Misplaced Pages

Talk:Joe the Plumber: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 19 October 2008 editCrotalus horridus (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,850 edits →Move this article to Joe the Plumber: Support← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:51, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,219 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpage}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{Article history| action1 = AFD
{{OH-Project|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=Low|needs-persondata=yes|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Wurzelbacher, Joseph|needs-photo=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WPUSPE|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD
| action1date = 2008-10-16 | action1date = 2008-10-16
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber
| action1result = redirected | action1result = redirected

| action2 = AFD | action2 = AFD
| action2date = 2008-10-17 | action2date = 2008-10-17
Line 16: Line 10:
| action2result = kept | action2result = kept
| action2oldid = 245798005 | action2oldid = 245798005
| action3 = DRV

| action3date = 2008-10-20
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber
| action3result = endorsed
| action3oldid = 246501023
| action4 = AFD
| action4date = 2008-11-01
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber (2nd nomination)
| action4result = kept
| action4oldid = 248932409
| currentstatus = | currentstatus =
| itndate = | itndate = 30 August 2023
| itnlink = Special:Diff/1172964162
| dykdate = | dykdate =
| maindate = | maindate =
| topic = socsci | topic = socsci
}}
| small =
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=B|listas=Wurzelbacher, Joseph|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Low|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|OH=yes|OH-importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Press
| title= Misplaced Pages vs. Joe the Plumber Misplaced Pages users debate Wurzelbacher’s newsworthiness and notability
| author= Joshua Young
| date= 2008-10-20
| url= http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wikipedia_vs_joe_the_plumber.php
| org= ]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Change to real name? ==


With the announcement that he is deciding to run for Congress, should we consider moving the article to his real name in case he is elected? ] (]) 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:I think it's still a bit early for that. Lots of people run for congress and are not particularly notable. His notability still arises from being known as "Joe the Plumber". If he actually does become a Congressman, then he will be notable in his own right and the article can be moved then. ] (]) 05:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
::I think it's time to move the namespace. It seems POV not to identify a major-party candidate for Congress by anything but his real name. ] (]) 13:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Either way, in any case there will be a redirect. Purely rationally, it is best to use his real name now. My gut tells me that he won't be elected, and he'll be known ever after as Joe the Plumber (so we can wait until the election). ] (]) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, but "what my gut tells me" is never a reason to do something on Misplaced Pages. Yikes. At any rate, I hope someone will move the namespace. I don't normally edit this page, so I don't want to do something that will ruffle feathers. Do we need a vote? ] (]) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::Lets wait on a change. If he gets any traction and coverage, then we can change. Redirects will handle any varations for now. To prove the point, a google search for "Joe Wurzelbacher" gets news reports with "Joe the Plumber" as the lead rather than his legal name. At least for now, he's known by that monicker. ] (]) 17:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::All right, but he already has "traction" and "coverage." National news stories (on NPR this morning, for example) have appeared on his U.S. House campaign. For Ohio voters, his candidacy is a prevalent story. I can't think of, or imagine, any other major-party candidate for the U.S. House whose WIkipedia article namespace is anything but that of his or her actual name. I am willing to wait, and your point is well taken that news editors still call him "Joe the Plumber" in headlines (as in the NPR example here), but I'll keep an eye on this article, and initiate a vote on changing the namespace if need be. Thanks. ] (]) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::He's the republican nominee in his district so he is quite notable by his legal name now. I would say it should direct to his legal name and not Joe the Plumper anymore. --] (]) 19:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Joe the Plumper? It's Plumber, not Plumper. I agree with you, but I'm not all that into fighting the necessary battle over it. ] (]) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


