Jump to content

Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Yet another WP:N comment

Why is there even still an article about this guy? He's yesterday's news. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Because, BB, Diamonds Are Forever Notability is Forever. Signed: 007 — Becksguy (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That's funny. Tell me another one. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Because notability isn't temporary. Celarnor Talk to me 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Notability is indeed ephemeral: recall Warhol's 15 minutes of fame? He was a weird guy, but he was right. Hell, being president of the US is notable, but I'll be only half of the American population can even name 20 of the 42 guys who were president. Forget about Vice-President. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And how many can spell "wurzelbacher"? Probably under 3%. Warhol, btw, was a plagiarist. Collect (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He also sucked as an "artiste". Too pretentious, not talented enough. Tomsto soup cans indeed.
And Joes's name means something like nomad. Not that that's important, though. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Wurzel" is "root" or "carrot." "Bacher" is frequently a topographic name from "stream" thus "Wurzelbacher" might be a person from near a stream noted for carrots or other roots. If it is an immigration change (not unheard of) the name might mean "carrot baker" but without his genealogy, it is iffy. Definitely does not mean "nomad" though <g>. Collect (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Joe's fame has helped in in minor legal scrapes [[1]]

Gee, and here I thought "Wurzel" meant rootless. Problem is, we don't know if the bame underwent a change upon immigration (as you noted). I know my last name lost an umlaut. I guess it doesn't much matter though, just a bit of fun. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for short unprotection

The article now reports Joe as making ungrammatical statements and therefore presents him in a poor light. The refs prove that this is unfair; the crappy syntax is the work of careless Wikipedia editors. Please fix. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the page will be unprotected to make a few generic changes. You'd probably be better off using an {{editprotected}} tag on this page, and making specific requests for what you'd like to see changed. --Onorem♠Dil 15:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Aye. Plenty of administrators watch this page. An editprotected request should get filled quickly if it's uncontroversial. Oren0 (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing something: his grammar was incorrect so we're required to fix it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualifier word per NPOV according to the references presented

Plumber's helper[2]

or

Plumber's assistant[3]

or

unlicensed Plumber[4]

So far I see three choices for better wording. At this point, which wording would be closest to NPOV? QuackGuru 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see consensus growing for a qualifier word. QuackGuru 18:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If the main sources for the article use a qualifier word, we use a qualifier word. If they don't, we don't. Simple. This is concrete Wikipedia policy and not subject to discussion or change. What Joe is is irrelevent. He could actually be an electrician masquerading as a plumber, and we will still refer to him as a "plumber" if that's what the references refer to him as. Tan | 39 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"Joe the Plumber" isn’t a plumber — at least not a licensed one, or a registered one. References refer to him as unlicensed. QuackGuru 19:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sisyphus, I'll help you roll the rock.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tan has it right. And I don't see consensus growing for a qualifier. The vast majority of news coverage refers to him as a plumber. Few refer to him as an unlicensed plumber. He was called a plumber by both presidential canidates. And McCain went on a "Joe the Plumber" bus campaign tour in Florida, not a "Joe the Unlicensed Plumber" tour. But even more importantly, to call him an unlicensed plumber in the infobox or lede is to imply that he is breaking the law by operating illegally, and that denigrates him and causes harm, the essence of a WP:BLP violation. It has been established that he is operating legally under the supervision of his boss, licensed as a plumber by the City of Toledo and the State of Ohio. That information is in the article in the section on his plumbing career. Where it belongs, since there the opposing viewpoints can be brought out, otherwise it's also a WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE violation. What's next, change the infobox to (hypothetically) say: Plumber (unlicensed except he's operating legally under his supervisor's legal license, as long as he doesn't contract independently, and not outside of Toledo, since his boss is licensed there, and not in the rest of the county, since his boss is not licensed there.) Further, plumbing is a trade, it's not at a professional level where an academic degree (often a doctorate) is required. Trades learn from union or non-union vocational schools, apprenticeships, and on-the-job-training (OJT). The comparison between plumber and physician is ridiculous based on education, training, experience, and licensing requirements. Finally, to the general public, if someone installs and fixed pipes and plumbing fixtures, he's a plumber. — Becksguy (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go simply by most common Internet usage:

unlicensed Plumber is by far the most common. Plumber's assistant is the least common. Kingturtle (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also tried:

unlicensed Plumber is by far the most common usage. Kingturtle (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Google hits are not the best way to compare, but compare the following:

making the unqualified "Plumber" usage the most common by multiple orders of magnitude in one case. — Becksguy (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You lost me in your argument. How can you make a case that unlicensed shouldn't be used when you've removed the word from both of your searches. Please clarify your point. Kingturtle (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that would show the number of times plumber was used without unlicensed as a qualifier. A search for "Plumber" would include "Plumber Unlicensed" unless "Unlicensed" is removed from the search. Compare the two search terms for Wurzelbacher. It shows that "Plumber" (without unlicensed) is the more used phrase, 430K for "Plumber" vs. 25K for "Unlicensed Plumber", or 17 times as often. — Becksguy (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "It has been established that he is operating legally under the supervision of his boss, licensed as a plumber by the City of Toledo and the State of Ohio." Then that is what we need to establish in the most concise terms possible, because the simplie identification as "plumber" implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own. Any suggestions? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The legal term for his occupation is "plumber." The dictionary term for his occupation is "plumber." The consensus here has continually been to use "plumber". The WP article on "Plumber" makes no distinction about "plungers" or other terms for an OCCUPATION. This may not be the TITLE you like, but is, for sure, his OCCUPATION. As for your "warning" me, I hereby warn you that reversions without consensus may be cause for you to be blocked. There. Collect (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Claiming no concensus for the change is a non-argument. We can be concise. QuackGuru 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In addition, calling someone a plumber implies nothing about the laws of whatever locality he happens to inhabit. If some Taliban-like state were to ban plumbing altogether as a plot of the Devil, that wouldn't turn all the plumbers, now illegal, into non-plumbers. So long as they continued to plumb, they'd be plumbers. -- Zsero (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary was bad faith by Zsero. Per WP:CON, Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. That means Zsero is not part of consensus with regard to this issue. QuackGuru 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Plumber's assistant is another option.[5] QuackGuru 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for additional input from others. So far, no support for anything other than "plumber." BTW, saying an editor made a "bad faith" edit is very unlikely to impress the new editors visiting. Collect (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Asserting that he is a plumber implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own. A qualifier is the NPOV way to go. QuackGuru 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe on Planet QuackGuru. Not in the real world. You can quack all you like, it won't change anything. The word is "plumber", and any qualifier would be inherently POINTy. And you can't create some sort of private "consensus" by artificially excluding me, or accusing me of bad faith. -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The qualifier is inherrently more accurate and thus more NPOV. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll be damned if I understand the venom spewed by a few on this talk page. It's almost as if plumber = attorney and plumber's assistant = paralegal (well, maybe not that illustrious), and Zeus forefend that somehow Joe's being dissed by giving him the accurate title of plumber's assistant. That McCain ran with the sobriquet "Joe the Plumber" was either a calculated decision or, as in the case with dear Sarah, that he's just not good at the fine art of vetting. In any case, though, as the sobriquet doesn't represent reality, and as we have sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS, it must be noted that Joe is a plumber's assistant. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of Plumber's Assistant - it's what my plumber calls his unlicensed helper. I asked him about that. In the industry, that's what Joe is. It's a small refinement, but in the context of what the article covers, it's useful in that we accurately identify the distinction between the roles provides a foundation for parts of the article. What seems to have happened is that political debate has infected this article and the talk page. Spin is in.Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Plumber's Assistant is fine with me. I would like to point out that just regurgitating the erroneous terminology of the politicians, newspapers and multimedia sources is a wrong way to construct our article. VictorC (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ewww, you said regurgitating.  :) Seriously, though, you're correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Think it's a good time to tally the viewpoints here? Mattnad (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP does not use "votes". EVERY single new viewpoint has been not to use qualifiers -- from people who are not editing this article. The "title" might be "Assistant plumber for a plumbing contractor" but the "occupation" is "plumber." Wait for added input on BLP/N if you like, but it does not look like outside observers are buying this teapot. Collect (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
We know your position. When the numbers are against your view, you invent this "new opinions trump existing editors." Love the invention. Anyone else aside from Mr. Plumber here? Mattnad (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
When in doubt, attack the other editor? What a novel concept! I went and asked for NEUTRAL editors for their opinions. This is what WP guidelines suggest is the correct procedure. I am sorry if you do not like having outside opinions, but it makes WP work a lot more smoothly. Do you dislike the outside editors? Think they are biassed in some way? Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
No attack - just observation that you seem to pick different rules depending on your agenda. That's all. I have no problem with editors who seem to be less invested in this the discussion. And what is Neutral? What you define (I guess)? Mattnad (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And back to the content of the article - Is there no record of what his official job title within the company is? If we don't have that, I am still wondering what is the best way to show: "It has been established that he is operating legally under the supervision of his boss, licensed as a plumber by the City of Toledo and the State of Ohio." Then that is what we need to establish in the most concise terms possible, because the simplie identification as "plumber" implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably his "title" is "employee." Unless you get the Workmen's Comp records, which lists specific sub-occupations, and which is not public record. the only title you will find is "employee." As for your insistence that dictionaries are wrong, try writing to RHD or the like. Until then, most people use dictionaries for definitions. Collect (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a very mistaken "presumption" that you have made. I have never seen anyone anywhere hired under the title of "employee". -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you look at tax returns for corporations someday. Most employees are listed as "employees." Collect (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Collect, you might want to read up on Venn Diagrams. Someone's job title is a subset of "employees". This nonsense is why I'm losing patience here. Mattnad (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have had to fill out such forms. The word used is "employee." The "occupation" is what a given employee does. As I have had probably 16 college level math courses, I think your superciliousness is supercili. Collect (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you points for creative criticism here. Nice alliteration. Mattnad (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, we've already seen the definition of what an assistant or helper of a plumber does, and it doesn't match what we can confidently assume JtP does. Any "supervision" that a licensed plumber gives him is purely a formality, since from all the sources it appears that he knows how to plumb on his own. And that's all that matters. He is a plumber, and what laws happen to exist in his area governing what work he can legally do, and where he can do it, do not interest me in the least. A legislature can't turn a plumber into a non-plumber just by passing a law, any more than it can change a writer into a non-writer, or a dog into a non-dog. -- Zsero (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEW anyone? The guy is a plumber. He plunges toilets and clears drains under the license of his employer. He is therefore not a plumber's assistant, plumber's helper (which I understand to be a euphemism for 'plunger'), or unlicensed plumber. Title isn't the same as occupation, and his occupation is obviously "plumber". Oren0 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually you're both wrong. At least for the US definition. He isn't actually a plumber. He is a plumber's helper. As to the definition given earlier on this page (in the archived heading) by Becksguy from the US Dept of Labor, the duties listed are a basic overview - you'll note they say AMONG these duties. The most very basic are listed, but as an assistant plumber (helper) gains experience, the duties will increase in complexity to include everything, up to all the capacities of a fully capable and fully licensed plumber (which obviously are not listed in the US Dept of Labor description). The eventual difference being in the (legal) ability to contract out jobs on an individual basis. You might even accurately say, the effective difference between a Master Plumber and a Plumber's Helper is just the license (or lack thereof). Additionally, if you happen to hail from the UK, it's understandable that you'd not make sense of this distinction. As I understand, plumbing is not licensed nor regulated in the UK - so this entire line of discussion would fall beyond your reasoning. VictorC (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for iterating your position at length. The Dept. Of Labor does not use "plumber's helper" but lists "plumbers" under the category of "helpers." The prhrase is not used as a separate occupation. Sorry to break that to you! And I am glad that in the UK, lame edit wars do not take place over a one word occupation. Collect (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, you're reading the citation incorrectly: 47-3015 Helpers—Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters. Under the category of "helpers" there are four subtypes listed. They are all helpers. One of the types of helper is a Plumber's Helper. This term, "plumber's helper," in the US colloquial language, has more than one meaning. In addition to the aforementioned meaning of the occupation of plumber's assistant, as you have noted it can refer to the tool known as a "plunger," and as you haven't yet pointed out it also can refer to the tool known as a "snake." Since we all recognize that there are such things as synonyms and homonyms and terms that can apply to more than one situation, there is no reason to continually point this out over and over again, even though you have found the inspiration to have done so. In any case calling our discussion "lame" does not add anything constructive to help us reach an agreement on what the accurate terminology will be here. If you don't like the way this is being talked about perhaps this indicates you don't want to reach a conclusion? In any case, if you are trying to be obtuse, please refrain. It's hindering our discussion and delaying its resolution. VictorC (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Iteration at length does not change the fact that the DoL does NOT refer to "plumber's helpers" but lists "plumbers" as also a type of helper. And the term LEW has a specific WP-centric meaning, I did not call any of your lengthy posts "lame." As for saying "plumber's helper" refers to a snake, not in any US dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plumber's%20helper . Meanwhile the discussion at BLP/N seems quite conclusive. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, watch your tone, please. Sarcasm isn't going to help this. Tan | 39 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just come back from the Dept of Labor website. I found additional information which might change this discussion. As far as I can tell, they make a distinction between "Plumber's Helper" and "Plumber's Apprentice." Apparently for the sake of their classification system, a Master Plumber and a Plumber's Apprentice are under the same job listing. In other words, they don't distinguish between them (from the link): Apprentices and trainees should be classified with the occupations for which they are being trained, while helpers and aides should be classified separately since they are not in training for the occupation they are helping. From our article, since Joe seems to have begun the process of apprenticeship, he would fall into the Master Plumber category. But, since he has yet to complete the apprenticeship, and pass the test needed to be independently licensed, I am going to change my standpoint. I no longer agree that "Plumber's Helper" is appropriate. My current choice would be to classify Joe as a "Plumber's Apprentice." VictorC (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. There's a lot to read here, and I'm pretty sure I'm missing many of the points. But I think Joe does plumbing, but he's not a full plumber yet. At least in Ohio where he works, there's a license to be a plumber. Joe doesn't have that yet. So do we call him the same thing as someone who is licensed? The article about the Union saying he isn't really a plumber says a lot to me. It's like expert testimony. Sure, they probably don't like Joe's politics, but I think it's more about pride in the profession and that there's a difference between someone who has trained, studied and been tested, and all of those other guys who haven't. The other thing is that people are making a big deal out of whether or not he's a plumber - that says something about "title". It's not to be taken lightly here. So I think Victorcoutin's researched name, "Plumber's Apprentice", is fair, accurate, and lets the article explain the battle over the name.Bruno23 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not how the article text refers to him, but what the infobox says. As for anyone accusing me of a "personal interest" of any sort, let me note that I had no involvement with any campaign whatever in any capacity at all. My interest is in having WP have legitimate NPOV articles subject to WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid this doesn't flush: "The issue is not how the article text refers to him, but what the infobox says". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"Accusing me of "personal interest""? "No involvement with any campaign"? Collect, what are you going on about? You're making even less sense than usual. Mattnad (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Asserting that he is a plumber when sources indicate he is unlicensed is an NPOV violation. We can be more accurate on this with a qualifier word. QuackGuru 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that trying to make this very valid point is akin to pissing up a rope? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it weird that Wikipedia Foundation would allow a few wrong-headed editors' egos to dominate what is supposed to be a collaborative effort based on PUBLIC consensus?

