Talk:Joe the Plumber

Christianity Today interview

I'm assuming we can find some reliable sources that discuss his comments from this interview instead of cherry picking quotes using the interview itself as a primary source. --Onorem♠Dil 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And we may want to reduce the length of this section for WP:Undue reasons.Mattnad (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to trim lede

The lead is a bit repetitive - probably due to vestiges of past editor wars. The second sentence now reads, "Wurzelbacher is an American celebrity, author and former employee of a plumbing contractor." This is concise and to the point. With this in the lead paragraph, I suggest that we drop the last sentence "Wurzelbacher has since become a spokesperson, author, and web commentator." I'm hoping we can start to identify the main points for the lead, and let the article explain the minutia of his career. Comments?Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And would also agree to a substantial shortening of the exhaustive detail given this relatively minor figure. Collect (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was clearly repetitive. I've corrected this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like short, but consistent list of endorsements for the change. There's complexity with the citations that make it a little challenging, but I'll get to it soon.Mattnad (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can clean the references if you like. I already changed/trimmed the lead to get rid of the repetition and such. If you feel you have helpful changes to contribute then please do so, but I wanted to let you know that this has actually been corrected. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(Oudent) Thanks Wikiwikikid, missed that edit.Mattnad (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aparently he's left the republican party

See phttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html this] time article. Not sure where to put this in the article.Geni 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the info in the lead; normally I wouldn't do that, but it wasn't exactly obvious where else it should go. And I do think it's not a triviality. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is pinknews.co.uk a valid source for this article?

If it is, then I suppose it can be labeled "homophobia" If it is not a vlaid RS, then I would suggest it be removed. Collect (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

That he does not allow homosexuals around his children does not imply that he has "is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals,[1][2][3] or individuals perceived as homosexual" - from the Homophobia WP article. Certainly he can have a religious or moral objection to something without being fearful (and certainly not necessarily irrationally so).

Even if even a mild fear or aversion were applicable, the Homophobia Category (unsure how to link to category pages) page precludes the category from being applied because "it is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." To label this article under this category gives undue weight to his views on homosexuality, as he is not considered "widely known for (his) homophobic stance)." Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, there's a discussion of this subject here. Wikipedia:BLP/N#Joe_the_Plumber.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's pretty clear so far that the RfC shows that consensus is for the category to NOT be included. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The charge should not be removed, but explained as such. Imagine he did not want black people close to his children, could be not be considered racist? Do you see why it is possible to interpret his action as such? and yes his fear is that his children will become gay, or that gay people would rape them. I submit any such fear is irrational and therefore homophobic.gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Good point. 174.21.14.222 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I had heard he was homophobic and came here to search on more information. As a member of the public who knows very little about this person and had heard of his homophobia, I'd say he's on the upwards trend of being "widely known for [his] homophobic stance." At the very least, there should be some mention and citation of it in the article, especially since it is referenced on another page, the Meghan McCain article and her comments of Joe the Plumber on the Colbert Show. --65.113.35.130 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Occupations in InfoBox

We've had in the past drawn out discussions about what to put in the infobox. I think we can live with "plumber" even if technically debatable, and "Spokesperson" (or maybe commentator) seems to be fit his current tack, but I wonder if one co-written book and occasional website qualifies as enough for "Author". Most BLPs have one occupation and this one has three based on Joe's shifting activities post plumbing. Somehow, "author" seems a bit overweight. Comments?Mattnad (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see everyone finally working in tandem here. I've been absent from the talk page for a few months, but the principles remain the same. First of all, keep in mind that this wasn't originally a biographical article. Initially this was strictly about the sobriquet/nickname/moniker that was informally applied to Mr. Wurzelbacher by Barack Obama and the cascading effect it had on the final stages of the race to the White House. Amid all the warring, this article has since evolved into an almost entirely biographical article but even so, this really shouldn't be compared to the rest of the several hundred thousand BLP articles. Given the hybrid nature of the article in its modern incarnation, I think, under the circumstances, it's acceptable to include multiple professions. "Plumber" was a bit contentious and no longer relevant so that's out of the picture. I would suggest sticking with what's current and given his many occupations, the two or three most significant among them that will avoid any further conflicts and thus avoid giving prominence to his lesser-established jobs.