{{outdent|8}}When the mainstream media makes the switch to his real name we'll follow just as we stick for now with their lead.] (]) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
== Privacy? ==
:Why wouldn't you make it so that Joe the Plumber (sorry funny typo before) just re-directs to his real name? When he's sworn in to Congress, the Speaker of the House isn't going to say Joe the Plumber, do you solemnly swear... It's silly an encyclopedia uses Joe the Plumber. News organizations use nicknames all the time. --] (]) 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I just happen to have stumbeld on this page, and I wondered: we will leave some privacy for this guy right? I mean, he's "just" a house-father, so no need to mess it all up, right?
::I'd say it isn't time yet. The moment he wins, the article can be moved. Until then, he's a political candidate whom 99% of people know by the nickname, which will continue to be the case if he loses. Consider the musician ] — that is the name people know him by, and as usual, that is what his article is called (even though the article starts by giving his real name). If Slash ever won a Congressional seat, the article would likely be moved at that time, but probably not before. To put it another way, Joe's present notability is dominated by his notoriety from the 2008 election, not because he's running for office now (which anyone can do). But if he wins, being a U.S. congressperson will immediately trump his past notability. ] </small>]] 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't live in the US - so maybe this guy is giving all kinds of info for free, in that case...I rest my case;).
:It's a preview of an Obama presidency: ask a tough question about one of his socialist policies when he's trying to generate publicity and you'll be run through the ringer, so you better fall in line. I'm just curious as to whether we'll all be mailed our ] or if we need to pick it up ourselves at the post office. --] (]) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC) :::The difference is Slash calls himself that. It's his brand. People who know him probably refer to him as Slash as well. I think the media dubbing you a nickname is something entirely different. Do people that know him go "Hey Plumber!"? I don't see why if you type in Joe the Plumber it wouldn't just redirect to his real name. --] (]) 22:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
::He's only being "run through the ringer" because McCain dragged him into fame when he made him the centerpiece of his debate strategy.] (]) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Attacking the motivation of other editors violates ]. Discuss the contribution, not the contributor. ] (]) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::The McCain-Palin has made a big rallying cry of Joe the Plumber, this plumber who supposedly is going to buy a business that is going to be taxed more by Obama. In the current climate, it's highly relevant that, in fact, a) he's not a plumber, b) he's not buying the business, c) the business would not pay any more in taxes under Obama's tax plan, d) Joe would in fact pay a lot less in taxes under Obama's tax plan, and e) Joe still thinks he'd pay more taxes under Obama because the right wing tin foil hat crowd has him convinced that Obama has a secret agenda. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I don't think Obama's agenda is secret at all, he's made it quite clear that he's a Socialist. --] (]) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Obama says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, people in Joe's income bracket will pay about $700 a year less in taxes under Obama's proposals than under McCain's.
::::Joe doesn't think it's going to work out that way, though. He's convinced that Obama's proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year is the camel's nose in the tent with which Obama intends to push the country down a "slippery slope" (Joe's words) that will allow him to raise everybody's taxes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::Excellent, and this has nothing to do with the fact that he intends to redistribute wealth. Obama was quite open with this concept. It's a Socialist ideal. So there's not "secret" agenda, just a candy coating around his explanation. --] (]) 05:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not going to engage you in a debate about whether Obama's ideas are better or worse for the country than McCain's, or whether they are or are not socialist. Those are complex issues that are way beyond the scope of the current discussion and completely off topic. We're talking about Joe Wurzelbacher. (Check the page title, in case you've gotten lost.) Joe Wurzelbacher will actually pay a lot less taxes under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan, but he apparently thinks he will pay more under an Obama Presidency because Obama will implement something extremely different from what he has proposed.

::::::Please confine your response to the subject of Joe Wurzelbacher or go to a more appropriate page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Full Quote? ==
Would it be possible to put a full recounting of the conversation in this article? Right now it is a severely shortened "quote" designed to mislead. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I dunno if it's designed to mislead, but it is the common soundbyte played. Regardless, I agree that the full quote should be included if it can be found. --] (]) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry about the lack of signature on that last one. I have the full transcript, I just don't know enough about these kinds of pages as to whether such a full transcription is appropriate. ] (]) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::Is the full transcript available online? I was looking for it but couldn't find it. ] (]) 02:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== Query ==

Could someone point me to the discussion(s) which led to decision to overturn the result at AfD. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:] ] (]) 10:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. I will update the banner above to reflect this. ] (]) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== How is this Significant? ==

