP was not to get into a debate with him, and instead to invite people look up Obama's record on Israel and make up their own minds. But you keep missing the fact that we have to keep the total word count on this issue short, in order not to give it undue weight. JtP isn't famous for his comment on Israel, he's famous for his comment on Obama's tax policy. If he makes comments he makes on other matters, and they're widely reported, it's OK to report them here, but not to give them detailed analysis that blows their importance out of proportion. -- Zsero (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That notability horse is really dead now. Stop beating it. JtP has been in the news for a host of issues unrelated to taxes. Claiming that the focus of the article should be around his tax position is just your attempt to spin the article. VG ☎ 17:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What else has he been in the news for (beside the vicious attacks on his character)? What non-tax-related comments have caught people's attention, beside this one? I'm not saying not to report this comment, just not to give it space disproportionate to its importance. And certainly not to the mere fact that an ordinary person, not a practised debater, declined to be drawn into a televised debate about details. He made a reasonable comment, said he arrived at it by reading various things, and invited people to do their own research; what more needs to be said about it? -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that his outlandish comment had to be contradicted by the moderator of a right-leaning TV station is worth mentioning, especially when that fact was reproduced by NYT, The Daily Show, and even Haaretz. VG ☎ 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

JtP has NO notability ouside the campaign. The evidence that people who are directly connected sith the Obama campaign sought to find "dirt" is clear (I consider $2,500 to be a direct connection). Collect (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a very biased, US-centric view here. Haaretz disagrees with you. VG ☎ 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

His comment was far from "outlandish". Is Shepard Smith "right-leaning"? At any rate Haaretz is certainly not! As for US-centric, this is a US topic. US reportage determines what's notable about it, not foreign reportage, which will naturally focus on aspects, however trivial, that relate to the reporters' own countries. -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Americans do not WP:OWN the article on JtP. VG ☎ 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with WP:OWNership, which is about WP editors. A topic that is inherently USA-centric, and is notable only for its impact on the USAn public, must be reported from that perspective. -- Zsero (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At least 300 Wikipedians disagree with you. VG ☎ 18:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) re: US-Centric Topic - it's actually pretty funny how that point-of-view is an exemplar of what the many of our foreign allies see as a problem with some Americans. Chauvinism aside, there are also parts of the US public and media who feel this is a relevant topic - hence the news coverage and commentary. And in the end, what we have here is not that controversial for Wikipedia. This is a bit more detail about 5 minute interview that's been seen by millions and discussed broadly. And if you think the summary introduces "commentary", I have no problem adding verbatim quotes - may be a bit longer, and make Joe look a little sillier, but if that's what you want, I'll do it.Mattnad (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the Smith interview is commentary on the original line. I have never claimed that the original line is not noteworthy; it is, though only marginally. But commentary on it crosses the line. -- Zsero (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming Joe's responses to a question, even from Smith, qualify as "interview". Otherwise you're speaking a language other than English. Given we can agree that Joe's interview and his responses are relevant to what Joe thinks (as he was doing the talking), I think the article is OK including parts of the interview. So Smith's end of interview commentary on how Obama has always been a strong supporter of Israel is out, but Joe's skirting the answer on why Omama is a menace is in. I'm OK with that.Mattnad (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, only his original comment is at all notable, and that marginally. Any commentary on it, including the Smith "interview", are out. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that anytime someone mentions Israel, either positively or negatively, it becomes a political and cultural brouhaha. This subject just makes the article more of a battleground than it already is. However, if JtP's quote about Obama's purported viewpoint toward Israel is included, then Shepard Smith's response also has to be included, otherwise it violates WP:NPOV and is unbalanced. And the article has become a WP:COATRACK for far too many campaign issues. We already have a campaign article, there is no need to include those issues as a constellation around Joe the Plumber, either as a metaphor or as a person. And BTW, Fox is often considered to be unbalanced and right wing, unlike the NYT which is, more or less, centrist and neutral. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You've got that backwards. All the Smith "interview" is good for is to show that the original comment is at least somewhat notable, and deserves a brief mention. The exchange with Smith itself is not at all notable, and certainly Smith's subsequent reading of Obama's position is a complete COATRACK, because it has nothing at all to do with JtP. And anybody who thinks the NYT is centrist and neutral probably thinks the same of NPR! -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

Here is the paragraph on JtP's response and comments to a question asked relative to Obama's supposed position on this issue, as it currently exists:

On October 28, Wurzelbacher was asked, at a rally, by a McCain supporter whether he supported the view that "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel." According to the Associated Press, Wurzelbacher replied, "I'll go ahead and agree with you on that."[20] In a subsequent interview with Fox News, Wurzelbacher said he was simply offering his "personal opinion that I've come up with by looking into different facts," but that "you don't want my opinion on foreign policy. I know just enough about foreign policy to probably be dangerous."[21] When Shepard Smith repeatedly pressed him for his rationale, Wurzelbacher refused to answer, and instead insisted it was up to Mr. Smith’s viewers to figure out why he, Joe the Plumber, thought Mr. Obama was a menace to Israel.[22].