Is that of any help? -Alan (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The infobox can have the DOB. QuackGuru (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Plumber" and "Spokesperson" have stood quite nicely for a long time now. There is no rationale to play with it at this point. Precedent in BLPs has been to use common terms, and not to make the infobox a plaything for political agendas. Collect (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, with added reasons. Joe seems to be dabbling with opportunities that come his way, but the info box should be brief. Let the article cover the details of his activities.Mattnad (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats to beat up old women

How best should we cover Joe's threats to beat up a 69 year old, 100ish pound woman? [1]. Seems to me that would be pretty important stuff to include, should the information about him threatening to beat up a senior citizen female go in the lead or in a separate section? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Obviously not an actual threat. --Onorem♠Dil 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Joe the plumber" is meaningful in the context of his role in the recent election. What Joe W. says, well, it not really relevant, especially since he was speaking with color and it's assumed he didn't mean it as a serious threat. It's time to be an encyclopedia here!Mattnad (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Sucker

Joe the Sucker^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} by detractors, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

One single reliable source would have been infinitely more convincing than eleven unreliable ones. Amalthea 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why So Lengthy?

Ugh, I do not understand why there is so much depth and detail on this person. His lasting importance will be his role in the 2008 campaign, and anything else should be short and tight, particularly post-election "opinion" sections and anything about his ordinary employment. I don't think he has the lasting visibility and influence as a commentator to merit listing all the details of his current opinions and writings/comments. I mean, do we need to know that this ordinary man thought the Founding Fathers were against Communism, or that he promoted cable boxes? Honestly, in five years that will not belong in WP, so I don't see why it should be there now.

The article as it stands is a solid one with a bunch of trivia and anecdotes tacked on, many there just to make him look bad -- see some of the discussions above (mind you, I'm not a fan of Joe).

Thoughts? Am I wrong? I'll be happy to cut, if people agree with me, as I am good at it. -Jordgette (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have my endorsement. I've long thought the same thing, especially all of the tidbits about his various activities after the election and cataloging every utterance before he faded away.Mattnad (talk)

Here's what I propose:

1. Leave everything before the "Public relations" section alone.
2. Where "Public relations" begins, create new section "Other events since the 2008 election"
3. Boil down each (remotely significant) post-election event to a paragraph at most, a sentence at least.
4. Remove trivial events and quotes that clearly will not meet the "five-year test" that I alluded to above. Additionally, I find the "scandal" about his contractor license inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (he was never actually known for his plumbing work).

-Jordgette (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only build I'd have is not a full removal of questions about his status as a plumber. It really doesn't matter for Joe the person, but it was part of the political posturing during the campaign. In that respect, we should keep part of that story since the "symbol" of the everyman was questioned. Probably a paragraph is good enough.Mattnad (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Point noted.... -Jordgette (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a user subpage with a draft of my edit. I don't think I touched anything before the new section called Political ambitions, and everything after that has been massively reorganized and digested. Anyone interested, please check it out and let me know what you think. After incorporating suggestions, I'd like to move it over in about 48 hours. Thanks! -Jordgette (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A good effort so far. A couple of suggestions:

• In the lead and infobox state different occupations. May want those to align.
• The "Ohio database search controversy" could use some trimming too given there's a main article on the topic. Mattnad (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with your suggestions. I haven't really looked at the first part of the article (it doesn't seem to have as many problems), and there are a couple of dead links and stuff that need to be addressed, but those tasks are for another day. -Jordgette (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. A much better article. Mattnad (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a non-US outsider (who could conceivably underestimate Joe's notability), I consider even the user-page version much too long. Two paragraphs, or so, seems more reasonable. Of course, if he in the future becomes a repeated best-selling author, a regular debater on CNN, whatnot, an article of this size may be relevant---but that is speculative and in the future. 88.77.134.151 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber Suggests Lynching Senator Chris Dodd

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher made public statements in which he asked why Senator Chris Dodd "hasn't been strung up yet?"