I'd have to say most of America really does not care who this "Joe the Plumber" is. ] (]) 10:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, the result of ] seems to suggest otherwise. Cheers, &ndash;] ] ] 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
: also suggest otherwise. --]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''This article should not be deleted!''' It's a very notable subject at this time and there is no real debating that fact now.
::It made Misplaced Pages look rather silly when this article was shown in a feature story on a national news show about how famous '''Joe the Plumber''' has become and the very top of the article that was shown as an example of just how significant he has become had that inappropriate ''nominated for deletion'' box on it.
::As for the question does most of America really care who this person is, that may or may not be true. But that is not the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article. Notability is the criteria and there is a long list of sources in the article proving that.
::] (]) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If you've yet to figure out the most the stuff in the 08 campaign is irrelevant garbage that has no bearing on anything yet is blown up by the media so much someone utterly insignificant can get a wikipedia page....I think you have bigger problems. :P --] (]) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Shouldn't the (poorly decided) AfD be linked from the top of this page? ] (]) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, nevermind, I see you have to click to see it. ] (]) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

==Controversies==

::The talk page is supposed to discuss ways to improve the article, not people's opinions pro or con the subject of the article. Right now, "Joe the Plumber" is the focus of indignation from all sides of the political spectrum. Some angrily feel he misrepresented himself. Others angrily feel that he is being unfairly attacked. THIS TALK PAGE IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THAT DEBATE. This is the place for comments like "Should the article have a controversies section?" or "Somebody keeps reverting my edit." ] (]) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::As suggested by an earlier editor, I moved inappropriate editorializing about Joe himself to the archive in accord with ]. Discuss the article, not the person. If you want to register an opinion on the political controversy, this is not the place to do so. Many newspapers online let people comment on their news stories. You will get more readership if you post your thoughts there. ] (]) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks for standing up for that. ] (]) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== Parallel ==

:: May be we should write about the parallel with Sgt. William Schumann of the Wag the Dog movie? It's a similar political game. 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::: What would that be, ]? Probably true but ] at this point. --] (]) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It's called a ] , but I have not seen reliable sources comparing the meme of "Good Ol' Shoe" in ] to ] in the 2008 presidential campaign, however similar the cynical intended manipulation of public opinion may appear. Wait for the main stream media to discuss the analogy. ] (]) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Not exactly MSM: ] (]) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

== Joe Wurzelbacher on GMA on ABC ==

The wikipedia article states that Joe Wurelbacher had been contacted by the McCain campaign ] his encounter with Obama. This is incorrect. Diane Sawyer asked if he had been contacted by McCain about the debate, not if he had been contacted by McCain before his Obama encounter. Nobody even knew who he was until Obama showed up in his neighborhood. He has ] been contacted by McCain to appear at a rally.
Please make this correction in your article.
Correct News
Oct. 17, 2008 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Actually diane asked him if he had been contacted before the debate and before his meeting with obama by the mccain campaign. Unsigned is leaving out info from the interview that would make you think the contributer of that part of the article was being untruthful and making you think the interview asked one question when it really asked another. And, the contributor of that part of the article is trying to make you think that Joe was a Mccain plant.

:I am going to post the whole exchange involving the being contacted:

:'''Sawyer:''' ''"And the McCain camp, some people have said did they contact you and tell you that you were going to be a major part of this, and had they contacted you before that encounter with Senator Obama."''

:'''Joe''' ''"Oh no, no, no ones contacted me as far as if I was going to be on the debate or as far as my name being used. No. I have been contacted by them and asked to show up at a rally. But, other than that No. I just happened to be here and Barak Obama just happened to show up."''

:Joe never qualified in his answer if he had been contacted before or after his meeting Obama. It seems like he was saying nobody contacted me before the debate, but I "have been" contacted (present tense not past, which would imply contacted since the debate) The he says, " other than that No. I just happened to be here and Barak Obama just happened to show up." ( That seems to be saying other than after the debate no other contact before and he just happened to meet him. But its hard to tell. Only Joe can truely Clarify this statement. ] (]) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== Please limit opinion on this article ==

The individual is rapidly becoming a campaign pawn for both campaigns. Entries and edits that are intended to influence the election need to be restricted. Objective information only.