There is no uncertainty about it. Factually, conceptually, etc., the occupation in question, as it applies specifically to this man, is ACCURATELY described as a plumber's assistant. He may moonlight as a plumber to save the company from having to hire another fully licensed one, but he cannot legally or professionally presume to use the title, nor should editors bestow it upon him in a prolonged moment of cavalier or negligent whimsy. That is why real plumbers do the extra training and consequently get paid the extra money. Wikipedia should not deliberately aid a personality who is increasingly notorious for his penchant for self-inflation and misrepresentation, by intentionally disregarding such well documented and thoroughly discussed facts. These facts and other credible support are cited above and now widely available to the non-Wikipedia-reading public.

The only clog hindering what should be Wikipedia's PUBLIC work appears to be an over-inflated, stubborn, self-important über-editorial ego, greased over with a veneer of false logic and pseudo-objectivity. This, more than anything else, threatens Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness.

I can see Wikipedia will have competition in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.213.222 (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohio searches

One editor has unilaterally decided that the Ohio searches have nothing to do with this article. He REMOVED the section, which I reverted. I consider such a removal to be close to vandalism. He sought no consensus prior to such a wholesale snipping of the article, and he thinks that people are more interested in Jones-Kelly than in this article where the section belongs. Collect (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, it's called editing. That section was run-on, with day to day facts that make it much larger than the article needs. If you think there's relevant information missing, add it back in. But don't return it to that mess. Mattnad (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
And consensus suggests you ask first before making a huge unilateral change. Collect (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, one last time: consensusdoes not trump a large number of other policies, no matter howmuch one might like it to. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumber's assistant

The latest characterization of Joe as a "plumber's assistant" appears problematic. A search in Google News finds no sources referring to Wurzelbacher as a "plumber's assistant", but several thousand as a "plumber". It would appear that the characterization as a "plumber's assistant" is a synthesis based on interpretations and descriptions of the types of services he has performed which would also present issues of WP:OR. Without reliable and verifiable independent sources to back the claim of "plumber's assistant", it should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone demur? Collect (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
At the time it was changed this was the reference that was used to support it. As to whether it's reliable or not, I'll let others decide, it reads like a bit of hack job to be honest and being European I'm not too familiar with the US press. CIreland (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The paper in question is known for being "sensational" and its use of "registered" is indicative that the author was not cognizant of US laws and word usage. It also dates to October 17, and the person who objected to a November NYT article said that it was too old <g>. I consider US or Ohio sources to be superior, and the NYT has not used "plumber's assistant" as an occupation in any of its articles. Using also the WP standard that where there is an extreme preponderance of cites for one usage, and a single cite otherwise, that consensus goes with the consensus of cites. Lastly, the extended discussion on WP:BLP/N on the topic reached a substantial and convincing consensus. Collect (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, what in the article that's been linked to is "sensational"? Fox News has sensational elements to their content, but we still accept parts of their coverage as RS. So Collect, looking at the article itself, where's the sensationalism? 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the ref he is a plumber's assistant. QuackGuru 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming we accept the National Post article as a reliable source for "plumber's assistant", why isn't it outweighed by the hundreds, if not thousands, of articles that call him a "plumber? Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
They probably call him a plumber because he's billed as "Joe the Plumber". But if it can be definitively shown that he is not allowed to practice plumbing without and individual license, that would trump whatever parroting the media have done. Keith Olbermann, for one, kept saying he's not an actual plumber. That doesn't mean he's right - but the question needs to be answered definitively, in order to make wikipedia not look stupid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The union rep himself (cited before a few times now) said he could legally do plumbing in the townships. Seems to me that the legal question is conceded directly by the man who said he was not licensed. Seems definitive to me. Olbermann is not precisely an unbiassed source, to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You know Collect, you're making our case for us. You wrote, legally do "plumbing". Not legally a "plumber" which is at issue here. The whole point is that Joe can work under a licenses plumber, but is not one himself. Mattnad (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to perform all the tasks that a licensed plumber is allowed to do without a license, and it appears that Joe has done these things. Calling him a "plumber" not only appears to be supported by the preponderance of reliable and verifiable sources, overwhelming the single source that calls him a "plumber's assistant", it appears to be what he does for a living. The authorities in Ohio may be justified in sanctioning him for the practice of plumbing without a license, but should that effect our decision of what to call him.(unsigned)