Where is the balance to JtP's statement agreeing that a vote for Obama is said to be a vote for the "death of Israel". Despite his comment about his personal opinion, the balance isn't there, and therefore it lends undue weight to the claim that Obama opposes Israel. Regardless of it's claimed purpose to provide notability to the original comment, it's still a paragraph supporting only one viewpoint, and therefore violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and should be deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are completely misconstruing NPOV. NPOV means that Wikipedia reports things from a neutral point of view. Reporting what JtP said is neutral. The article is about JtP and when his own opinions are presented there is no need to "balance" them by an opposing view. So long as the article neitehr endorses nor dispute his claims, it is NPOV. It is not UNDUE for a WP article to report its subject's views; but it is UNDUE to spend too much time on one particular statement that is peripheral at best to the subject's notability. -- Zsero (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His views on Israel are undue weight. As much as people here think he is, he is not a public figure, and his comments really have no sway. More notable people than he make somewhat controversial comments on a daily basis which don't garner inclusion here since WP is not a newspaper. On an additional note, some people ridiculing him do not belong either. Per BLP, article should not serve to mock the subject, and including video and comments of people taunting him to "Pay his taxes" would fall under this. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to briefly report a statement of his that has gained a lot of attention. It is undue weight to spend too much time on it, e.g. by presenting analysis on it. Just report it without comment and move on. -- Zsero (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The exchange with Smith is quite notable per NYT, Haaretz, and The Daily Show. VG ☎ 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a balancing or opposing view to say that JtP didn't express those opinions, since no one is questioning that he said them, and they are reliably sourced. It is the attack against Obama that requires balance regardless of who said it, and whether it's an opinion or not. What JtP said in this case is not neutral, and as an opinion it does not negate WP:NPOV requirements. Otherwise, using that logic, nothing violates neutrality if it's wrapped in the cloth of their own opinion, with the claim that as an opinion, it is inherently neutral because it merely reports the opinion. This is a run around the requirements of WP:NPOV by indirection. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As examples: The article said that JtP asked Obama a question about a tax increase and expressed an opinion that his taxes would increase under Obama. Reporting only that, either directly, or indirectly as an opinion, is POV and unbalanced. Therefore the article also contrasted that with sources that said his taxes would actually be lower under Obama. Also, the article stated that JtP is not a licensed plumber, and indeed he isn't, as reliably sourced. And for balance, the article also reports that it's not necessary to be individually licensed if one is working under a licensed plumber's supervision or as a plumber's helper. As it should in all these cases. It's the same concept; one of neutrality in what we say about someone, opinion or otherwise. More generally, if only one side is expressed in WP on any particular issue, readers might walk away with the impression that there is only one legitimate side to that issue, and that does a disservice to them. And to us as editors. — Becksguy (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your not going to convince Zsero with this. Anyone who claims that the Interview with Smith is only "commentary" has a separate agenda. Here's the issue: McCain has invested heavily in JtP for their campaign, and an editor doesn't like information that make JtP look bad - even in his own words. Anyway, I for one think it's reportable that a Fox interviewer, immediately after speaking with Joe, felt compelled to set the record straight on Obama's position. That seems notable and many media outlets think so too. Just not Zsero. Why does he think it's trivial when Fox News doesn't? Mattnad (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Separately, re: Arzel's comments that JtP is "not a public figure", and therefore his views on Isreal don't matter. It's hard to address this, except to say it's another example of someone writing in a language that looks like English, but isn't. Here we have a man who has been invited to participate in the McCain election campaign tour, takes part in multiple media interviews, fields questions from McCain supporters at a rally, has hired a publicity company, has people trying to draft him to run for congress, is still not a public figure - go figure. Mattnad (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply repeating a million times that he is a public figure does not make it so. He is a private citizen who has been forced into the public eye. I realize that you are playing the party line by continuing to demagogue him, but in a couple of days after all the partisans have left the building we can return this article back into some semblance of a rational presentation. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're using Newspeak, but I'm unfamiliar with the dialect. "Forced" by whom? The publicity management firm he hired? The McCain campaign? The media? The people at the McCain-Palin Rallies? Where's the "force"? Perhaps it's armed bandits from Canada who came across a hole in our border fence? You have (sometimes) taken a strong position on protecting him from his own pursuit of fame and fortune. Paradoxically, you have no reservations leaving other aspects of Joe when it's for Republican partisan benefit (cf. Share the wealth). I agree he might fade, but do all people someday. I'm not playing any party line to suggest that Joe is part of this election and as such deserves mention - even when he says things that are impolitic. We should cover Joe's statements, great and not so great. You'll note that I've made no effort to change the most recent entry with his Nov. 2 interview with Cavuto. That too is part of his notability. Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you been paying attention at all? Obama said "Spread the wealth around". McCain then uses this phrase and JtP as an example of Obama's redistribution of wealth policies during the third debate. The media and left bloggers trash this guy because he doesn't have a plumber's licence (which he doesn't need), owes taxes (which he didn't know about), and all other sorts of disparaging comments. JtP is defended by McCain and others, and also goes onto TV to defend himself against these attacks, and it explodes from there. He did not seek the attention that he recieved. The fact that you are so against the primary reasoning for how he reached his notability, calling it a GOP talking point and now Republican partisan benefit only further displays your obvious partisan bias. My only concern with this article is that it not violate WP:BLP and that it be factually correct. If you think that factually correct means republican bias then I suggest you stop drinking kool-aid for the rest of the day. One more day, and then you can either rejoice or sulk and then we can make the article factually accurate without any partisan bitching. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets all stop discussing other editors and refocus on the article at hand. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you still haven't shown the "force" behind Joe's repeated and obvioiusly voluntary pursuit of the cameras and you're still selective on which facts to present. Hard to take you seriously, really. Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy, you are simply misrepresenting what NPOV is about. NPOV is not "balance". When presenting the article subject's view, there is absolutely no need to "balance" it, let alone to attempt to refute it. If you think there is such a need, you need to re-read the relevant policies. -- Zsero (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are two quoted lines from the WP:NPOV policy: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It also says: When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. Note that it refers to "competing opinions" and uses "viewpoints" and "opinions" interchangeably. From that it is obvious that opinions are viewpoints and are covered by NPOV. Granted it doesn't use the term "balance" (my shortcut for the concept), so I'll go back to using the full expression. I'm saying that the paragraph in question does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Mentioning JtP's viewpoint without mentioning Obama's refuting viewpoint—which is clearly very significant since it's his position that's the subject, and he's a presidential candidate—is a violation of NPOV, pure and simple. We are not talking about JtP's opinion on whether hot dogs are better with mustard, nor are we talking about an opposing viewpoint that claimed JtP didn't say what he reportedly said, rather we are talking about JtP's agreement with a viewpoint that attempts to place Obama in a negative light to a significant number of people. And there is an significant opposing viewpoint which is conspicuous for it's absence in this paragraph, although it's reported in the press and stated on Obama's website. As to the seriousness of that issue, note this headline from Fox News: 'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel' I believe you are misinterpreting NPOV in this case, Zsero. — Becksguy (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are completely misrepresenting the NPOV policy. The bit you quoted means that if there were competing credible views as to what JtP had said, we would have to bring both. Or if the subject of the article were Obama, or his views on Israel, and for some reason we quoted JtP's opinion on that, we would have to also quote credible alternative opinions. But here the subject is JtP; his own statement is directly relevant, but Shepard Smith's opinion about that statement is not. Not that it's completely irrelevant, but it's not required by NPOV. It would be perfectly NPOV simply to say "here's what JtP said" without saying anything at all about it. And that's what I think we should do, since this particular statement of JtP isn't directly relevant to his notability, so devoting too much space to it, by discussing and analyzing it, lends it too much weight. (Indeed, since you do insist on quoting Smith's view about JtP's view, NPOV would seem to require also quoting views or facts that support JtP's view, to balance Smith's, which would make the section even longer.) -- Zsero (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, this is not a case of misrepresenting WP:NPOV policy, it's a case of differing interpretations of that policy. So please don't use misrepresenting, as it has negative connotations, and does not help in reaching a resolution. I very strongly believe my interpretation is the correct one (and apparently I am not the only editor with that opinion), as applied in this case, and obviously you do not. Since there is no indication we can come to consensus on our own, I'm turning to WP:Dispute resolution, starting with the informal end of the process, to see what other uninvolved editors think. — Becksguy (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Union identifing who has completed their apprenticeship