For example, the following statement from the article is pure opinion: "Obama's choice of words were suggested to have evoked the populist "Share Our Wealth" movement of Huey Long."

The citation is to one individual's interpretation of candidate statement published in editorial weblog. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to the interpretations of the original author or the editor who added this text. PLEASE REMOVE. I cannot since I am not a long-standing editor and the article is semi-protected. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:-- This is a very good point. I noticed the passage as well and I think that it is detrimental to the article to include this type of opinion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I disagree. I found the link to 'Share Our Wealth' informative, and as I didn't see why the clamor over the "share the wealth" phrase was occurring, the inclusion in this article helped me to line that factor out for me. Simply drawing a parallel isn't an opinion. I don't find the link to be an interpretation or bias, in fact I feel kind of sympathetic to the 'Share Our Wealth' intent, while I get the feeling that your complaint is that the 'Share Our Wealth' reference is denigrating. I don't find it denigrating nor admiring of Obama, I find it informative in showing why there is a clamor over Obama's "share the wealth" remark. I feel it illuminates the topic and the article. Perhaps it could be reworded, however I say leave it in. --] (]) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::: :: I checked the sentence with its source, an opinion piece which it more or less reflects accurately. But somebody's vague guess about Barack Obama's motives hardly belongs in Misplaced Pages and certainly doesn't belong in an article about somebody else. So I took the sentence out. ] (]) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Again i disagree. It's not presenting an opinion. It's only drawing a historic parallel that illuminates why a remark by Obama has drawn attention and clamor from observers. It's not interpreting Obama's statement., or guessing any motives on Obama's part. It's a link to an event in history that has some parallel relation and it allows the reader to draw an individual conclusion. It illuminates the article.--] (]) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok, someone need to read up on the difference between stating ] and quoting ]. I was the one who put this in, and I have to say the idea of myself as some kind of anti-Obama POV-pusher amused me a bit! This is not about POV, it’s an attempt to provide context. "Spreading the wealth" was the specific phrase that was highlighted by McCain in the debate, and has been used repeatedly since. Just look at ]: "McCain taunted his opponent for wanting to "spread the wealth around".", ]: "McCain cited that "spread the wealth" exchange", ]: “he quoted Obama as saying he wants to "spread the wealth around."" etc. etc. I’ll remove the ]-comparison, if that’s what causes offence, but it needs to be pointed out that "spreading the wealth around" was the controversial part of the exchange. Anything else is not NPOV, it’s just bland and meaningless. ] (]) 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
From just coming through are the exact quotes of Obama necessary while it only paraphrases Joe's statements. This violates neutrality; if not politically, but it is biased based on conversation coverage. ] (]) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== article name ==

This article should be named '''Joe the plummer''' because that is the more commonly used term for this person. He is not known nationally as '''Joe Wurzelbacher''' but is known nationally as '''Joe the plummer'''. ] (]) 17:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

-I would say he's more known as '''Joe the Plumber'''.] (]) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::I agree. On the other hand, in about 2 weeks interest in "Joe the Plumber" will plummet and the article will be merged with something else. ] (]) 18:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It's true that '''Joe the Plumber''' is the name he has became famous as. ] is now a redirect to ]. (] is also a redirect to ] although it was the other way around at one time.) The introduction should read "also known as '''Joe the Plumber'''" after his real name. Or at the very least, the existing phrase "Joe the Plumber" located farther down in the introduction should be in bold.
:::None of which I can do now. Someone has locked the article.
:::] (]) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