See next section for cite of Ohio law relating to contractors, and legal cites about issues in a number of states, including Ohio, where court decisions make it clear that Joe was legally working as a plumber. Collect (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
However, according to a reference that describes his job he is a plumber's assistant and technically not a plumber. QuackGuru 19:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The exact same publication (National Post) specifically calls him a "plumber" which sort of hurts your single cite from there when I have several which dispute it from the same paper! <g>. Collect (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many articles that refer to him as a plumber and many that say he is not one. That fact is in dispute between the different sources. I'm not sure which specific WP policy talks about what to do when sources disagree, but it seems most logical to simply present most sides of the dispute and not try and pick one or the other as right. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
With the WP:BLP/N discussion over, it is silly to try upsetting the status quo about him "being employed as a plumber" which is correct, and saying he is a toilet as "occupation." We were stable, please keep it stable unless and until a different consensus is actually arrived at. By the way, unilateral changes do not constitute a change in consensus <g> And changes without posting in Talk generally do not count as changes in consensus either. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but "plumber" is an occupation and "plumber's assistant" is a job title. Think District Attorney vs Assistant District Attorney. Or think of "Senior Engineer" vs "Junior Engineer". Joe is a plumber, regardless of whether his job title given to him by his employer is "associate plumber", "plumber's assistant", "head toilet man", etc. --B (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Think Laywer and Paralegal instead. All of the examples you provided involved people who are already licensed. So there an issue of rank / job title.Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Note: REMOVING "occupation" unilaterally is contrary to any accepted WP practices. Anyone who tries that joke again will be reported. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Collect, the whole point is that the occupation is under dispute, with people on both sides of the issues having relevant POV. It just so happens you want your version in. Instead of warring over that, I agreed with Mindbenders idea to keep it out, at least for now. It's not the end of the world for a rational, mature adult to take that approach. And in Wikipedia, editors are allowed to make changes unilaterally without getting consensus. You may disagree, and change it back, but to threaten reporting (cf. Forum shopping), well that's a bit much. Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
According to a pile of definitions at the Free Online Dictionary [6], a plumber is somebody who does the kind of work called plumbing. There is nothing in the definition of "plumber" about having a license. In Wikipedia, words mean what dictionaries say they mean, not what the State of Ohio wants them to mean. betsythedevine (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Betsy. Going by the source you stipulate - it isn't qualified as a reliable source so far as professions and business occupations are concerned. Going to the online dictionary and looking up lawyer, private detective or doctor, it makes it clear that these definitions are not consistent, are oversimplified and inaccurate as a reliable source to determine occupational status. For example, the listing for "doctor" refers to a need for licensing, but the listings for "lawyer" and private detective do not (the same as your citation of "plumber"). Both lawyers and private detectives must be licensed and properly certified, though, in order to practice anywhere in the USA. This is the same situation as plumbing - but - this also shows that the online dictionary (probably any dictionary) isn't a consistently reliable source as far as determining the correct terminology for occupation. Also, newspapers only report news - they inaccurately identify occupations frequently as with Joe Wurzelbacher, not making a distintion between a Master Plumber, Plumber's Apprentice, etc.. An inaccurate colloquialism and malapropism that is cited in the propensity of sources isn't accurate because we can show that in the case of Joe's occupation, the sources also aren't reliable. The US Department of Labor does have a reliable citation that properly identifies Joe's occupation, which is Plumber's Apprentice. On the Dept of Labor website, I found additional information which might change this discussion. For the sake of their classification system, a Master Plumber and a Plumber's Apprentice are under the same job listing. In other words, they don't distinguish between them (from the link): Apprentices and trainees should be classified with the occupations for which they are being trained, while helpers and aides should be classified separately since they are not in training for the occupation they are helping. From our article, since Joe seems to have begun the process of apprenticeship, he would fall into the Master Plumber category. But, since he has yet to complete the apprenticeship, and pass the legal certifications needed to be independently licensed, I am going to change my standpoint. I no longer agree that "Plumber" is appropriate. The accurate choice would be to classify Joe as a "Plumber's Apprentice." VictorC (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have searched the relevant Wikipedia policy on reliable sources in vain to see evidence for the claim that the US department of labor is a more reliable source than multiple dictionary definitions, all of which agree with one another. betsythedevine (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been sysop protected due to persistent edit warring. Tan | 39 14:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC) 


 {{editprotect}}

Re-insertion of the consensus accepted section on the Ohio database searches. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh..... Collect, you never give up do you. I guess there's no consensus except Collect's consensus. How about thinking about ideas for improvement while we have our time out. Mattnad (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks. IIRC, I was not the one who unilaterally made all the changes to the page. Might you know who did make all the unilateral changes? Collect (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You two specific editors are the main reason this page is protected. I considered blocking both of you, but decided page protection was the more reasonable answer. Tan | 39 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

State of Ohio Office of Investigation "Report of Investigation"

 Done

  • Comment Thomas Charles report is complete as of today. On the Helen Jones-Kelley page this information has been included (as the page is not locked). Below is the updated text;
On November 20, 2008, Ohio's inspector general Thomas Charles reported that the reasonings that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."[26] Charles found that Jones-Kelley "improperly authorized searches of state databases for information on Samuel Joseph — "Joe the Plumber" — Wurzelbacher."[27] Charles has provided the report to the prosecutors office of Franklin County, Ohio for their review and consideration.[28]

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, for further reading, the report is listed at, Report of Investigation, in pdf. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ian, can you cite the information? Once there are citations to the quotes, I'll be happy to move it to the article, but without references, the quotes would have to go.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. The references are attached to the statements below in citation form. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
On November 20, 2008, Ohio's inspector general Thomas Charles reported that the reasonings that Helen Jones-Kelley provided for the checks on Wurzelbacher "were not credible and they included contradictions, ambiguity, and inconsistencies."[1] Charles found that Jones-Kelley "improperly authorized searches of state databases for information on Samuel Joseph — "Joe the Plumber" — Wurzelbacher."[2] Charles has provided the report to the prosecutors office of Franklin County, Ohio for their review and consideration.[3]
Added---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Mortals such as myself can't edit the article, would a higher entity please remove the frustrating Wikilinking of "Joe Wurzelbacher" (it redirects to this article obviously). Cheers adminz. — Realist

 Done, at least i think so. Was it only the one i got--Jac16888 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much about plumbing here?

It occured to me that Joe is really more notable as a political activist than as a plumber. No one really cares about his plumbing work. (Please check out Cindy Sheehan for an article on a similar, although as of now more important, person.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has occurred to a few of us: hence the meme over the person arguments. But, there are those, who are quite vocal and who maintain the existence of a consensus built of straw, who insist that the person is far more important than the meme.
Of course, if JtP ever makes it into any PoliSci or History textbooks it will be as the meme as his personal notoriety is at best fleeting. 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2008 UTC
Well don't claim to be a plumber when you are merely a wannabee! LaidOff (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean as of now more important? There are still people who want Joe to run for Congress! :-) Narco (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Cindy already did that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that part of the problem is the difference between Joe the amateur political activist and Joe the example used by McCain in the debate. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also it's the differences in the representation of "Joe the Plumber" (JtP) as a cultural icon (which was in use at least as early as the 1940s), JtP as a 2008 political campaign metaphor, JtP as Joe Wurzelbacher (a plumber and a person), and JtP as whatever he is trying to set himself up as (political activist, singer, media star, whatever). And the article is uneven in it's treatment of these various aspects. And yes, far too much attention is being paid to JtP as a person, when he's famous and notable as an election metaphor (or meme), not as a person. — Becksguy (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. McCain invented a symbol and applied it broadly to make a point. Mattnad (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it, I would personally be very interested if we were to add a section about the history of the name in which the 1940s bit was explained. I'm not American and I had no idea this was the case. Narco (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Should the article be split in two articles: Joe Wurzelbacher and Joe the example of a working class person? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
SJW is of remarkably limited notability outsede of this event, to be sure. I demur that McCain "invented" JtP, as it is clear that it was an "accident of fate" when Obama and Joe met. The use of a symbol of "everyman" goes back a long time, vide Capra's "Meet John Doe" etc. The article really has several articles entwined quite sloppily. 1. Symbols of "everyman" through the years, JtP being only one of them. 2. "Joe the Plumber" as a question of how taxes should be levied, whether they should be used to "share the wealth" and whether the tax rates discourage entrepeneurship. This is the "campaign issue." 3. The "investigations" of "Joe" by governmental authorities, and the results thereof. 4. "The life and times of Judge R..." er SJW. Notability in doubt. 5. A few hundred thousand words on why a "plumber" is, or is not, a "plumber." Collect (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"According to Ohio building regulations, a plumber only needs his own license if he works independently."

This comment isn't supported by the ref that goes with it, in fact that reference says the opposite: "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work." This either needs a different source for the sentence to say, otherwise it should be changed to reflect what the linked article actually says. If various sources conflict on whether or not he needs his own license, I'd be fine with the article mentioning that the fact is in dispute with links to sources giving both sides. Obviously, best case would be a link to the actual Ohio building regulation that clears it up if someone can find it. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent post. I've seen at least three citations which mention the same thing, but have been dubious about them. I haven't brought this up because I have been working on getting a resolution to the "Plumber" vs "Plumber's Assistant" quandry. But yes, I know of at least three citations in which various Ohio administrators have been quoted as saying Joe cannot work (even as a helper) on plumbing without his own license. Again, this sounded dubious to me but those citations have been bothering me. VictorC (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can really come to a conclusion on whether he is truly a plumber or not since the sources are contradictory. We can only describe the facts as put forth by the sources which are these: 1) He works for a plumbing/HVAC company 2) there has been debate in the press about whether he is truly a plumber or if he's merely an assistant or helper. (direct quote from the Toledo Blade, one of the sources on this: "He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber.") Personally, I think the article should say exactly that. We can't say 100% that he's a plumber or 100% that he's not, so we shouldn't say either, we should just describe what we know for sure and say that various sources have disagreed on whether he is a plumber or not. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Given. But as to what should go in the infobox? I want to put Plumber's Apprentice. Admitted it's hard to ignore that colloquially at least - he's more commonly referred to as a plumber - but this is from sources utterly unfamiliar with the fact there are even such things as "plumber's assistant," "plumber's apprentice," "master plumber" and that there is any distinction here. I'm saying the moniker "plumber" is most common - BUT - it's a malapropism and a colloquialism. It's inaccurate. Secondly, we should recognize that there is commonly NO distinction made between the different sub-types of plumbers in general public circles. If there were, this entire conversation wouldn't be needed. In light of that would putting quotation marks around PLUMBER be violating WP:MOS? Would it even clarify anything? I know it would quell some of the clamorers, which would be great. VictorC (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Does it even need to be in the infobox? Frankly, I don't think anyone really knows for sure exactly what the guy does for a living, he says he's a plumber and maybe he is but maybe he just stands next to his boss and hands him the wrench. I'd just leave it blank or put "employee at a plumbing company" since that would include the possibility of plumber OR plumber's assistant. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - "Plumbing Employee" or blank. I'm OK with either. If the first option won't end the controversy the second one definitely will. If you're unaware, there have been at least two edit wars over what goes there. I am a little apprehensive about touching it, so if you aren't anxious to change it, I feel that it would be best to let some dust settle before anyone touches it. I know of at least one editor that really has a special attachment to the notation in that infobox. VictorC (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet another misstatement -- when the union rep himself said Joe could legally work in "townships." Newell has appropriate plumbing and contracting licenses (many cites if you need them). The actual regulation (probably a bunch) falls under "primary source" and you are attempting SYNTHESIS and OR (original research) at this point. We have a cite for the union rep -- seems quite definitive to me. Now can we work on the actual article? Collect (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, I think your analysis is incomplete. Joe may be allowed to legally work, but under what circumstances and restrictions? From what I've read, he must be under the supervision of a licensed plumber. This really is a core issue that you sidestep. Mattnad (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)\
It could be a little like a student driver, who can only drive under the supervision of a licensed driver. It's also important to note that someone else dubbed him "Joe the Plumber". I don't think he stuck himself with that tage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1. The union rep did not state any such conditions, or did that elide your notice? Second - here is the applicable section about "contractors"
CHAPTER 4740: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
4740.01 Construction industry licensing board definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(A) "License" means a license the Ohio construction industry licensing board issues to an individual as a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning contractor, refrigeration contractor, electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, or hydronics contractor.
(B) "Contractor" means any individual or business entity that satisfies both of the following:
(1) For compensation, directs, supervises, or has responsibility for the means, method, and manner of construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance on a construction project with respect to one or more trades and who offers, identifies, advertises, or otherwise holds out or represents that the individual or business entity is permitted or qualified to perform, direct, supervise, or have responsibility for the means, method, and manner of construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance with respect to one or more trades on a construction project;
(2) Performs or employs tradespersons who perform construction, improvement, renovation, repair, or maintenance on a construction project with respect to the contractor's trades.
(C) "Licensed trade" means a trade performed by a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning contractor, a refrigeration contractor, an electrical contractor, a plumbing contractor, or a hydronics contractor.
All of which appears quite clear.