Yes, Zsero, a Union will certainly identify those who have completed their apprenticeship programs. Your claim that they are only identifing Mr. W.'s incomplete status because they have endorsed Obama is entirely a matter of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that they would have done so for an Obama supporter. Why would they? Do they comment on every plumber who appears in the news? The article doesn't say this, however; it merely identifies the union as having endorsed Obama, so that the reader is not misled into thinking that it's neutral, and the reader can then judge whether this influenced the union's statement. -- Zsero (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Any sources at all to back your implication of the Union action for partisan reasons? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When's the last time they made such an announcement, sua sponte, about any other plumber? Beside which, it's just obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Of course I would not put that in the article, source or no source. It's not encyclopaedic. But the mere fact that the union endorsed Obama is easily sourced, and in itself should be unobjectionable. The explanation is merely about why it's relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article originally cited stated the union's endorsement -- thus not WP:SYNTH. Inclusion of material in the article is proper. Collect (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't taken wrong, but I'm suspicious that any Plumber's (or Journeyman's) Union might have a rule or requirement saying that anyone who calls them can verify the qualifications of a plumber or contractor, just as a matter of course. Perhaps it's not a matter of the union coming out to proclaim Joe's membership status, it's more of a matter of news reporters calling the union, doing their research and asking about Joe. Then the union answered the question just the way they would have to of any potential person who'd want to hire a union plumber. As far as the endorsement, we all know that unions pretty much always endorse a candidate in every election, and they publicly announce it and they make campaign donations. VictorC (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are LOTS of things that are cited in reliable sources that we shouldnt include either because they are off topic or because the are WP:SYN. In this case it is completely obvious that the intent of including the Union's endorsement is to encourage the reader to make some conclusion not made by the source, which is the underlying admonishion for WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

-editconflict- Come to think of it, the way the section on Plumbing Career does kind of read that way. I'll admit that. But in context, it's pretty commonly known that unions regularly endorse candidates, additionally unions are pretty much always behind the Democratic candidate. So. You have a good point. But when in context? VictorC (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post article stresses the union's endorsement of Obama. Seems that it is proper then to retain the statement. Thus, not WP:OR one whit. Nor WP:SYN. nor WP:ALPHABET Collect (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Wash Post article makes the analysis that the Union released Mr. W's status BECASUE they had endorsed Obama (and the Wahs Post article doesnt) it does not belong in this article about JtP. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much all unions endorse the Democrat. To the point which sourcing it is tantamount to being superfluous. Even if it were left out, people would just assume union bias. VictorC (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you've got that wrong. The WaPo says the union endorsed Obama, but doesn't make the analysis; therefore, you'd be quite right to protest any attempt for our article to make the analysis itself. That would be SYNTH. But merely stating the fact that the union did make this endorsement is not SYNTH, because that's exactly what the WaPo article says. The WaPo gives both facts, and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions, so it's OK for WP to do exactly the same thing, sourcing it to the WaPo. It's not as if the conclusion the reader might draw is unreasonable; it's almost certainly the truth, but it's not for us to say so. -- Zsero (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to mention that the Union had endorsed Obama - neither of which is the topic of this article mind you - would be because the Union had either illegally released the fact that Mr. W had not completed his certification because they supported Obama or that somehow the Union had prevented Mr. W from completting his apprentishship because the Union supported Obama. Now, until you have a source that directly makes either of those claims, the fact that the Union has endorsed Obama is completely off topic for this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but without the same justification. Leave the endorsement out. Agreed, (for the reasons made clear already). I don't have anything against leaving it, but frankly don't see the point. It just clutters up the article and confuses the issue. VictorC (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, it's in the source. The same source that we rely on for the union having said this in the first place. In the same sentence, even! This is not SYNTH. The WaPo think it was relevant, and that should be good enough. What conclusions will people draw? Probably the ones the WaPo intended them to. -- Zsero (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The WaPo is a newspaper not an encylopedia. Just because we can source something doesnt mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That essay is about what incidents are notable and worth including in an encylopaedia. This discussion is about an incident that we are including, and about a detail of that incident that our source thought relevant to include. So I don't see what the essay has to do with it. Of course we don't have to include every detail, but there's no reason why we shouldn't, and I think we should, because it is relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Our source is a newspaper and a newspaper is not an encyclopedia. You have yet to say anything why this should be included other than "it exists". So does mount everest, but we're not including that. What specifically does that WP:INFO piece of information give that the reader should know about Joe the Plumber? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can say exactly the same about the entire union statement. It all comes from the same newspaper story - in fact from the same sentence. Why is one part of the sentence so important that it must go into the article, and another part so irrelevant that you will fight tooth and nail to keep it out? The WaPo does the SYNTH of putting them together, without drawing any explicit conclusions; we should do the same. BTW, WP:INFO doesn't go where you seem to think it does. -- Zsero (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The completion of official requirements to become a "plumber" are clearly related to someone called, if you look at the title of the article, "Joe the Plumber". Re: INFO - oops the relevant quote was: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from WP:NOT (And if I were to discuss contributor motives and not content, I would ask why you are fighting tooth and nail to keep such an insignificant phrase in the article, but I am not - I am asking to justify the inclusion by our guidelines.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no "official requirements" to become a plumber. Anyone who plumbs for a living is a plumber, just as anyone who arranges flowers for a living is a flower arranger and anyone who writes for a living is an writer. Various governments may impose bureaucratic restrictions on who may practise plumbing, or flower arranging, or writing in their jurisdiction, but they can't control who is a plumber or a flower arranger or a writer. (Thank God, in the USA no government can impose licensing on writers; plumbers and flower arrangers are less lucky.)