It has been documented and reported in numerous credible publications. Those publications describe Joe's statement as a "suggested lynching" of a senior U.S. senator by "Joe The Plumber". Some of those publications have been included to document the sources. They are independently verifiable sources.

It has bearing on Joe's sentiments, tea party activities, and his personal controversies in the 2009 post-election period.

One editor's deletion of this sourced material was based on the pretext that it is libelous to include Joe's own public, sourced, statements in an article about him.

Legally, a statement is libelous if it is untrue.

But, again, this info has been verified by numerous credible sources, who saw fit to inform the public that Wurzelbacher has said it, and it has even received direct commentary and response from Senator Chris Dodd's camp.

Why are wikipedians going rogue and deleting this pertinent, interesting, relevant, sourced information?

24.143.66.205 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not libel. But is it relevant? The Joe the Plumber story should really center on presidential campaign. After that, who cares about what he thinks or says - Joe the man is less meaningful to the article. So it's debatable whether or not it's "pertinent, interesting, relevant" information.Mattnad (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not particularly important, nor are rhetorical speeches actually meaningful in any case. I am still unsure that he merits a biographical article as such, as opposed to a short mention in articles on the campaign. Collect (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things about the Dodd comment: First, it would be hard to argue that Joe has any relevance in mid-2009. His relevance is almost entirely tied to the 2008 campaign. Just because he makes an appearance and it's mentioned in the press, does not warrant an addition to his article, any more than if O.J. Simpson were reported to have made an appearance at a merchandise convention. Second, what is the motivation of an editor wishing to add this information to his article at this point in time, well after the campaign? I submit that it has no value other than making the subject look bad. At one time, this article was a laundry list of ridiculous and inflammatory things that Joe said; it has since been cleaned up, and it's a much more informative, tighter article as a result. I am no fan of 'Joe the Plumber' but Wikipedia articles do not exist for the purpose of making anyone look either bad or good. I am now deleting the Dodd reference. -Jordgette (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jordgette, Collect and Mattnad all essentially voice the same objection: what is the relevance of Joe the Plumber's controversial statements, if they were made AFTER the election?

The correct response is: Joe the Plumber's article already has a section entitled: "Since the 2008 election". The purpose of this section is to group Joe the Plumber's most noteworthy statements and actions since the 2008 election.

The info about Joe the Plumber publicly calling for an active U.S. senator to be lynched, is, by any impartial editor's reckoning, an extremely controversial and noteworthy occurrence. It happened not decades after the election, but within a year of it. So it's factual, extremely noteworthy, timely, and the article already a section established for it.

It was certainly noteworthy to the press, and has even received attention and a public response from the senator's spokesperson.

Why would wikipedia editors seek to passive-aggressively shape wiki-articles by selectively omitting such highly descriptive, newsworthy facts? 174.21.18.111 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Our role as editors is cull material that is not Encyclopedic. You are currently in the minority of active editors on this discussion page who believe this material is relevant to an article that has the 2008 Presidential election at its core. Joe the Plumber has relevance ONLY in the context of the election. After that, what Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher says becomes subject to a higher hurdle for inclusion. "Joe the Plumber" is not the same as Wurzelbacher, just as Batman is not the same as Adam West. Mattnad (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about introducing some consistency in the editing of what should and should not be included in this article?

For example, why are the various post-plumbing companies Wurzelbacher acted as a mouthpiece for specifically named in the article? Why are the topics he mouthpieced also included?

According to the current anti-reasoning being suggested by 3 opposing editors, it makes perfect sense for the article to state on three seperate occasions, that Wurzelbacher spoke at a tea party on this-or-that specific date, that x-number of people attended, etc., but the article should exclude any indication of his most noteworthy, controversial tea party topic?

Btw, it is not lost on me that JtP is a metaphor which is different from Sam Wurzelbacher, the living twit. However, it might be lost on the "majority" of 3 or so opposing JtP editors, that the section of the article where the relevant but deleted info belongs, is, in fact, about Sam Wurzelbacher, as I've already noted above. 174.21.18.111 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)