See also http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/55/sanders.pdf?rd=1 on genral court decisions concerning licensing. page 489, Illinois courts have struck down plumbing licensing. Iowa (1955) restrictions of permits only to licensed contractors struck down. Louisiana 1986 also struck down. Direct Plumbing Supply v. City of Dayton - "concluding that an ordinance imposing reporting requirements on plumbers is 'unduly oppressive upon individuals'" Also S. Dak. same issues. Showing that Joe was a legal plumber in Ohio (per contractor statute), and in a host of other states. I did a bit of work on this -- and the case seems crystal clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, have you shepardized any of these legal citations to see if the pertain the specific Ohio legislation? What have here are a bunch of other states and about miscellany like "issuing building permits" and "ordinances imposing reporting requirements". I'm not a lawyer, and you shouldn't pretend to be one either. Mattnad (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, making an assumption based on cases in other states definitely looks like original research. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Dayton cite is definitely still valid (the cite I used is from 2004 for the book). In case you did not know it, the OHIO statuttes on contractors apply (of all things) to OHIO! And Dayton, in case you did not know it, is in OHIO. Thus your claim that I cited "a bunch of other states" is quite joyfully errant. Are the CILB rules difficult to follow? Stating what the exact words of the law are is not OR, nor is stating what a book states as fact OR. So much for that straw issue. Collect (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dude, whay you quoted in Dayton says "concluding that an ordinance imposing reporting requirements on plumbers is 'unduly oppressive upon individuals'" This says nothing about our current question. So I guess if Joe were to become a licensed plumber, he wouldn't have worry about an ordinance that was struck down. I'm amazed you think this is relevant.Mattnad (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The cite for Direct Plumbing is on page 78 of the 2004 edition of "Ohio State Constitution: A Reference Guide" from Greenwood Publishing. So the cite is valid. As the contractor licensing law is the applicable one for Joe, he is legally a plumber under that license. He does not need, and is not required by law, to have any other license. Collect (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If there's a specific part of the Dayton ruling that says someone in his situation is definitely a plumber, please quote it. And Collect, you can tone down the attitude ("in case you did not know it"?). Iowa, Illinois, and Louisiana aren't in ohio (in case you did not know it) so making assumptions based on those certainly is original research. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Using a secondary source (the book supra) means no OR was involved in mentioning the other states. See WP:OR for what is original research and what is not. Collect (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of my comment you consider a misstatement, I was making a direct quote from the source used in this article so if you consider it a misstatement, your beef is with the Toledo Blade, not me. Nor do I see how I could be engaging in OR since all I am saying is to pass on exactly what the sources say. As I keep saying and as you keep ignoring, there are a number of sources that are contradictory on this issue, some say he is a plumber, some say flat out that he is not, some say he needs a license in ohio, some say he does not.

My original point still stands, that the sentence in the article isn't supported by the source provided. Thanks for finding the actual regulations, I'll try to reword it and use that as a source. Unfortunately, that source still doesn't clear up the issue of whether the guy is really a plumber or not, and the sources we do have seem to be mixed on that question. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The union rep said he could legally work as a plumber in the townships. The Ohio law on Contractors appears to be crystal clear as well. And the legal cites also are clear on this. Now if you wish to find cites contrary to the ones in the book, fine. Until then, the case is clear that under Ohio law, Joe is a plumber. BTW, the statute is a "primary source" per WP and may not be "reworded." Collect (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What part of the Ohio law says that he is a plumber? Show us the specific section, please. The union rep is one source, there are many others that contradict it, I'm not sure why you choose to cherry pick the one source you like (and not even the full source, there are contradicting statements in the same article) while ignoring the ones that say the opposite. And sorry I wasn't clear, I meant I'd reword this ARTICLE, not that I'd reword the statute - I did this and used an exact quote from the statute. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Added in the words "deemed to be" as that seems an important part of the regulation. The CILB supra states that the licensed trade is plumbing (for example), so anyone working under that license for that task (deemed to be under the personal supervision of the individual named) is a plumber. The regulation makes no other claim about "helper" or "assistant" at all. Collect (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with adding "deemed to be", glad we could get that bit of the article sorted out. And while it doesn't use "helper" or "assistant" (I'm hesitant to use either, a wording more supported by sources would be to simply say that he works for a plumbing company), I still don't see where it makes clear that he is a plumber. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, there's little debate he can work legally under a licensed plumber to do plumbing tasks.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you questioned it -- and the law says he is "deemed to be (etc.)" not that the other person has to be there, which I fear you might misapprehend. Collect (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I agree on this point. Always thought Joe could do plumbing work if he's under the supervision of a plumber. That supervision doesn't necessarily require his boss to be there, but there has to be some form of supervision to be compliant with the law. What has typically happened in my experience with plumbers is the boss specifies the work to be done, and deploys his assistants/apprentices to do it. When I've had more complex jobs, the plumber inspects the work after the assistant complete it to make sure it's all to code before the building inspector comes around. Mattnad (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Yes, exactly. The way it would work, is that if Newell (Joe's boss, the plumber with the license) sends Joe out on a job on his own, it's Newell's license which is on the line. Newell probably should inspect the job when it's done, but if he trusts Joe enough - he likely doesn't even do that on a regular basis if at all. Joe can't contract jobs on his own. All jobs are going to be contracted out under Newell's license and his bond. Any errors made by Joe are Newell's responsibility. If Joe should make a disastrous error it could possibly cause Newell to lose his license or his bond. Joe hasn't any legal liability, he doesn't make contracts. Additionally I looked up Newell's license online and he is also licensed separately to do hydronics. So Joe may be installing hydronic systems too. VictorC (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Newell has a CONTRACTOR'S License, Plumbers working for a licensed contractor do not need a separate license. And ANY business which causes a loss to a customer is civilly liable, plumbing is no different from TV repair. As for "contracting" that is done by a "conttractor" so that entire sentence makes no sense at all (sigh). BTW "hydronics" is simply the use of water in radiator heating systems. Usually work done by -- plumbers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Collect, exactly what kind of "CONTRACTOR'S License" do you think Newell has? Mattnad (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Victor, they hold a plumbing contractor license and a hydronics contractor license. It would not surprise me if they had a general HVAC contractor license for sure. Collect (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And what does it take to become a plumbing contractor? Mattnad (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Following the Ohio state law on contracting licenses. See supra. Collect (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The joke in America, my plumber charged me "X" dollars or makes more than my lawyer

This is because in America, these references to well paid plumbers are to master plumbers. In America, when we say plumber we usually mean master plumber in making these seemingly denigrating comments about whom the speaker believes to be overpaid. No I say. Thus when referring to an American as a plumber, please reserve it for these high status master plumbers. I do not know how it is in other English speaking worlds like Australia, Canada, New Zee or the U.K. LaidOff (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)m