As for the current discussion, the source we have for the fact that the union made this statement mentions that it endorsed Obama; that should be enough to include it. Either that bit goes in, or the whole sentence should go out.

The relevance is obvious: you cannot honestly believe that the union would have made this statement had JtP supported Obama. Why would it? -- Zsero (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, your only reason for including it is that "it is in the source article". But its link to THIS article you are basing solely on your suppositions of why the source article included it. Not a valid reason. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to suppose anything. You're the one who's "supposing" things in order to keep it out. Why is this part of the source less significant than the rest? And again, do you really think that had JtP supported Obama, or had the union supported McCain, the union would still have made this statement? Do unions generally make statements sua sponte, about plumbers who are in the news? -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is "less" significant for this article because it is in no way related to the article topic: Joe the Plumber. Or if it is, there has been no identificaion of why the union's polical endorsement would be related to the fact other than the insinuation that the union's endorsement of Obama is somehow related to either Mr. W. not completing his plumbing requirements (absurd) or that the release of the incomplete status was politically motivated - which is unsourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (much to my surprise given past debates). If you can find a reliable source that makes the connection that you'd like, then I'm open to seeing it. Otherwise, I see it as an attempt to manufacture innuendo.Mattnad (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source that makes the connection is the same source that we are using for the statement itself. How many times do I have to say this? Both facts are in the same sentence. Obviously the WaPo reporter who wrote the article, who is very unlikely to be a McCain supporter, and the editor and fact checker and all that other good stuff that makes the WaPo a RS, all thought that the connection was a valid one to make. The most natural thing is for our article to do the same. -- Zsero (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that just because it is in a news paper article it does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article? The unions did not endorse Obama because of JtP, Mr. W. was not denied his plumbing credentials because the union endorsed Obama and even the source does not state that the union released the information about Mr. W's plumbing status because they had endorsed Obama. Your only reason for including it in this article is your claim that "Do unions generally make statements sua sponte, about plumbers who are in the news?" and if that is the only reason, it is clearly an analysis that is not made by the current source. Find a source that makes a direct analysis or the statement goes. You are stacking "facts" together in a manner that promotes the reader to make certain deductions that is not explicite in the source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So we should "pick and choose" from newspaper articles instead of accurately stating what is in them? That would be an "interesting" addition to WP for sure! The Washington Post definitely felt the fact was relevant -- have you experience as a newspaper editor at least? Collect (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I AM saying that we "pick and choose" what is ON TOPIC FOR A PARTICULAR ARTICLE. There are many many pieces of fact and information even in that particular WaPo article that we are not including in the article on JtP and if you look, there are tons and tons of facts from the other sources that we are not including in this article. The WaPo felt that the particular fact was on topic for A NEWSPAPER article which, WP:NOT#NEWS we have been over.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You assert a need for consensus BEFORE you will remove the "irrelevant" template. Alas for you, it appears from here that you are the only one asseting that the endorsement FOUND IN THE CITE is "irrelevant." Further you assert that we should "pick and choose" what we include from a cite, which is directly contrary to WP policy. " You do not get to pick and choose what you personally feel is notable " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard/Archive_2 "You can not pick and choose within the source and say the positive comments are reliable, but the negative ones are not" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Bias.2C_emotional_arguments_and_reliable_sources , and another 2K or so where the dicta are the same. If you use a source, you accept it for facts you like and for facts you do not like. Absent anyone else actually joining in on your "pick and choose" claim, I asseet you do not have consensus on your side here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

One) You dont get to _remove_ a tag until there is consensus that the issue is settled.

Two) I have in no way ever stated that some facts within a source are unreliable and others are reliable. I have stated that some are off topic and not rellavant for _this article_. When I have asked for you to demonstrate why this particular fact is relevant, the only answer that has been provided is "that the unions endorsement is in the source". I ask, and what does the unions endorsment of one candidate have to do with whether or not Mr. W has recieved his license from the union? To which the answer has been "Well its obvious that they released the information because they endorsed Obama." To which I have stated, "however obvious it may be to you, that is not what is stated in the source and to suggest that within our article without a source making that analysis is Original Research." -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When the source makes it clear that the source considers the two facts are connected, it is not up to us to "pick and choose". As there was NO reason for the tag, and consensus had previously been reached, adding the tag required you to get a consensus for it. That is how consensus works. Get consensus for the tag, and then add the tag. By the way, people who keep adding tags without seeking a consensus tend to get 3RR warnings pretty fast. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What specifically is the "connecting fact" that the source makes between the Unions endorsement and Mr. W. not having completed the requirements? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

To make this easier, here is the relevant quote from the source cited: "'Joe the Plumber really isn't a plumber,' said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. " Note that this is a simple declarative sentence. One ought not cite PART of a sentence and elide the rest per WP rules. This is the key sentence in the article, identifying the spokesman, the organization, the endorsement by the organization, and the salient issue. Amazing -- all in one sentence, from which part is desired to "untimely ripped."