==Keating Five Relationship==

Wurzelbacher is an unusual name. I have read the current US census reported less than 180 Wurzelbachers in the entire USA, (suggesting it's not a very large family). Charles Keating's former business associate and son-in-law is a Wurzelbacher, he was a major figure in the Savings & Loan scandel. Since John McCain was one of the Keating Five & the reason for Joe Wurzelbacher even having this page, the surname Wurzelbacher deserves at least one sentence, and additionally whether or not Joe "the plumber" Wurzelbacher is or isn't closely related to Charles Keating's Wurzelbacher son-in-law. Of course, with the proper references. --] (]) 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting, maybe. But you need to take the question elsewhere. I have the same last name as Osama bin Laden's neice, but I had no part in the 9/11 conspiracy. ] (]) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::If mainstream media reports a connection, the article can include it. Articles can't include an editor's ]. ] (]) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If there is no connection, the fact that the surname is rare, he was made an example of by McCain, one of the Keating Five, during that debate makes it necessary to line out that he's not closely related to the Wurzelbacher of the savings and loan scandal, because that's pertinent information. If the converse is true of course it's also pertinent. Of course, as I said above, all information HAS to be referenced. I never suggested any original research should be included, and I didn't mean for you or anyone else to infer that. --] (]) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::This is original research. Merely sharing a surname with someone does not entail any relationship. --] (]) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I added documented references to support this section, but they keep being deleted by a vandal. Deleted text follows ] (]) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::<font color="red">A ] article pointed out that Joe "Wurzelbacher may have links to Charles Keating, the savings and loan executive at the heart of the ] political scandal that ensnared McCain in the late 1980s." <ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/10/boy_plumbers_ha.html |title= ‘Joe the plumber’ a Drain for McCain? |publisher= ] |date= 2008-10-16 |accessdate= 2008-10-17}}</ref>A conservative strategist also pointed out that a Wurzelbacher family member close to ] donated $10,000 to the McCain campaign. <ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops/ |title= Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher related to Charles “the Crook” Keating. Oops.|publisher= ] |date= 2008-10-15 |accessdate= 2008-10-17}}</ref></font>

Even if he is related, to which there is currently no proof, it has no relevance to him personally. Please stop the guilt by association and insertion of rumor which is a violation of ] ] (]) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:I am bowing out of this argument. This incident has been reported, so I leave it to the moderators to decide. ] (]) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::The contribution uses ], and the source of the contribution uses a blog from a political strategist. --] (]) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::As a side note, some one call the proper people to keep an eye on Steve Dufour. -G

::::This story is getting some legs with reliable media starting to mention but only in the form "the National Enquirer says" or "blogs are claiming" or "might be related". Here's a Google News search link for <tt>Wurzelbacher + keating</tt>, sorted by date:
::::* http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&scoring=n&hl=en&q=+Wurzelbacher+keating&btnG=Search+News

:::::As of this writing, mainstream press comments are still just speculation and it's inappropriate to include it until some member of the mainstream press makes a definitve statement. I am sure there are reporters galore now crawling all over birth registers and public records. If they haven't found anything by tomorrow, it's probably just a coincidence in last names. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::With nothing but blog rumor, this entire sort of stuff is not only irrelevant, it fails BLP, RS and a few other standards in WP. ] (]) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== His views on taxation ==

Wurzelbacher's opinions about taxation are relevant to the story of his encounter with Obama, and to this article. I don't think people should keep putting his tax lien information back into the article, however. It is of marginal relevance to the story and others have cited privacy concerns related to ]. ] (]) 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:Relevant bits from ]: People who are relatively unknown ]

:''Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)''

:''Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Misplaced Pages article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Misplaced Pages article taking a position on their truth.''