Actually not. And I have no idea in what manner your comments are intended to improve the article. Collect (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel insulted by the way plumbers are being discussed. I believe they deserve more respect and we shouldn't call anybody who does plumbing a plumber. Not everyone who talks about business or the economy is an economist. Not everyone who deals with life expectancy is an actuary. Not everyone who gives an opinion on a legal matter is a lawyer. While the economist is not licensed the other three are. And usually unless the person as a university degree, today (not in Thomas Malthus' or David Ricardo's time) we do not call everyone an economist who spouts off on financial matters. A plumber is just as professional and just as licensed as an accountant, an actuary, or a lawyer is... LaidOff (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of jokes, I'm reminded of this bit of philosophy, reported by Tom Lehrer: "Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it!" Then there's this one from Woody Allen: "Is God dead?! Not only that - just try to find a plumber on a weekend!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Where in America? CPAs must pass exams as they are "Certified Public Accountants." Accountants in general have no licensing issues at all. Many people work in businesses as "accountants" without any special licence at all. Actuaries pass exams run by the Society of Actuaries. They are not licensed by states. Plumbers are much like accountants as far as licenses are concerned. They are not lawyers. They do not have advanced college degrees. Clear yet? Collect (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Plumbers deal with health and safety of their clients in the every day operation of their jobs. Not many accountants or actuaries can make a mistake that can cause the death of their client, or the destruction of their health. Plumbers have to make certain their work insures a sanitary and safe result for their clients. Shouldn't this be ample justification why licensing and regulation of plumbing and plumbers exists? Isn't this simply a matter of public safety? VictorC (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, must we deal with this hyperbole? Plumbers deal with the end product. If the source is bad there is little a plumber can do to remedy that. The most important aspect of a plumbers job (from a safety point of view), and that of anyone doing home improvement is to make sure that the trap is put in correctly so that noxious gasses do not return into the house. From what I have been able to determine the primary reason for a plumber licence is to to be able to be bonded for insurance reasons in case what they do causes physical damage to the building. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You must have never heard of a house being destroyed by a gas explosion, or a family killed by CO gas emissions from an unsafe furnace or other appliance, then. Check out this: Gas explosion. Usually results in the destruction of an entire building. CO exposure can result in death or permanent brain damage, etc. - CO_poisoning#Symptoms. Not a trivial issue.VictorC (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame that many people don't take plumbing seriously.LaidOff (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Indoor plumbing has led to the greatest increase in life expectancy, not doctors who were still leeching people because they didn't know about the germ theory of disease. Google "midwife Simmelweis childbirth" LaidOff (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You all seem to be confusing Plumbing with Heating. While a plumber may also work in heating, in my locale, they are usually called heating technicians. Arzel (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Plumbers have to make certain their work insures a sanitary and safe result for their clients. Shouldn't this be ample justification why licensing and regulation of plumbing and plumbers exists? Er, to paraphrase your words: accountants can bring down multibillion dollar corporations, ruin lives, and send people to jail, shouldn't this be ample justification why licensing and regulation of accountants exists? I bet you more people have been negatively impacted by poor accountants than by poor plumbers---one word "Enron?" I guarantee that more accountants have gone to jail for their official actions than have plumbers. Just because a profession can impact people's lives doesn't mean that the profession is defined by a license. Not only do accountants not have to have CPA's, but there are some accountants who don't even have college degrees. Heck, a person who fails to finish HS could become an accountant---not at one of the Big Four, but possibly at a small local store/restaurant. Similarly, despite what was said above, there are economist who don't have degrees. One's job is defined by the job description, not a license or diploma.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(ri): There seems to have been a point to the original post. It was shouted down by he usual suspect. No surpise. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
er, I've never differentiated between "Master Plumber" and the guy who fixed my plumbing in my dorm. Perhaps in the "industry" you might refer to "plumbers" with a sense of awe and respect of a Master Plumber, but trust me, the majority of American's probably don't realize that there are different levels of plumbers. (The only reason why I know is because I have 2 brothers who are in construction!)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I am glad someone understands how important good plumbing work is. I am sad that most Canadians don't appreciate and take for granted proper plumbing and hygiene... we don't have cholera anymore... LaidOff (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree good sanitation is important, but what you are referring to is public works like the Public Water Utility. They are responsible for ensuring that the water supply is clean and "mostly" free of bacteria. These departments would employ public water engineers and possibly sanitation engineers, not plumbers. Arzel (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring large scale projects, yes, the level of training is higher. But training and certification is also required for people who work in the home. Plumbers are responsible for installing gas lines, water based heating system delivery systems, in addition to water supply and sewage. Mistakes in the past (e.g. gas explosions) are part of the reason for licensing.
What perplexing about this is why Arzel and Collect are so keen on using the generic version of plumber, even though it's been made very clear that professionals in his industry don't view him as a "real plumber". Likewise, he can only do plumbing work under the supervision of a plumber (thanks Collect for digging up the rules). So here's a test, if Joe were to quit and branch out on his own, would he be a plumber? Not according to Ohio law he wouldn't. Arzel might fall back on the "doing plumbing = plumber" but that's not what the law says.
I will add one more thing, Collect has said there's a consensus for the status quo of calling him a plumber. I haven't seen that. Collect has tried to gain consensus on the Wp:BLP notice board for his view, and excluded dissenting voices (except his) who had previously discussed this point on this talk page. That's not consensus so please stop using that argument. Mattnad (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Kindly stop the personal attacks. There is absolutely no way I could exclude any voice from any page. When the people who already discussed the issue make multiple posts there as well, it is reasonable that I suggest we listen to the new voices. No one was, or could be, excluded from voicing their opinions. As far as I know, those with strong opinions against "plumber" here voiced their same opinions on WP:BLP/N. Of the ten new voices, ten were in favor of "plumber." And the word is "deemed" which means he does NOT need the active supervision of any other person, 'as he is working under the contractor's license pursuant to Ohio law. Ohio law does not require him to have a license! Collect (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Collect, please reread my post and there's no personal attack.
  • On consensus: You claim consensus on the BLP Noticeboard where there is none, except under your special interpretation that excludes counting voices from this talk page. As you put it "new voices". And there was one voice, Bruno23, who was new to this talk page (a single post), and then went the the BLP Noticeboard who was in favor the professional interpretation. He was hardly a veteran of this debate and I would count him as a new voice too.
  • On the law: my post was clear - Joe is not allowed to do plumbing except under the supervision of a plumber. That's meaningful.Mattnad (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a lawyer who knows that the Ohio laws are wrong? The LICENSE is only required to be held by the CONTRACTOR. And it does not require "supervision" it says that the work is "deemed to be under the supervision" of the license holder (the contractor). If you want to count voices, the consensus by 15 to 4 is that "plumber" is correct, including EVERY voice not involved in this article. I suggest that this is, indeed, a "Consensus."
You might want to try that count again......Mattnad (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber, is a plumber, whether he is licensed or not. Whether he has to work under the supervision of another or not. It doesn't matter if his job title is Master Plumber, Journeyman Plumber, Apprentice Plumber, Illegal Plumber, Unlicensed Plumber, if his primary role is to work plumbing, then he is a plumber. I mentioned that I have two inlaws who are in construction. One is a Journeyman Instrumentationalist. He's been doing his job for over a decade now and is considered one of the experts where he works---when you consider the overtime and per diem he makes close to 6 figures. He has never joined a Union. Now according to the local union, if he wants a job at a Union Shop, he would come in as an apprentice because they do not consider him to be a true instrumentationalist. I'm an auditor, I've been doing it for a long time. I make good money doing it. There are "night auditors" making 10$ per hour who I don't consider to be true auditors, but guess what, despite my personal bias, they are still auditors. My point is, if it is his job, and what he does, then guess what it is what he is.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Balloon Man, you wouldn't call a quack a doctor even though he dispenses snake oil? You wouldn't call anyone a lawyer who has an opinion, you seem to not respect the PROFESSION of plumbing as much as most people respect the law or medicine,.. I guess that's why uniformed parents want their kids to be doctors and lawyers and not plombiers! I am sick of the denigration of and singling out of one profession... Sick of it! You guys think plumbers are beneath youLaidOff (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No, if he is working as a plumber and is being paid as a plumber, then he is a plumber. In the US, Lawyers and Doctors are in a special category. Both have very strict legal definitions. Most professional jobs do not have that rigid of a structure. For example: teaching. In most states to teach at a public school, you have to have a college degree and an teaching certificate (or be enrolled in a special program.) Yet, my child attends daycare, and he is daycare provider is not a licensed teacher by the state, but she is still a teacher. I know of a church school in Colorado, that has teachers who aren't college graduates. Within most professions, there are different levels of professionalism. Plumbers/accountants/economist/teachers/etc all have differing levels of credentialling and certifications. Also, please remember, no personal attacks. I have absolutely no problem with plumbers--My other brother in law is a Plumber's Apprentice. You want to pretend that the only people who call themselves plumbers are "master plumbers." That's simply not true. Similarly, auditors do not have to be Certified Internal Auditors and accountants do not have to be Certified Public Accountants. CIA/CPA/Master Plumbers may look down on others who don't have the same credentials, but it doesn't prevent somebody from calling themselves an auditor/accountant/plumber. If I was deginerating the profession, as you imply, I wouldn't be comparing it to CPA/CIA's now would I?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman is correct, he's a plumber. Per numerous arguments and a preponderance of reliable sources. Doctor is not a viable analogy as an unlicensed person can not practice medicine under the supervision of a licensed doctor. However, plumbers and electricians even if unlicensed, can perform their trade under the supervision of a licensed person. — Becksguy (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is semi-directly involved with plumbing in professional life (for what it's worth), here is my position on what should go in the infobox (without listing my justification). My overall preference is "Plumber's Apprentice." However, as a compromise, I am agreeable to three other options: 1) "Plumbing Employee;" 2) Plumbing;" 3) leave it blank. I am entirely opposed to "Plumber." Thanks everyone for all the time invested here, let's hope we are getting closer to a resolution. VictorC (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, everyone's "opinions" on how he should be referred to are irrelevant. Your preferences are irrelevant. What reliable sources call him is relevant. Tan | 39 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
My position - "preference" isn't my personal preference. It was a simple result of my assessment of the information publicly available (from news and other sources) referring to the professional status of the subject of this article. I apologize for introducing more confusion into the discussion. I merely meant to provide one perspective on this situation (without offering new discussions) as one of the editors that has been contributing to the resolution of this item which hopefully will make this a better Wikipedia page. Sorry to confuse things. VictorC (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, Tan. The majority of reliable sources refer to him as a "plumber'. Yes, the other terms (unlicensed, assistant, helper, apprentice) are used, but they are a minority. — Becksguy (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy. I'd like to interject something. Agreed that most sources refer to him as "plumber." I would like to point out that this reference is a colloquialism and a malapropism (this can be verified by reliable sources), thus all sources, and again I agree that is very many sources, are not "reliable." If it's inaccurate to refer to him as "plumber," even if many sources are there to repeat it, it doesn't change the unreliability of the sources. OK. VictorC (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
My proposal for compromise: I'm more of the opinion that Plumber goes in the box, and then a more detailed explanation goes in the article. In the article, you can explain why/why not calling him a plumber is/isn't accurate. But he identifies himself as a plumber, the country identifies him as a plumber, the media identifies him as a plumber, his job is a plumber. If it needs to be qualified, then that goes in the article where more space is available to do so.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere above. Yes, lede and infobox say "plumber" per WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Any minority views, qualifications, etc. go into the plumbing career section to present all significant viewpoints. — Becksguy (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a lawyer, i know you are not called a lawyer just because you give advice on the law