• Include all information found in the single sentence in the source is the only logical choice. Collect (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Politics request claims " it leads readers to draw conclusions not explicit in the source material" which is, as shown above, a clearly errant claim as not only is the statement "explicit" in the source material, it is in precisely one key sentence in that source material! Collect (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous facts in that single sentance, and none of the "facts" or any analysis actually links the Union endorsement to anything about "Joe the Plumber" - the topic of this article, hence including the statement about the Union endorsement is WP:SYN - urging the reader to make a connection/analysis/conclusion not explicit in the original source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IOW, you would claim it is SYN to quote an intact sentence from a newspaper article? OTOH, I consider an intact sentence to be -- an intact sentence! The statement is about as explicit as is possible to be. Collect (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a SYN issue. The Washington Post article that contains the quote about Joe not being a plumber does not mention the union's support for Obama (which is a statement that needs to be cited by the way). To put them together in one sentence is a synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It's right there, quoted in full right above for your convenience. Whom are you trying to fool? -- Zsero (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Um... Zsero, I can not find the sentence you quote above in the source used in the article. Are we even talking about the same source? I am discussing where our article states: "Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, which had endorsed Obama, stated that Wurzelbacher has not yet completed the apprentice program he began in 2003. which is cited to: Debate, Glare Of Media Hits Joe). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and appologize. I did not see that the Post article had two pages. I only looked at the second page. You are absolutely correct... it is right there in the source... and thus is NOT a WP:SYN issue. Sorry. (I will say the same at WT:NOR) Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious comment. Collect (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Could someone please explain Tito Muñoz's relationship to Joe the Plumber. Tito's wiki page shows no indication or references to "Tito the Builder". Thanks! Hans404 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Tito Munoz (dab page) or Tito the Builder. VG ☎ 11:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary

I am reminded of an old song "We had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun..." While Joe lines up a publicist, the 15 minutes of fame have ended with McCain's concession speech. Yet for a few days he was discussed in every McCain and Palin campaign speech, and had sufficient substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources to sustain notabiity. The article about the meme "Joe the Plumber" should remain a Wikipedia article even as the career of the real life inspiration returns to "plumber's assistant striving for job as product endorser." Edison (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's why we have encyclopedias, so that in some future election, people can look up this everyman metaphor and the person behind it. — Becksguy (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The metaphor is far more important. However, it is tied to charges of socialism, so its staying power may be quite limited. Joe the person is being crucified for a number of reasonsthat were in his control. Essentially, McCain used him with utter diregard for his humanity. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe's Welfare Two Times?

Joe has been on welfare two times, despite the disdain he purported about the "spread the wealth" statement. Is this important to show - (hypocrisy)? Anyone else seen anything to corroborate this? VictorC (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The election is over. No need to add more rumors here. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1129530&srvc=home&position=rated "It’s one thing for reporters to pick through Joe’s trash for dirt. But for government employees to abuse their access to a private citizen’s records for political purposes is appalling." Collect (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Collect on this one. Joe's not perfect in how he positioned himself v. reality, but there comes a point when we should focus on what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Mattnad (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If true, no matter whether we do Joe the Person or Joe the Concept, the apparent hypocrisy needs to be addressed. As I've note several ytimes before, pretend we're writing for a PoliSci textbook. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Retire the fellow

With a landslide for the Democratic guy, this tradesman is due to be a mere footnote.

I now concede to delete him or massively scale down this article. Dogru144 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As said above and per WP:NTEMP guideline: "Notability is not temporary" — Becksguy (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of the famous "15 minutes of fame"? Npyability is very often transitory. Of course, were this article to be treated properly from a PoliSci standpoint, i.e., an article on the concept rather than on the person, the notability might be longer-lasting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree to reduce the article, or even merge the article with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Dario1250 (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is too much personal data on Joe the person that has nothing to do with Joe the Plumber. However once the 15 minutes are over, then this becomes a historical article, much like Rosie the Riveter. The importance of this election campaign metaphor or cultural icon outlives the importance of Joe the person, unless he manages to become notable independently of his Joe the Plumber persona. Notability is not transitory from a historical viewpoint, even if he fades from current events. The public famously only has a 15 second attention span, and people in the future will have this to look up, warts and all. So I disagree with deletion or merging. — Becksguy (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re "Notability is not transitory from a historical viewpoint" -- this makes the assumption that the person will be a historical figure, which is unlikely. The concept, however, may be of historical value so long asit is treated properly: id est, the purpose of creatin the concept, any impact it had on the election, whether it was successful, etc. In other words, it should be treated as it might be in a PoliSci textbook: analytically. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you, Jim62sch, in that it's as an election campaign metaphor, and as a cultural icon that transcends the election, that this article is important and notable historically. And yes, it should be restructured as you suggested. Joe W., as a person, was not notable, which was my reason for renaming the article to "Joe the Plumber" from Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, JtP was the popular name. So to clarify: Notability of this cultural icon is not transitory from a historical viewpoint. People remember Rosie the Riveter, but don't remember the actual person behind that American icon. If Joe W. as a person becomes notable, we can create an article on him with cross references. — Becksguy (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Can we convince everyone else? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on trimming the article - there is a difference between "Joe the Plummer" the political symbol, and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher the person. Cut all of the personal stuff about Mr. Wurzelbacher (at least the stuff that does not directly relate to his questioning Obama), and concentrate on "Joe the Plummer" as a symbol. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so what do you do? Instead of cutting personal details, you immediately delete the entire paragraph about the illegal searches of government databases, as if that were irrelevant to his symbolic value. The whole point was to warn anyone else who might question Obama what will happen to them. It's very relevant, while his exact job description is completely irrelevant, so why didn't you start by cutting that, if you were acting in good faith? -- Zsero (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I saw the paragraphs in question as being about Mr. Wurzelbacher and not "Joe the Plumber"... it was a good faith attempt to trim the article... if you feel I acted in haste or in error, just revert me. No problem. Perhaps it is too soon to trim. We can re-visit in a few months. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the "keep for now" votes this article received. Is there actually a WP policy on that? Шизомби (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as such (that is, there is no official close or vote as "Keep for now"), however, there is WP:CCC, a guideline that says "Consensus can change", although there is also WP:NTEMP that says "Notability is not temporary". There is tension between those two concepts. When the AfD was discussed, JtP was not as notable as a cultural icon as it became post 3rd presidential debate. Or as notable as it is now. — Becksguy (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher has made many public appearances. I think we should change it back to his real name and expand the article further. QuackGuru 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As the change to this title was unanimous, I would suggest you have a lot of consensus-building ahead of you for such a U-turn. Collect (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The change of the title was when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was barely notable. Things have changed and now he is very notable. QuackGuru 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The issue about it being a BLP, whether he was notable etc. was contentious, and the consensus ended up here well after he first appeared on the scene. Unless, of course, you consider 20 October to be ancient history here. Collect (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Before he was barely notable. Now he is very notable. There is a big difference beteween then and now. QuackGuru 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What, specifically, made him notable as a person between 20 October and 9 November? I note the same issue was also raised in 27 October -- a full WEEK after the unanimous decision <g>. Collect (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher has made many more public appearances since then. QuackGuru 19:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then create a separate article on Joe Wurzelbacher. This one is on Joe the Plumber. — Becksguy (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the large amount of news articles from mainstream media - which are the reliable sources we have until credible books and essays are written on the 2008 election - its seems clear that the information at hand is mostly about the person Joe Wurzelbacher and not the metaphor. From meeting Obama in person, to going on the campaign trail for John McCain, Wurzelbacher has been the subject of attention, not the metaphor. It was Wurzelbacher the person whose records were looked up by Helen Jones-Kelley. It is Wurzelbacher the person who has formed the watchdog group called Secure Our Dream. The metaphor does not have a book on the way, the person does. For these reasons, each of which has recieved substantial media attention, the article should be about Wurzelbacher the person - regardless of the article's name, like Hulk Hogan. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Clearly the present title Joe the Plumber should be kept, since the meme is far more notable than Wurzelbacher. Remember the McCain appearances where many people held up signs saying "I am Joe the Plumber?" They were not Wurzelbacher. Remember the TV commercials where numerous people not named Wurzelbacher said "I am Joe the Plumber?" It is like "Johnny Reb" not being one man in the Confederate Army in the American Civil War who was named "Johnny," or Rosie the Riviter not being memories of a lady named "Rose Will Monroe" who worked in a defense plant in the U.S. in World War 2. My mother and grandmother were both "Rosie the Riveter." Neither was named "Rosie." When angry U.S. blacks in the 1960's said they wanted to Get Whitey" they were not talking about Whitey Ford. Edison (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Rose Will Monroe, Rosie the Riviter, is not a proper comparison as she was only notable for one event. Joe Wurzelbacher is notable for numerous events; 1) questioning Obama 2) campaigning for McCain/Palin, 3) the Helen Jones-Kelley record search, 4) the watchdog group Secure Our Concern... Each of these events is notable and each has recieved substantial media coverage from reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Secure Our Dream