: I think the tax lien information, although it has been reported by "real" sources, makes the article sound snarky and unencyclopedic. ] (]) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Include''' I think his tax lien is relevant because it shows his bias of having other citizens fund the government. And having other citizens fund the government is his premise for questioning the marginal tax increase proposal. ] (]) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Include''' For the same reasons as Timhowadriley. He seems to have a beef with taxes in general. ] (]) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Include''', relevance. ] (]) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Exclude''', until a ] reports on it and ''draws a conclusion''. Otherwise it risks being ] and a violation of ] ] (]) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''Question''': so the ] saying "In January, 2007, the Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid, but there has been no action in the case since it was filed." does not count as being a reliable source? --] (]) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''Response''' However, the source article is from the Associated Press. It's . Nonetheless, it's not original research because it's *some* source. But you can claim it's not a reliable source. ] (]) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*'''Response''':Thanks for the warning; I've got my quota filled for today. First, I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article (see Erxnmedia's comment below). Second, as myself and others (including Admins) have pointed out: putting in these kinds of details about someone's personal life may violate ] policies, regardless of them being well sourced. Thirdly, none of the sources about these details have used them to draw any conclusions, so currently they are just statements of fact. Including them (and especially commenting on them, depending on how they are written) trends towards ] and may skew the POV of the article. $0.02 ] (]) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::'''Response''' Regarding "Exclude, until a reliable source reports on it and draws a conclusion.": I don't see that a sourced article needs to draw a conclusion about a fact. I've searched ] for "conclusion" and couldn't find what you're referring to. I do understand that Misplaced Pages articles can't synthesize conclusions. But I don't understand the context of your objection. So what policy are you referring to? ] (]) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*'''Reply''':If we only cite sources to make statements of fact, Misplaced Pages would degenerate into just a collection of factoids. There has to be some critical thinking applied as to the meaning of the facts (obviously not by editors here, that would be original research). I'm not sure how exactly to phrase it, but ] seems to convey some of it. ] (]) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If you are looking for "critical thinking" from reliable sources, how about this one from ] newspaper (which was named ''National Newspaper of the Year'' at the 2004 British Press Awards): "to huge embarrassment, it later emerged that Mr Wurzelbacher is a tax defaulter who does not have a plumbing licence and earns just $40,000 a year, which entitles him to a tax cut under Senator Obama's plans" ? --] (]) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Include''', because this may indicate that he is a ] and more right wing than the average blue collar voter that McCain is representing him as. Also, '''all''' major news sources, including conservative sources such as ] and ], have chosen to report the tax liens.] (]) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::*'''Response''': See, this is exactly my point "may indicate he is a ..." is ]. ] (]) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::*'''Reply''': Even without the inference, you are preventing a statement of fact that all major news outlets have reported. JP is about taxation, it's about finances, and it's about politics. So JP's financial conduct is highly relevant to the discussion -- if it were not, all major news outlets would not have chosen to report the item. This is a perfect case where ] may help. ] (]) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*I have yet to see you point out a policy that supports your addition of this material. You may want to review ] and ]; just because these things are reported on doesn't mean they belong in this article (and absolutely not in the main debate article). ] (]) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