But according to the logic of he does plumbing so he's a plumber, we have lots of lawyers here who are not Admitted in any state of the union. Why hasn't anyone answered my point? Because they are wrong and I am right. If you were to treat plumbing as a profession with equal respect as the law, you would not call unlicensed folks plumbers. Therefore all the people here who insist on calling these folks plumbers either do not equally respect the plumbing profession or they are illogocal. LaidOff (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter whether anyone respects the plumbing profession or not. It doesn't matter what he does - he could be a rocket scientist, but if reliable sources refer to him as a plumber, so will we. We respect verifiability, not the truth. It's the way this project works. Tan | 39
Oh I get it, that's what the Colbert Report is all about, we are only trying to report what most other folks are saying, writing and doing by referencing them. Only tangentially can we point out obvious illogical stuff, but if illogical stuff is verifiably out there, it gets recorded and entered into wikipedia! Cool! ;) LaidOff (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Despite your sarcasm, that's exactly what we're doing here. Original research is expressly forbidden. Clearly you have a strong viewpoint on this, which I appreciate - but other established editors disagree with you (see the massive quagmire above). In the end, however - it does not matter - Wikipedia includes information that can be verified in reliable sources. You might be able to claim an ignore all rules situation here if we had a damn near unanimous decision that said sources were incorrect, but that's not the case. Tan | 39 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most of the sources after day 1 are pretty careful in their wording NOT to actually identify him as a plumber. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This might be true. My point wasn't to take sides; it was to give a relevant purpose to either side of the argument. Tan | 39 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps it is because you are failing to note what has been discussed above. Lawyers and Doctors fall into special categories of professions. They are two types of professionals where the very use of the term is limited by law/regulations. Similarly, it is the case with Realtors, nurses, most medical professions. But many professionals do not have such protections. Accountants don't, economists don't, engineers don't, auditors don't, plumbers don't, teachers don't, chemists don't, professional atheletes don't. People can (and do) use those terms even though they may not fit the credentials of somebody in the top tier of those professions. The fact is that people who are not Certified Internal Auditors, do hold jobs as auditors. The fact is that people who are not licensed teachers, do hold jobs as teachers. And guess what, The fact is that people who are not Master Plumbers, do hold jobs as Plumbers.
Let me pose it in another manner. In the state of Ohio, do you believe that there are companies/hotels/office buildings/apartment complexes/colleges/universities/etc that have plumbers on their staff? Do you believe that each of those companies/hotels/office buildings/apartment complexes/colleges/universities/etc are licensed plumbers? Do you believe that every plumber who works for those entities is a master plumber? Does that stop the person who is working as a plumber from calling himself a plumber? Does he cease to be a plumber because he took a job as a plumber with one of these entities?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would expect that any professionally run building would only have licensed plumbers or their supervised employees working if they wanted to be compliant with building regulations. I was president of coop apartment building for several years and we didn't bother having a plumber on staff but would contract with one when we needed the service. For minor plumbing work, we had a maintenance man, but we'd never allow him to do work that was subject to municipal building code. And don't forget, just because someone says they are "a plumber" doesn't make it so. So in Ohio, my belief is that larger buildings that needed a plumber on staff would make sure he or she is licensed. Mattnad (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you stating that you are in Ohio and know how large buildings are managed there? Collect (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't "stating" that. But since you asked... yes. In fact the coop was in Cleveland. And you thought you were being clever. Of course, it's irrelevant to the rhetorical context offered byBalloonman, but you seem to harp on irrelevant points to avoid the bigger issues.Mattnad (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You made a statement which seemed to indicate that you had been in Ohio, so I asked. I would not have asked had you not made that statement. And since ALL plumbing work is subject to "municipal code" I would suggest that yout house plumber was a plumber when doing plumbing work. Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It was a meaningless question. And we did not have a house plumber. Don't put words in my mouth. He was a maintenance man who fixed a toilet valve once, and another time replaced a washer in a dripping faucet. Nice try though. So we now have it - If someone touches a pipe, Collect considers that person a plumber. That's a pretty low bar. Mattnad (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Cut the sarcasm and deal with facts. If a person as a matter of his routine trade works with plumbing, and fulfills the dictionary definition of "plumber" he is a "plumber." Collect (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No sarcasm. Just responding to what you wrote. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. You did say "your house plumber" so I assumed you were referring to our maintenance man. Were you referring to the plumbers we hired (who were licensed)? If that's what you mean by "plumber" then I agree since in Ohio, plumbers are licensed.Mattnad (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article for lawyer quotes Black's Law Dictionary defining it as is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law." The corresponding definition for plumber is "a tradesperson who specializes in installing and maintaining systems used for potable (drinking) water, sewage, drainage, or industrial process plant piping." We don't treat plumbers and lawyers the same because licensing for lawyers is an inherent aspect of their profession; it is not for a plumber. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
They made me take the bar exam, the multi-state ethics exam. They made me swear or affirm that I would support the Constitution. But this was to enter the "union" because it acts as a closed shop union, just that there is no firm employer attached. (ever notice how the letter i is next to the letter u?); if you take the corresponding sourcde for definition from a plumber's union, I would suspect it would also mention exams or licensing. Does any editor here know what the plumber's union say is their definition. Just like we let people tell us what to call them and how o pronounce their names.... we shpould afford the say rule for plumbers to give us what they define themselves as... If they agree that you need not be fully a master plumber then it would be discourteous of me not to accept it. But I don't appreciate non-plumbers denigrating them. So if you are in the plumber's union give us your input. LaidOff (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)t
(e/c)To Alansohn: 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use for a definition of plumber. 2) You go try to practice plumbing in Ohio (and most other states) without a licence. Professional credentialling IS required. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
What does " (e/c) " mean? LaidOff (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) stands for edit conflict - I tried to post and was blocked because someone else had changed the page before I pressed save. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No need to do that -- just paste your edit into the top box, which has the "intervening" edit accounted for. And you can change your post if the intervening edit adds material you wish to address. I thought it was Bill Gaines' old logo at first. Collect (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem sticking with the reliable sources, but it seems that they all call him a "plumber". The Wikipedia definitions were provided to show how we define lawyer vs. plumber, and why a lawyer is defined by meeting licensing requirements, while a plumber is not. The rules of evidence differ on a talk page and in an article, and there is no requirement for me to provide reliable sources here. As the plumber article makes clear, a "plumber" is someone who does the job of a plumber, regardless of licensing requirements. It would be worthwhile to include information about illegal practice of the plumbing trade, but that does not change his occupation. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I challenge you on your assumption that "most sources call him a plumber" - other than the use of the nickname "Joe the Plumber"* most of the sources are very careful in how they describe him. For any one you find that flat out describes him as a plumber, there are at least 20 that go to linguistic gymnastics ("the North Ohio tradesman" etc.) to NOT define him as a plumber. (* and no the nickname does not count otherwise Magic Johnson would be magic.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Cite for your "statistic"? I checked on google news search, and your figure is absurdly far from the mark. Seems the rule that 80% of statistics are made up applies. Collect (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You have as yet not been able to produce any as I recall. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You made the claim that over 95% of sources do not call Joe a "plumber". Looks from here that you had absolutely no basis for that claim. Now you need me to show that your fatuous statistic is invalid? Amazing! Collect (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not asking you to "prove" anything other than your claim that Reliable sources call him a plumber - So you cant even find one? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Fox, CNN -- how many do you want? Not to mention the overwhelming consensus of neutral editors on WP:BLP/N. Meanwhile you claim that only 1 in 21 sources call him a "plumber" -- I think you must now come up with about 100 to make your case <g>. Collect (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop arguing theoreticals. Per WP:V until you have a specific reliable source that calls him a plumber in more than nickname there is nothing about the article to discuss. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You made the statistical assertion. Asking me to "prove" anything about your assertion is absurd. As for "nothing more to discuss" I trust you will not add yet another reply to this section asking me to prove what I have cited in the past, furnished cites for in the article, had discussed in WP:BLP/N with many neutral editors, and furnished cites for in the archives here as well. Collect (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my claim that the overwhelming number of sources go to lengths to not identify him as a plumber. If you want to include information in the article that identifies him as a plumber, show me which source you will be using. WP:V, cause we have lots that identify him as otherwise. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
First -- you are the one who cited a fake statistic. Second, I have provided many cites in the past, check the article history and talk page history. Third, you seem to be using a non-existent dictionary, as EVERY dictionary definition is in accord on what a "plumber" is. Fourth, when we asked for more input, the new input was unanimous on using "plumber." Fifth, argument by iteration does not work. Now as you fall short on all five points, I see no reason to post a single word more on this. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
First, the this page is to discuss article content not my statistics. You want to include content identifying Mr W as a plumber in more than nickname in the article. Wikipedia WP:V states that you need to have a reliable source that backs your claim for article content. Which reliable source are you intending to use to back your claim? There is a source that was removed from the article identifying him as a plumber's assistant [4] If you cannot provide a source to identify ocupation as plumber, discussion over.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

plombier polonais

On the eve of the EU opening up labor mobility, the French trade unionists were all revolting for fear of the Polish plumbers who would invade France and drive down wages. Alas, when the doors opened, the Poles al went to London!  ;) Plumbers have been used as examples of bad news or fear... as when people decry the high cost of services... but when you pipe bursts you need a man for the service, service which cannot be outsourced! Likewise trial court room lawyers cannot be outsourced! LaidOff (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And the relevance of the story?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
My point is that plumbers are being used as the butt of examples not only in Canada but also in France. Seems the entire uninformed world does not appreciate the gift of indoor plumbing. They give credit to doctors for life extension despite them nit washing their hands going to see patients. Proper hygiene and indoor plumbing should get the cedit. LaidOff (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And the relevance of the story here? Collect (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This story is about plumbers and plumbers are constantly being disrespected...
And please do tell me if you've heard this one, 'What do you call a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?' Or how about, "The only good lawyer is a ____ lawyer?" The lawyer jokes are ad infinatum. The Doctor jokes also exists. Sounds like Plumbers are in good company to me. But I still don't see the relevance for this article.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
While not all lawyers skirt around the ethical edges, their jobs putting themselves in danger of ethical lapses, I am embarassed every time a co-professional has a moral lapse. LaidOff (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So we come full circle, what is the point of this story to this article?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The point is that this article like much of common people's talk denirates plumbers, I wonder if it is sheer jealousy?LaidOff (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
And to be frank I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. There is absolutely nothing in this article that denirates plumbers, and the only thing that I've seen that puts down plumbers is stuff that you've written.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Strange, any objective reading would imply that BalloonMan denigrates the plumbing profession by allowing just anyne to call himself a plumber. LaidOff (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way was the last comment intended to improve the article? Collect (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that people are actually debating this. He plumbs. He is a plumber. Whether or not he is licensed does not matter; he practices the trade, therefore the word that describes someone who practices the trade is completely appropriate. Celarnor Talk to me 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical usage of the meme "Joe the Plumber"

I would also love to see a section on historical usage of the phrase. Note that several of these references are from before Joe Wuzelbacher was born. Here are User:Edison's valuable contributions, reformatted for readability, chrono sorted, and referenced as best I could, all from Google News Archive:

  • The Vidette-Messenger (1948) Valparaiso, Indiana: "So did a few others when it became apparent that the small plane business wasn't going to develop. Joe the plumber just wasn't going to latch onto one to take the wife and kids for a Sunday spin." Published: December 21, 1948
  • Considine, Bob (1949). "The President's Neck". Deseret News. (about President Truman): ...the only time they worry about him is when he asks for the wheel of one of the White House cars, and starts passing trucks on blind hills, just like Joe the plumber out for a Sunday spin with the kids and the old lady. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: January 3, 1949
  • News Journal (1965) Mansfield, Ohio: "When last heard from Joe the plumber was giving lectures to anyone who would listen and displaying his two remaining pancakes as proof of his veracity." Published: August 12, 1965
  • The Chronicle-Telegram (1972) Elyria, Ohio: ".. for people like Joe the plumber so he can afford a driven limousine and have some fun." Published: December 11, 1972
  • Arizona Daily Sun (1973) Flagstaff, Arizona: "If anybody told Joe the Plumber that he couldn't split a 6-pack with his old pal Jake the Barber..." Published: February 5, 1973
  • Del Giudice, Marguerite (1984). "IN THE END, DECISIONS, DECISIONS". Philadelphia Inquirer NewsBank. It did please her husband, Joe the plumber, an unabashed fan who views the President as a paragon of the bold and manly American ideals that Joe esteems... {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: November 11, 1984

And quoting Edison (02:31, 10-27-08): Thus the meme "Joe the Plumber["] long predates Wurgelwitz first picking up a pipe wrench, with or without a license.