• Joe's new venture Secure Our Dream is the subject of numerous mainstream media articles; 'Joe the Plumber' makes plans to take his politics online, Joe the Plumber eyes new career as government watchdog, Meet Joe the Plumber, Joe the watchdog?... I have started to add a few of these references, and some information from them, to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking improvements without any reason given in the edit summary

Please show and not assert a reason would be more helpful. The edit summary did not give a reason what was wrong with the edit. Consensus should not be used as a reason to block edits. Thoughts? QuackGuru 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Plumber (unlicensed)" was placed in the Occupation slot. There was not only no consensus for changing his occupation, no consensus for altering his occupation, so therefore asking you to try achieving consensus in Talk was the proper thing to do. Consensus is, indeed, a reason not to change things without getting a new consensus first. If you feel "Plumber (unlicensed)" is what should be listed as "Occupation" try convincing people first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Collect has not given a specific reason for excluding "Plumber (unlicensed)" from the infobox. Unlicensed is more accurate. QuackGuru 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I too have attempted to introduce accuracy into this. Joe is really a plumbers helper or assistant. For some reason, Collect feels that professional titles (of which Plumber is one) do not apply here. Hope he never needs to depend on a "Medical Doctor" with similar views on licensing. See Paper Mask - it's a good film. Mattnad (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Try building a consensus. Absent a new one, the old one stands. That is how WP works. "Plumber" is not a "professional title" as far as I can find. Def: a person who installs and repairs piping, fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances in connection with the water supply, drainage systems, etc., both in and out of buildings. from RHD. Doctor def: 1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian. 2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree: He is a Doctor of Philosophy. Same source. Note the difference in wording. Profession: 2. any vocation or business. Professions do not need special titles or licences as far as normal English language construction is concerned. Now if you can write a different dictionary, fine. I suspect the RHD is fine for everyone else. Collect (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumber or Plumber's assistant is the occupation. Whether he's licensed to do his job or not is a completely different issue which is covered adequately in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Plumber (unlicensed) would be accurate. Plumbers in Joe's state are licensed. If he cut someone's hair it would not make him a barber, since that field of work is also licensed. If he took care of a sick family member, it would not make him a doctor or nurse, since those are licensed fields. I have also installed plumbing and electrical wiring, but I would not claim to be a plumber or electrician, since those are licensed professions. Edison (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. There is no precedent in WP for such an occupational addition. And since he had been a plumber before going to Ohio, you would then be doing OR to claim he was not a plumber in a place which does not have the same licensing requirements. Can you assert that? Collect (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Collect, "precedence" is an informal fallacy and irrelevant to this particular topic. For all we know, there's precedence, but good luck finding it. It's a weak approach and sidesteps the discussion. I'm not biting.

"Joe the Plumber" is a unique case in which his lack of licensing has been brought up in the media, and by professional organizations in the State of Ohio and beyond. Whether or not he's a licensed plumber has been discussed at length outside of Wikipedia. And I put it back to Collect - what's the problem with using the same terminology used by plumbing professionals and organizations given we're discussing Joe's occupation? In this instance, why use the laypersons (e.g., Collect's) notion of what defines a plumber? See Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Request_for_Comment to see a rich discussion about a news article supporting the view that Joe is not a Plumber.

