Talk:Joe the Plumber

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)

You should have seen what the article - and the discussion page - looked like in October and November 2008. It instantly fell prey to irreconcilable views of how it should be written, if Joe should be described as a concerned ordinary Joe who had put perfectly normal, down-to-earth questions ot a candidate or as a GOP activist or hireling posing as a smalltown entrepreneur, of what sources were "reliable" etc etc.

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)

Consensus on this is about as clear as is possible. Collect (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's allow time for a true consensus, not a preemptory one.

Meanwhile, I've made the edits suggested above, to keep consistency per Mattnad's remarks. Thanks. 174.21.18.111 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let’s Improve this article

Let’s Improve this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'd be better off avoiding phrases like "Sam Wurzelbacher, the living twit." It exposes that you are editing this article with an emotional agenda. Emotional agendas are inconsistent with WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia principle. Your opinions are now considered accordingly. -Jordgette (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My only opinion is in regards to this concept: Please allow a reasonably appropriate time for discussion before deleting... When making edits regarding living people we need to show great caution. With controversial material, the default position is leaving the info out. It has to be due too WP:BLP. No harm will come if it's not in the article. Discuss it on the talk page before placing it in the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with the the Anon editor that the minutia of Wurzelbacher's post election activities also missed the boat on where the article (in retrospect) should probably go.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of an article that picks up a lot of crap as it is written during current events. Not every silly statement that Joe says is worthy of inclusion. I did a little reworking to the opening paragraph of the article, but the whole thing is really a bit lengthy at this point.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Josephine the Plumber

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

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

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

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

WP:COMMONNAME --Onorem♠Dil 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME -- says to avoid "Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject... even though they may be more common". Since the man is not a plumber, the exception for "inaccurate" descriptions applies. (P.S. I am the same person as 71.109.162.173, dynamic IP address) 71.109.149.102 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

He is know by this name, not for his technical professional credentials, but for what the McCain presidential campaign, as well as the media, called him. And Joe the Plumber is broader than the individual. The McCain campaign recast him as a personification of how Obama's tax plans would hurt the aspirational small business person. "Joe the Plumber" caught on. "Joe, the person who used to work for a plumber" did not. Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No publication used anything other than "Joe the Plumber", thus readers are apt to only look for that title. Collect (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Early life and education

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

If he were notable for anything other than the incidents related to the campaign, you might have a point. He appears quite an "average Joe" including the fact that his early life was quite unremarkable -- to the extent that incidents which would never be noted about others, have been noted about him. He is not a "noted scientist" or "noted author." He is not a famous athlete, or movie star. Absent a reason to include such stuff as "he attended a local elementary shcool, a local junior high school, and a local high school" type stuff - what do you expect will be of value to readers? Collect (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this section should be added, I was just thinking that the article is probably due for another major trim-down. -Jordgette (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We include basic biographical statements in biographies. Who cares which college an army general went to? I don't know, but it's standard information, just like date of birth, which we include in this article. An alternative is to change this from a biography to an article on the political phenomenon of the 2008 election, leaving out the before and after. Those questions aside, perhaps this article has nothing before 2008 because it appears there isn't much known about those years. I did a newspaper search and all I could find is that he lived in Arizona and Alaska at various times, and that he attended the same high school as a politician he endorsed this year. But the subject has a book out and I assume there's more info about him there.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I scanned the archives and didn't see any previous discussion, so I assume there's no existing consensus to omit any pre-2008 material. If we can find even the scant few details normally in a biography, like birthplace and education, then that'd help the article. I partly agree with Jordgette - it's always good to review articles for balance and relevance. But I don't see any obvious areas for major cutting. That said, if it could be shorter overall that might make it better. I can picture a four-line version. ;)   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

While this article contains biographic material, it's not a biography per se. Its core is the political campaign and the material covering Joe's other activities (like being a web commentator) is off topic and can be cut out (which I suspect is what User:Jordgette has in mind). His life outside of what was reported during the campaign is not really notable.Mattnad (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that making it an article about the event rather than the person is an acceptable choice. It would involve deleting the (minimal) biographical material and the information on what "Joe" did after the campaign. However that's a big change so I'd suggest using an RfC to make that determination.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of just paring down the details. Even the section on the campaign still feels like the campaign ended yesterday, and all of that specific detail will get increasingly trivial as time goes on. But I don't see a problem with having a paragraph of background if someone wants to go get it. -Jordgette (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

See also

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

Abridgment needed?

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

Or a new article that would link to this one. His participation in the 2008 campaign has enough reliable sources, and topics, to be worthy of its own article. This would help shorten this article, and provide a link to the other... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If the guy shows up again during the 2012 primaries the article will once again be barnstormed by political activists trying to pitch their "home truths" all over again.

October 2011

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

This has come up in the past - real name or what he's know as. He is notable by the pseudonym and his congressional run is for now a footnote unless it goes somewhere (tbd).Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• A separate issue: The article is getting increasingly out of order chronologically. The 2011 campaign is now somewhere in the middle of the article, with earlier events covered later. I suggest that we work towards putting the article into a more chronological order for the sake of both readers and future editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Change to real name?

With the announcement that he is deciding to run for Congress, should we consider moving the article to his real name in case he is elected? 142.207.125.128 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still a bit early for that. Lots of people run for congress and are not particularly notable. His notability still arises from being known as "Joe the Plumber". If he actually does become a Congressman, then he will be notable in his own right and the article can be moved then. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

War reporting quote

I put back a quote that was removed a while back about war reporting. Arzel removed it on the grounds that "You Tube is a very poor source open to OR". The source is not just any old YouTube video, but one from the Associated Press's official account. Note also that there is already a YouTube video ("John McCain In Sandusky Ohio") that is not from a mainstream news source. OR is not an issue for the war reporting quote, since the AP is a reliable source that published the quote before us.

As a compromise, I've added it back with an additional (Daily News) non-YouTube source. I don't want to remove the video because the Associated Press is reliable, and people may want to watch for themselves. Superm401 - Talk 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The AP dispatch and transcript is likely best - I have cited the HuffPo publication of that dispatch, where some of the context makes clear whay SW was concerned about. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The additional context you added seems fine. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You, as an Admin, should know that the use of YouTube is not recommended. Generally speaking when people add comments made by individuals which are being inserted for POV purposes from YouTube sources I remove them with even looking at the video since it is generally a waste of my time. Simply because it is an AP upload doesn't change this fact and certainly isn't a good guide for the notability of the comment. Now that there is some actual reporting on it, it is a little better, but still questionable as far as weight. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Link any policy that says we can't reference YouTube content published by a major news agency. The fact that they're using YouTube as a video host is really irrelevant. The real publisher of the content is the Associated Press, a reliable source. The comment was notable and reported on at the time. The two additional links should make that clear. Given the significant coverage at the time, the fact that the trip is reported, and the balance quote about his belief that "mainstream news outlets" are "demonizing Israel", I don't see a weight problem.

The actual guideline says, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided)." It doesn't fail "restrictions on linking"; it is not blacklisted and there is no copyright problem. Nor have you indicated that it fits one of the "normally to be avoided" criteria.

Finally, removing a link without looking at it is not how the reliable sources policy works. Superm401 - Talk 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, Wikipedia:External links does not cover links used as sources. However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources also allows the source. The Associated Press "is reliable for the statement being made", which is that Wurzelbacher made the statement. Superm401 - Talk 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aspiration to be President

I know that Joe the Plumber has stated he wants to run for President. However, I can't find no webby reference. I know because my cousin's buddy is from Sandusky and saw him campaign. What is the best way to put in a reference for that?