We need to cover the historic usage of the metaphor or meme in a section which complements the current occurrence. Anyone have suggestions for that section? — Becksguy (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually (supra) we need a article on "everyman" as political symbol -- which would be a very interesting article, to be sure. There are quite a few to use! Collect (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Check out Joe and Joseph, there is some interesting material there, going back to Saint Joseph. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that the current usage of "Joe the Plumber" is in any way tied to these previous and obscure "references", especially considering the "research" that the McCain team did on their VP selection. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows that "Joe the Plumber" as a phrase or meme predates this occurrence by decades. McCain didn't invent the metaphor, but he did catapult it into fame and notability. It supports the position that the article is not just a biography of Joe Wurzelbacher, nicknamed "Joe the Plumber", but is also about the cultural archetype of "Joe the Plumber", separate from the person behind it. Think about John Doe, Joe Shmoe, John Q. Public, and others. But especially about Rosie the Riveter, which is closest in context, since there is also a real person behind that archetype or metaphor. — Becksguy (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am just saying that I do not think that you can in any way connect that McCain's or the Media's usage of the term in the past 2 months to be based in any way on these historical examples. In order to be connected, the current users would have had to have known about the previous uses, and to me that knowledge is unlikely and for purposes of Wikipedia, such a connection is WP:OR without some published source making it for us. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that the current usage is based on the historic usage (although it may have been). What I am claiming is that the symbolic term existed way before it's current usage. And the fact that it has been used before is encyclopedic and adds support for this article being about JtP as an archetype rather than just a nickname for Joe Wurzelbacher. Much like Rosie the Riveter. Joe the Plumber is much bigger and much more important than Joe the person. — Becksguy (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been trying that argument for weeks. With some folks with ownership problems who have a very real desire to control the page it's been a no-go. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

editing Talk page

Please avoid as it is disconcerting to find some comments suddenly gone. I understand removal of trolls, but removal of other material is not needed, especially when the people whose words are removed have to search to find them. Remember, once it goes to archive, it is a real pain to reconstruct threads. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Standing back from all the content issues for a moment, I think that this talk page is a mess. Autoarchiving (which is in effect, as agreed to) is quite necessary to avoid overwhelming length. In addition, part of the problem is that there are a few contentious/persistent threads (is he a plumber, and nickname vs. sobriquet, for examples) in which sections leapfrog over each other, also sometimes editors add comments to threads at the top (mea culpa also), and new sections keep magically appearing at the bottom of the page. It's become rather difficult to find stuff, and this page seriously needs reorganization. I carefully read WP:SUBPAGES and it doesn't appear that article talk pages are not permitted sub pages, after all, archives are sub pages. If there are any admins lurking here that are familiar with this area, can we split out the major discussion threads into their own article talk subpages, for example Talk:Joe the Plumber/Nickname vs Sobriquet. That would provide organization, and free up this page for other less complicated/contentious/persistent issues. If that is not kosher, then we need to reorganize this page by combining sections into coherent threads. But something needs to be done. Either that, or just delete the whole mess and then take a nap. (JK) Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is an editor who thinks that pruning threads manually is a good idea. Unfortunately this means where a person wants to cite an earlier post, the post gets untimely ripped from context. Auto-archiving is a good thing, and is set up here already. As for my own opinions on how talk pages would be improved, see User:Collect/thoughts Collect (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Another item that would help is for all of us to clearly abide by WP:TPG - sticking clearly and directly to content material and not theoretical discussions. What specific article content - what Reliable Sources support it - what policies support it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Alas -- almost of of your posts would get deleted <g>. The talk page is for ANY talk which has the aim of improving the article. We have auto-archiving, there is no need for manual deletion, especially without telling people whose posts get deleted in your wisdom. Collect (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I smell troll. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 03:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the only removal of content in the past week or more has been by our archive bot. (And most of my comments do actually include policy reference or a request for another user to provide a policy reference / reliable source.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Israel statement

Why does this article mention his statements on how Obama would destroy Israel is elected president? That was pretty widely reported in the last week or so of the election. Kuralyov (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama what? Anyway, that crap does not belong here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Joe didn't exactly say that, but pretty close. Something like, "Electing Obama would mean death for Israel." I think it should be mentioned since it was reported in the press. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the content on Israel does not belong in the article. Without an opposing viewpoint, it's POV and violates WP:NPOV. And it has very little to do with Joe the Plumber as a metaphor or even as a person, and more to do with an election smear against Obama, which makes it a WP:BLP violation. See the archived discussion: Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 4#Israel comments — Becksguy (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a publicized statement by Joe. I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. I'm sure that the things protesters said against Bush or other presidents are quoted in their articles without someone saying it's a BLP violation. (p.s. I voted for Obama and I expect him to be just as effective as a defender of Israel as any other president, or more so.)Steve Dufour (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
It's notable, but we can certainly provide more context by including all of the salient information including Shepard Smith's response as a balance. In that archived discussion, one persistent editor took an arbitrary position that we only include Joe's words, and not the interviewer's comments. Mattnad (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

TRANSCRIPT Should Be Included Within Article

Why can't the actual transcript with Obama be included in the article? The transcript was deleted several times.

The relevance is that the transcript significantly clarifies that Sam Wurzelbacher lied to Obama and the press by misrepresenting himself to the candidate & public. The transcript succinctly shows Wurzelbacher posing as a man who could afford to buy a plumbing business above the $250,000. tax bracket, when his salary was really only $40,000. per year.

The transcript also clarifies and adds additional, relevant knowledge to "Joe the Plumber" as a metaphor, since it is now widely acknowledged in CNN and other news media that this specific creation of "Joe the Plumber", rather than being an organically developed "everyman", was built and increasingly developed off a fallacious foundation: Wurzelbacher was neither a licensed plumber, nor was he actually in a financial position to worry about the tax consequences to his potential profits should he proceed to buy a plumbing business that made slightly more than Obama's proposed tax cut limit. This gives new, added and intentional layers of meaning, or even mockery, to many contemporary references of the "Joe the Plumber" metaphor.

Additionally, the transcript adds context to WHY the definition of "Joe the Plumber" as a METAPHOR HAD TO BE CHANGED later and re-branded with the word "ASPIRING". The transcript shows the original incantation of a Joe the Plumber. Yet, because the man behind the metaphor began to be revealed as someone who had never been financially within the class of small business owners that the McCain campaign used the metaphor to appeal to, (as a counter to Obama's claims that McCain wasn't interested in helping people on "Main Street"). Therefore, later usage and definitions of the "Joe the Plumber" metaphor had to be shifted accordingly as facts continued to emerge which revealed increasingly embarrassing discrepancies between the early McCain-invoked metaphor and the actual person. Hence, "Joe the Plumber" as a metaphor was forced to shift in meaning from the embodiment of a moderately affluent and would-be small business owner, to an average "working-class" (as opposed to "moderately affluent") "Joe the Palooka", who -someday- hoped and aspired to be able to buy his own small business and have his own employees, and, so aspiring, wanted protections kept in place now against unfair taxation when that happy day arrived for him.

67.40.213.39 (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I hear POV rearing its head? The article is not a place for editorializing. Collect (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


How is including the actual transcript of the encounter within the article a case of "editorializing" or "POV rearing its head"?

The transcript simply allows the facts to speak succinctly for themselves, rather than being interpreted by various "impartial" editors. 71.35.117.84 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The full transcript is readily available online at the St. Petersburg Times. It seems pretty accurate to me, because I had created a transcript myself which I posted from my talk page: [7]. Could some admin add a link to it from the article? It seems like a legitimate addition of information extremely relevant to the article. betsythedevine (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cable Commercials

Looks like JTP is going to appear in a series of commercials:

"Joe Wurzelbacher, better know as Joe the Plumber, signed a deal with an online converter box retailer, VelocityStore.com, to star in a series of educational videos to inform TV watchers about what the transition is all about, how to hook up a converter box and how to get a government-sponsored coupon to help buy a box." Hart, Kim (2008-11-25). "Joe the Plumber's Next Gig: DTV Transition Spokesman", Washington Post. -- GateKeeper(X) @ 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DOB

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher was born December 3, 1973. Joe is very notable. His DOB should be in the article like any other article. QuackGuru 02:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber as a metaphor is notable, Joe Wurzelbacher, himself, isn't. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (also known by his nickname as Joe the plumber) is a book writer and has made many media appearances. QuackGuru 04:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not notable per se. His notability, as such, only arises from one campaign. His DOB only appears on quaternary sources (blogs or worse) at this point. It is not found in any RS that I found. Collect (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I showed Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is notable. Please do not claim otherwise. The campaign is over and he continues to make media appearances and is a book writer. I added a source a while ago but it got deleted. Hmm. QuackGuru 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Oh My Gosh! You are the official decider-in-chief here? Notability is something which has not been set by consensus here. Collect (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been used by editors to block improvements. I have shown Joe's notability. It's time for editors to acknowledge the truth. QuackGuru 19:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I generally don't like to see exact dates of birth in BP bios. His year of birth could be mentioned if it's not already. I agree that Joe is now notable enough for a perminant WP bio. (He is notable as a celebrity/activist, never as a plumber.) One thing I must add is that even if he were as good as Saint Joseph that would not make President Obama's tax plan bad, and even if he were as evil as Joseph Stalin or Joseph Goebbels that would not make the plan good. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually with Collect on this one. This article is not meant per se to be a bio of Mr. Wurzelbacher, in which case his date of birth would be relevant and we'd delve into his whole life story. His notability arose from the Joe the Plumber moniker and the term is no longer just about him. Joe the Plumber is a metaphor for the Middle Class courtesy of President-Elect Obama and John McCain, particularly Obama. Thus the name is far more notable than the actual person and that's the focus of this article albeit in a semi-biographical fashion. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

edit protected

  1. ^ ""Inspector general says Joe the Plumber's files searched improperly"". The Columbus Dispatch. 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ ""State IG: Jones-Kelley acted improperly on 'Joe the Plumber', fundraising"". The Western Star. 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ ""IG Report: 'Joe The Plumber's' Files Were Searched Improperly"". NBC News. 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ Peter Goodspeed National Post Friday, October 17, 2008
Request done. Thanks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{editprotected}}

The protection tag on the top of the page is an eyesore, and could distract readers. Could it be made smaller or less conspicuous? Thanks. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Plumber's Assistant Controversy Reflects Editors Stifling Public Consensus

There is no uncertainty about it. Factually, conceptually, etc., the occupation in question, as it applies specifically to this man, is ACCURATELY described as a plumber's assistant. He may moonlight as a plumber to save the company from having to hire another fully licensed one, but he cannot legally or professionally presume to use the title, nor should editors bestow it upon him in a prolonged moment of cavalier or negligent whimsy. That is why real plumbers do the extra training and consequently get paid the extra money.

Wikipedia should not deliberately aid a personality who is increasingly notorious for his penchant for self-inflation and misrepresentation, by intentionally disregarding such well documented and thoroughly discussed facts. These facts and other credible support were cited above (but have since been largely removed) and now widely available to the non-Wikipedia-reading public.

The only clog hindering what should be Wikipedia's PUBLIC work appears to be an over-inflated, stubborn, self-important über-editorial ego, greased over with a veneer of false logic and pseudo-objectivity. This, more than anything else, threatens Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness.

I can see Wikipedia will have competition in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.117.84 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rant appears to further no improvement of any article. Thanks for playing. Collect (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The "rant" above is actually a logical case for why Wikipedia should truthfully reflect Wurzelbacher's occupation of plumber's assistant.

It also expresses legitimate concern about the fact that editors at Wikipedia effectively stifled a substantial amount of public dialog and consensus that was making the same point, and many of whom included wonderfully incisive arguments and citations, but all to no effect because they were continually countered with weak, dismissive and illogical justifications for why the man in question should be represented as something other than he is. Their corrections to the article were repeatedly reverted, and ultimately, it looks like the majority of their discussion which argued against how the article is currently presented, was even removed from the discussion page.

It’s an appeal for Wiki Foundation to have a look at their employees’ work and see if the spirit of the project and the public is being served here, or increasingly polluted by personal agendas or egos.

So, my apologies if the suggested improvements to the article eluded you.

They are: to keep Wikipedia as accurate as possible and as much of a public (rather than editorial) work of consensus as possible, and to correct this article to reflect Wurtzelbacher's actual pay grade: plumber's assistant.