In the view of professionals Joe's no more a plumber, than a paralegal is a lawyer (and yes, they do a lot of the same things, but one is licensed, and the other isn't). Mattnad (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit should be undone. "Plumber (unlicensed)" is closest to NPOV. QuackGuru 03:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Iteration does not make consensus. You have stated your position many times now, but unless and until you get a new consensus, the prior consensus remains. Clear? Collect (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like with the exception of Collect, there's consensus here on either having stating he's unlicensed, or calling him a plumber's assistant. Collect, I don't know where you get your process and rules from, but the direction is clear now. Please don't obstruct our consensus. Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where do you see this consensus? -- Zsero (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus or not, "unlicensed, or calling him a plumber's assistant" is accurate. Hence my desire to see Joe the concept. Whatever. If this guy runs in '10, he's going to be slaughtered. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered in this talk page. He is not licensed, but he shouldn't be called "an unlicensed plumber," because that would suggest that he is a pirate or renegade plumber that makes money by doing illegal work, thus stealing jobs from licensed, legitimate professional plumbers. He is a "Plumber's Helper," which means he works under a licensed plumber, and is legally unable to contract out his own, independant jobs. Check the discussion at the top of the talk page. It is a recognized job classification, and usually termed "Plumber's Helper," most commonly. Less commonly it is termed, "Plumber's Assistant." VictorC (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have iterated this a bit. Absent you achieving a consensus for getting rid of the old consensus, it is moot. The definition of "Plumber's Helper" is, in fact, "plunger." As I trust you knew. Collect (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Count yourself among those who prefer the less commonly used "Plumber's Assistant." The colloquial term "plumber's helper," isn't the true name for that tool, though. That is a colloquialism. Notwithstanding, you have doubtless seen words or terms that are applicable in more than one situation. This is an obtuse discussion, and frankly I find it slightly tiresome to have been brought into it. I think this should be obvious. Why even bring this up, Collect? I don't pretend to know what your intentions are, but furthering the discussion might be a good idea from now on. Just a suggestion. VictorC (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Collect and VictorC. Plumber is not a "professional" title, it does not require any academic degree, certainly not an advanced degree. One learns plumbing through a trade or vocational process, for example: apprenticeship, on-the-job-training (OJT), or vocational or union schools. Further, declaring him as unlicensed in the article is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, since it's highly negative and also implies that he is violating the law or operating as a renegade. It make no difference if he personally has a license or not, since he is covered under his supervisor's license, while working for him and being supervised by him. This is normal in the construction and maintenance trades and to imply that he is somewhat different is clearly POV. Also, I don't see sufficient consensus that "unlicensed" should be in the article, even if it wasn't policy violating content. I have trouble understanding the extent of the discussion on this irrelevant issue in the press, and here also. And to compare the licensing requirements with the medical or legal profession makes absolutely no sense. They are on radically different planes. To the general public, if a man works on plumbing, he's a plumber, just as someone that builds wood structures is a carpenter. And yes, they do have carpenter's helpers (at a lower pay rate). However the general public is aware of the difference between a MD (An academic doctoral degree, a professional title, and a profession licensed by a state in the USA) and a nurse. (also mostly the same but at a lower level) — Becksguy (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My position is to use the term: "Plumber's Helper," since that's the term I'm most familiar with (I have personal & professional experience with the trade, actually). However, "Plumber's Assistant" would be fine with me too. I am not fine with calling him a "Plumber." He is definately not a plumber, and there IS a difference. It is wrong to call him "Plumber." Also, it's wrong to call him "Unlicensed Plumber." I disagree with that. Both terms are misleading and inaccurate. So, again I say either "Plumber's Helper," or "Plumber's Assistant." VictorC (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference, unlicensed is correct. QuackGuru 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlicensed is a WP:BLP and WP:POV violation and is unacceptable, as explained above. I'm OK with: "Plumber", "Plumber's helper", and "Plumber's assistant". But not "Plumber (Unlicensed)" or "Unlicensed Plumber", as they are BLP & POV violations. Plumber's helper seems to be somewhat more used in various state Dept of Labor sites and job listings, but Plumber's assistant shows up also. Here are the US Dept of Labor's official Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) listings for plumbers and plumber's helpers. Plumber's assistant is not listed:

47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters

Assemble, install, alter, and repair pipelines or pipe systems that carry water, steam, air, or other liquids or gases. May install heating and cooling equipment and mechanical control systems.

47-3015 Helpers—Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters

Help plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, or pipelayers by performing duties of lesser skill. Duties include using, supplying or holding materials or tools, and cleaning work area and equipment. Exclude apprentice workers and report them with the appropriate skilled construction trade occupation (47-2011 through 47-2221). Exclude construction laborers who do not primarily assist plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, or pipelayers, and classify them under "Construction Laborers" (47-2061).

— Becksguy (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for "Plumber's helper" or "Plumber's assistant". We edit according to the references. QuackGuru 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if JtP is merely assisting a plumber by holding his tools for him, or cleaning up after him. As far as I can tell from all the relevant sources, he is doing the work of a plumber; therefore he is a plumber, whether he has a license or not. BTW a fully qualified doctor who is struck off is still a doctor; it may be against the law for him to practise, but he doesn't lose his knowledge or skill, so he doesn't stop being a doctor. Of course if he isn't actually doctoring then his occupation becomes whatever he does instead; but that doesn't change who he is. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, According to the reference, unlicensed is correct.

"Plumber's helper", and "Plumber's assistant" seems to be unreferenced and "Plumber (Unlicensed)" or "Unlicensed Plumber", is clearly NPOV.

We edit according to the references and not rewrite stuff not in reliable sources. Unlicensed is the most accurate version and is referenced. QuackGuru 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The references establish that he doesn't hold his own license. That doesn't make "unlicensed" part of his job title. The job is Plumber. Unlicensed simply describes his legal status to do that job in the area where he currently lives. If the reference said that he often screwed up jobs, would you want "subpar plumber" listed in the infobox? --Onorem♠Dil 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to decide

Is this about Joe W (which it should not be) or is it about Joe the Concept/Metaphor? If we're to be academic, Joe the person is irrelevant. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the person is relevant primarily because of the "research" done on him by campaign staffers, including, apparently, officials in Ohio. That "research" and the way it was carried out are relevant to how the campaigns handled him. Other personal matters, IMHO, don't really belong here at all. Collect (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the large amount of news articles from mainstream media, its seems clear that the information is mostly about the person Joe Wurzelbacher and not the metaphor. From meeting Obama in person, to going on the campaign trail for John McCain, Wurzelbacher has been the subject of attention, not the metaphor. It was Wurzelbacher the person whose records were looked up by Helen Jones-Kelley. It is Wurzelbacher the person who has formed the watchdog group called Secure Our Dream. The metaphor does not have a book on the way, the person does. For these reasons, each of which has recieved substantial media attention, the article should be about Wurzelbacher the person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that no one here was either a PoliSci or History major. The person is largely irrelevant and will continue to be smeared as smearing him isquite easy. The concept, while largely unsuccessful, is the key issue. Do what you want, but expect and accept the worst. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• The meme is notable, since the McCain campaign applied it to numerous people. The individual is less notable, but deserves mention in the Joe the Plumber article, just as Rose Will Monroe gets a brief mention in the Rosie the Riveter article. Rose played Rosie the Riveter in a film promoting war bonds, and tried unsuccessfully to promote that moment of fame into a show biz career. In reality there were tens of thousands of "Rosie the Riveters" just as the McCain campaign said many thousands of people were "Joe the Plumber" whatever their name and line of work. Edison (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether the title should be kept, the article should include all of the events he is notable for including; 1) questioning Obama 2) campaigning for McCain/Palin, 3) the Helen Jones-Kelley record search, 4) the watchdog group Secure Our Concern. Each of these events is notable and each has recieved substantial media coverage from reliable sources. While the name of the article can be kept, the subject matter should include the person when and where there are mutltiple reliable sources, as is the case for each of these four events listed above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see why we'd want to force a dichotomy. Joe W. and Joe the Plumber are meshed together. You need to understand both and it's easy for the article to manage that (and it does). Mattnad (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well stated. I agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"force a dichotomy"? Uh, no. If this article were turned in as a term paper, I'd give it an F for missing the point. Joe W should be discussed briefly at the beginning, and then the concept and its use or misuse should be the key point. Whatever. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you feel the scandal unfolding about the Obama campaign having direct contact with Jones-Kelly be email etc. ought to remain, as it has become quite noteworthy by itself, and is not biographical on SJW in nature, but directly related to JtP and the political campaign? Collect (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cover this item - not sure where it will head, but I do suggest we trim it down a bit. I don't think we need to have blow by blow developments as it now reads - see WP:Weight. Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to cover this item, with respect to both Weight and BLP, because it alone has recieved substantial media coverage. Considering all of the articles written on this topic, from reliable sources, some mention is required in the article. Such media coverage can not be ignored. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Scandal? Too funny. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about Joe Wurzelbacher, which is how it should be and how it should remain. For articles about average Americans, you can refer to Average Joe or Joe Six-pack. Wurzelbacher himself is a notable person, originally for only one event but now for multiple events, and he is commonly known as Joe the Plumber. The idea that Joe the Plumber is a "concept" or "metaphor" is extremely thin at the moment with essentially no backing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic creep on Ohio Database searches

This section is getting a little big for the article and now has unrelated/tangential information:

On November 7, 2008, Governor Strickland placed Jones-Kelley on paid leave “for possibly using a state computer and e-mail account for political fundraising.” Strickland stated that this action was taken "due to the possibility, as yet unconfirmed, that a state computer or state e-mail account was used to assist in political fund raising." According to WYTV, "E-mails released by Strickland show Helen Jones-Kelley used her state-issued e-mail account to send names of potential contributors to the Obama campaign."

This is separate from the Joe the Plumber story and doesn't belong here. And please no WP:OR that this shows motivation or some other invention since that, even if sourced, is pushing the limits on WP:BLP. Mattnad (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This section does need to be shortened. One problem I see with describing this event is that it is presently developing, and nobody knows where it will end up. The fact that it is ongoing has led to a blow by blow description of the topic, which can be a grey area as its relevance to Wurzelbacher vacilates as the investigation develops. With this though, because the search Jones-Kelley authorized on Wurzelbacher has recieved substantial media coverage, with many articles written on this topic from reliable sources, some mention is required in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This is absolutely congruent with the material immediately preceding, is relevant to how the campaigns treated the issue of JtP, is relevant to the later section on JtP having a new 501c3 starting up etc. The source is not only reliable, it is succinct and does not use excess verbiage at all. Would you prefer that the emails end up here -- or just the facts as published? Collect (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is no way that anyone can claim a specific statement quoted from a RS is "WP:OR" ! Collect (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Should all of the statements related to Helen Jones-Kelley, and the ongoing investigation, be placed in this article? Some, such as her campaign donations, do not seem immediately relevant. Also, the scope of the investigation seems to be growing beyond Wurzelbacher - i.e. the emails to the Obama campaign about fundraising. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that she has an article, put it there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense - it's about her, not Joe. We don't put other parts of he bio here either. Collect, attempting to connect her campaign donations to Joe the Plumber is the OR. Furthermore, even if one could find a blog or editorial that suggests that the Obabma donations and the database search are somehow connected, that's potentially libelous and pushing WP:BLP. Now that I've spelled it out again, do you agree? If not, what's your rationale for including this?Mattnad (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the donation already make the connection, so it's not a SYN problem. They didn't report her donations just out of idle curiosity. And it's relevant because it rebuts her claim that there was nothing political about the database searches. It shows her to be heavily committed to Obama, and therefore likely to have been motivate to help his campaign. If she's been shown to be a McCain supporter, that would have been very interesting, because it would have lent credibility to her claims. -- Zsero (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The WYTV cite is essential as it states explicitly that there were iroper emails. Someone keeps deleting it -- I deleted what appears to be a near duplication without making the explicit factual statement about the emails. And, to that person, there is no "innuendo" about that cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And? She sent naughty e-mails. Put it on her page, no matter how meaninless it is to the big picture. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 03:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The political donation is mentioned on the Helen Jones-Kelley page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam website?

Why is there a link from this article to http://www.joewurzelbacher2010.com/ ? All this site appears to be is an attempt to grab some free publicity relative to "Joe the Plumber". There is no outwardly evident signs of any official endorsement of this site from Wurzelbacher or anyone else. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed it. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This external link is relevant per the section on the Draft Joe Wurzelbacher campaign, which has recieved substantial media attention. Because of this, I will restore it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DEFINE SUBSTANTIAL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, those guys latched onto Wurzelbacher's fame and have advanced their own agendas (and where's Wurzelbacher's support of all of this?) It's a pity that this article is advancing their own gains (I note all of the merchandising links on this website starting with the very first and most prominent link being to cafepress products). 89.159.146.135 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Link Spam to me. I can see mentioning it in the article, but a link gives it too much prominence. They're out to sell t-shirts. Would be nice to keep this article from becoming too much of a joke itself. Mattnad (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment For some expamples of media coverage on this website please see; 1). Web site urges ‘Joe the Plumber’ to run for Congress from the Toledo Free Press, 2). GOP group says Joe the Plumber is the right guy to unclog Washington from the Boston Herald, and 3). Joe the Plumber for Congress? from the Washington Times for some examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "ex-spam-ples"? Seems to me that the ste is sufficiently far afield as to me trivial in this article. Collect (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)