67.40.179.58 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct and good luck.
Collect: "Thanks for playing."? Is this the appropriate path we should take? Seems unhelpful. 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
Read WP:BLP/N where a large number of opinions focussed on the issue came up with "plumber." Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The BLP/N was mainly about the infobox and not the lead or body of the article. QuackGuru 23:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
For some reason I thought the IP67.etc was referring to the infobox, which is finally settled, I trust. The lede was made non-offensive as well Collect (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The BLP/N is for BLP violations. The only thing that was settled is that we can't add illegal plumber to the infobox. Nothing else was a BLP violation. QuackGuru 00:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wading back in - clearly there's two notions of "plumber" - the broad non-specific meaning that covers anyone who works on plumbing, and the more specific "profession" that has training and licensing requirements. In my view, it's better for this article to explain these differences since they are obviously at the core of this debate and help explain to the man and the meme. And I have not heard a convincing argument for why we should default to the imprecise explanation only. Mattnad (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because some folks living under bridges want it that way. Certainly we can't admit that Joe's not a professional plumber. But, think of the cachet it lends to guys who clean Port-o-san's. 03:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
"Folks living under bridges?" People like you are the reason this article has to be protected. Childish and despicable. I came to this article to see if/how the reports of various people improperly digging into Joe's private information was handled (the answer being that it's not mentioned at all, no surprise), but seeing as how we're hung up on ridiculous things like this (he is a plumber in the common vernacular but not technically classified as one legally, blah blah, put a prominent note saying so but don't inject it into every other paragraph of the article, problem solved; can we move on to something actually relevant to the big picture?), I doubt my suggestion would get anywhere until long after inauguration day. -- Glynth (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that I've neither edit-warred nor tried to take control of the article, I find your comment humorous ... at best. And whence ye? You just popped up in a convenient spot of the conversation? What has Inauguration Day to do with it? The election is functionally over save the Electoral formalities. It's not like anyone is hanging on Joe's last words of wisdom. 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The article has this section on the data base searches. We've been stopped from adding to it, but not sure there's much more there anyway. According to the official investigation, this information was never shared publicly and the searches were not politically motivated. What other "digging into Joe's private information" details were you thinking we should be including here? His tax liens were public record already and a lot of other information was revealed through interviews by reporters.Mattnad (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Glynth - did you read the post supra? This article has had literally tens of thousands of words discussing whether or not a plumber is ap plumber, for gosh sakes! And when the BLP/N comes up with a definitive consensus, all one editor says is that it means we can not use "illegal plumber" in the "occupation" in the infobox? We had actually reached a compromise -- in the lede that is "employed as a plumber" and in the infobox "plumber" and that the rest could go in the weird licensing section. That something is a "public record" is not sufficient for contentious material of dubious relevance to a BLP. WP is not a repository for every factoid raised in a political campaign. Collect (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how anyone can say that investigations into several people, with those whose political party (or that of the person directing them) is known being Democrats, which are ongoing and/or concluded that various people "inappropriately" looked into information they shouldn't have (and in at least one case gave this information to the press) is completely above board, but whatever; I don't expect to make much leeway convincing the typical Wiki crowd much of anything. A bigger point is that people immediately went to attack "Joe" personally rather than address the very valid questions he asked and the position he represented (which certainly wasn't simply McCain's position - he supported him, but didn't agree entirely with him) and how this is intimidating those who dare stick their necks out to ask questions of political candidates, but I guess that'd be editorializing (though it is a point made repeatedly by commentators). And Collect, I don't know why you're taking that tone with me - I was just pointing out the ridiculousness and disgusting partisanship of certain Joe-the-Plumber-haters around here. - Glynth (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully apologize if my tone was wrong ... I think my position is clear, and I did not intend to upset you at all! (uploading warmest wishes) Collect (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I thought Obama very respectfully answered Joe's questions with quite a bit of detail. Joe later went on to voice skepticism, as is his right to do, and continued to seek the limelight. Even various non-partisan tax groups felt that Joe would likely save taxes based on his stated aspirations. So really, his questions were addressed. But there's no doubt that Joe went beyond the simple question and became a political advocate for McCain's campaign. A lot of what we know about Joe was revealed in interviews he participated in after the initial interaction, and by the press who were doing their jobs. So I think it's doubtful Joe received all of this attention for simply asking a question. Mattnad (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


its an insult to my friend, justin, and all other actual plumbers in the usa to call s. joe a plumber. i have worked on my sink, toilet and shower, but i would only call myself a plumber if i finished an apprenticeship in plumbing and got myself licensed. my father is a pilot and i have routinely flown with him, but i am not a pilot. the fact that i know how to fly and do it frequently does not make me a pilot.


Collect keeps saying there is a consensus to make it plumber and not plumbers assistant (or something similar), but all i ever see are his arguments with multiple editors (hadnt heard from glynth till now). just because one editor is more pushy than all the rest doesnt make that editor right. i am always a proponent of making wikipedia more accurate than less and because of that i believe i have a convincing argument for s. joe being a plumbers assistant, or something similar.

ps, there are many other examples of people employed in a field who have different titles than those who do similar jobs. my expertise is in medicine so i instantly think of physician/physicians assistant and nurse/nurses assistant. my point is that no amount of knowledge or experience transforms the assistant into the other title- only the appropriate training/schooling does. basically, working like a plumber does not make one a plumber.

i would love to see a logical argument against what i just stated in the previous two sentences.Brendan19 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the editors who posted on WP:BLP/N -- ten of whom agreed on "plumber." I am not alone in thinking that "plumber" is correct for the infobox and lede. David Shankbone, Mosmof, Wikidemon, Balloonman, agr, JoshuaZ, Hoary, Alansohn, Avruch, Dwheeler, dave souza, betsythedevine, Becksguy, Zsero, Oren0, Clreland and a few otghers say "plumber." Care to dsay "alone" again? Collect (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
An alternative would be to take off the infobox. There is no rule that an article has to have one. (p.s. This article's infobox says nothing directly relating to this person's notability.)Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect , please dont twist my words. i never said you were "alone." what i said was that in THIS discussion on THIS page i seem to see you making the same argument against multiple others. if others agree with you why cant that be seen HERE on this discussion. wouldnt that make more sense?

also, you never answered my question, so i will ask again...

my point is that no amount of knowledge or experience transforms the assistant into the other title- only the appropriate training/schooling does. basically, working like a plumber does not make one a plumber.

i would love to see a logical argument against what i just stated in the previous two sentences. Brendan19 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP/N for the lengthy discussion on Joe the Plumber. Iteration hundreds of lines here does not make the arguments stronger. Collect (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i could not agree with your last sentence more. perhaps you should take your own advice. i found the archived discussion you mentioned and i believe it shows that many agree and disagree with you, yet you claim it as evidence that you have a consensus. that aside, why do you refuse to answer my above requests for logical arguments? Brendan19 (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


I’ve just read “Criticisms of Wikipedia”, [8] in an attempt to understand why improving the JtP article has been so fruitless, frustrating and time wasiting for me and other former Wikipedians.

I now believe the “Joe the Plumber” article can be improved by

1. Editors, especially the prolific one(s) with completely INSANE amounts of time on their hands, first reading the “Criticisms of Wikipedia” page. Specifically, it will help improve the JtP article by understanding behavior to avoid or be alert for, and editor-caused problems that weakens the value of Wikipedia and how it’s regarded.
2. Raising a flag in the “discussion” page should individuals persistently attempt to stifle input from others with an opposing POV, or other un-Wikipedian community behavior.
I hope that the inordinate difficulty of improving this article isn’t due to someone engaging in “Editing for Financial Rewards” or the like. [1] Still, I and others in the Wikipedia-appreciating public have had our contributions towards consensus in JtP systematically attacked by a relentless onslaught of very amateurish, poorly-reasoned prose over an extensive period of time.
To raise the quality of the article, the editors who seem very familiar with Wikipedia’s rules should not continually break them while accusing others of disregarding them. For example: “Collect”, you have several “edit war” warnings. During the time I’ve checked back on my and others’ attempted updates to the article & discussion page, I have witnessed you in particular persistently driving away or discouraging a great number of Wikipedians, who had good faith contributions for improving and reaching consensus on the “Joe the Plumber” article. Are we working to improve the article, or to keep others from modifying it?
Another example: I think it’s pretty clear that if consensus cannot be reached on how to accurately describe Sam/Joe Wurzelbacher’s (pre-publishing) occupation in the actual article, then keeping the infobox occupation description probably gives undue weight and support to those who are in the “he’s a plumber, not an assistant” camp. Therefore, due to no consensus, it makes common sense to remove it from the infobox.

Harmless or reasonable suggestions like that should not provoke a compulsive need to keep replying, but if they do, strict limits should be enforced for how often they are indulged in. (In fact it raises an issue of putting low response limits on some editors’ commentary.)

Another issue interfering with the quality of the JtP article seems to be the reoccurring combination of editorial tone and methodical attack used against other editors, which can be observed on the “discussion” page.

The most persistent one seems to combine a certain lofty sneering tone with attempted bullying and an attack using sheer proliferation in the number of dissenting replies, all from the same individual. This behavior is preventing true consensus from being heard or reached. The article can be improved by desisting with the attack method, and allowing different users’ voices and reasoning to be heard and respected, without the accompaniment of knee-jerk dissent replies, sneering or lame responses.

Indeed, another user famously commented in frustration that, trying to get their own contribution or reasoning towards consensus re: JtP article heard was like “trying to piss up a rope”.
If the causes of this widespread sentiment amongst would-be contributors to the article are an intentional barrier, meant to stifle, oppress, exacerbate or dissuade dissenting opinion from being expressed, it needs to be lifted if the article is to improve and represent more than the opinion of the minority.
As it stands, the article continues to give a very fragmented and non-consensual understanding of “Joe the Plumber” and the “discussion” page is anything but welcoming. A dubious achievement for everyone’s time spent on trying to improve the Wikipedia project.

63.226.210.77 (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, right now, stop criticizing the other editors and demanding that others do the work for you. If you don't stop with the criticism of everyone else this second, I'm locking the page and we are moving on. If you want something, you do the work and ask for it. Don't insult other people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ricky, not so sure that was necessary. 62.266.../anon person, wikipedia can be frustrating. dont give up, help make it better. i think you had very good points. try to make sure nobody could be offended by your comments and try not to attack anyone. sound arguments should win (theoretically anyway) over silliness provided there are enough reasonable people out there to judge. lest we get distracted... i say s. joe is no plumber. im still waiting to hear a logical argument against that. (please see my above comments). Brendan19 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Please add his Wikiquote page link.

JtP on Wikiquote Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there is more material on the page. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no reason not to add it; and if placed in the article, as it should be, it would invite more collaboration. Please add it. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Try to be civil, unsigned. Collect (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I find empahsis on a crack on a plumber's ass and calling a plumber a "turd gurgler" to not actually present a valid try at improving an article. Amazing! Collect (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (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)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_6&oldid=1142440509"