*Despite the clear consensus here, Dp76764 has been constantly reverting this section. I've warned him appropriately for being in an edit war. I would hope he would honor consensus and reliable sources. ] (]) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::* BTW: I have only removed that content twice. Other edits were mostly general cleanup and other issues. ] (]) 19:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I concur, this profile and the version at ] have been aggressively whitewashed both for JP's tax liens and his views on taxation without representation. I think a ] may be appropriate at this time. Also note that the aggressive whitewashers will be the first to claim that the other guy is edit warring. It's a two way street. ] (]) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Unless you are suggesting that Mr. Wurzelbacher run for adminship (], I presume you mean ]? --] (]) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Meant to say ]. ] (]) 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:'''Exclude''' Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. It is in violation of Undue Weight issues and also violates BLP by marginalizing him personally. Per ] '''Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects.''' Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. '''This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.'''. It is clear that his notability (which I question anyway) is due primarily to he being mentioned by McCain numerous times during the presidential debate, and he is being attacked because of this. It must stop. ] (]) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::JP, a registered Republican, is wearing his victimhood fairly lightly. Also, how would this concept of victimhood play if it turns out that he sought out the attention he is receiving?] (]) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::'''Disagree''' Regarding "... irrelevant to his Bio.": This article is not Joe Wurzelbacher's biography. Instead, it's an article about a character created by a politician. And this character is a current event. Regarding "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects": whereas, adding a relevant tax debt is disparaging Mr. Wurzelbacher's character, the tax debt debunks an important claim by him that he's conscientious about taxes. Regarding "participating in or prolonging the victimization": he's scheduled to be interviewed by Mike Huckabee. See . So victimization does not apply. ] (]) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong include''' Joe has made himself a national figure, enjoying the media attention, and reputable, main stream news organizations have reported on this. Upwards of '''625 news organizations reported on this lien''' and the only justification the editors here can come up with is it makes the article "snarky"] (]) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
'''Exclude''' Nearly ever vote for "include" has original research or a non-neutral point of view, what more really needs to be said? --] (]) 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong Include''': By this point so many people know about it that if it doesn't go in it'll just provoke edit wars. --] (]) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' It already has, but that doesn't justify adding it. --] (]) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:*Joe the Plumber is certainly a ] (go read the article, specifically on ''limited purpose public figure'': plenty of stories specifically mentioning his liens in reliable sources, going on the tv show circuit, isn't he going to GOP rallies??) and there is no outright defamation, no malice here (maybe irony). Rather, we are trying to publish facts, not repeat lies with flimsy substantiation. I think the WP:NPF is a nice safeguard but doesn't really apply here. --] (]) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Joe the Plumber is not a public figure, he is a private citizen. In addition, he hasn't been a guest or attended any GOP rallies, unless you have sources to prove otherwise. The issue isn't defamation or malice, but notability. When it comes to biographies of living people who are not well known, according to Misplaced Pages policy it is not appropriate to include information about them that isn't relevant to their notability. --] (]) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong Include''' The information is not defamatory and its in the public record and it has been reported by several (625 outlets did someone say?) reliable sources. Joe gave up his right to privacy when he let Fox News tape the whole discussion. You can defend him all you want but facts are facts and encyclopedias are by definition a collection of facts. Let's not let our political bias blind our ability to report the facts like all of the newsmedia outlets clearly do.] (]) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Please refer to the BLP reference at the top of the thread. For biographies of living people that are not well known, contributions not relevant to their notability should be omitted. Misplaced Pages is not merely a collection of facts, there has to be cohesion to the contributions. Liens are not pertinent to his notability so they should be omitted. Joe the Plumber has also been divorced (which is how we know his income from 2006, it was obtained from court records) but his divorce isn't covered in his wikipedia article either for similar reasons. Mentioning anything not to related to his notability would give it undue weight. --] (]) 00:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:'''Include''' JW's tax issues are a national topic of discussion and this controversy adds to his notability. Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there. The alternative is googling it and getting info from blogs and other rumor mills, which doesn't help anybody.--] (]) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::also if anyone want a primary source for the tax lien, here it is: --] (]) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong include''' - this is an individual who has become famous for his views on taxes and tax policy. His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it. As noted, JW has voluntarily spoke to a candidate on camera, and voluntarily become a celebrity afterwards, granting many interviews before and after the debate, and presently scheduled to appear on the Sunday political talk shows about 36 hours from now. He is entitled to all the "living persons" protection that WP:BLP policy provides, but not to some level of protection greater than that. -- ] ]/] 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:Note: thus far I count a majority of people wanting to include the tax information, yet editors continue to remove this section. ] (]) 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

*'''Strong include''', if adequate sources for the lien can be found. If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant. We don't need a secondary source for ''that''. ] suggests we need reliable ''secondary'' sources for the lien, or his statement about the liens (either confirming ''or'' denying) and a primary source. (This comment is without reading the article or article history.) Without checking the AP source pointed to above; if it's a ''real'' AP article, it's adequate. I've brought up the question of third party press releases published on AP before, but this doesn't seem to be one of those. — ] ] 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

*'''Strong include''' if Misplaced Pages is going to be the news, we should report what major media outlets are reporting. <b>] ]</b> 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''include''' Has been explicitly commented on by major news sources and explicitly linked to his notability (which is connected to taxation issues). As Arthur said above. If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant. ] (]) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' And not a "vote." The man is not a "public figure" under SCOTUS definitions, and including personal matters when he is only notable for an issue he raised is against WP policies. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm " fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345." The person being discussed does not meet those criteria. ] (]) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

== RE: Privacy ==

Seems to me like this guy was contacted by the McCain campaign prior to his encounter with Obama (see what he told Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America"). Coincidence? I think not. If indeed he was planted (and used) by the McCain campaign then he signed on for his 15-minutes and should have every detail of his life examined. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:watch the video. She asked two questions at once did the mccain campaign contact him befroe the debate to let him know he was going to be mentioned and did they contact him before he met Obama. He ansered, no they didn't tell me I would be mentioned then said I was asked to come to rally's. One) that did not seem to be an answer to the contacted before meeting obama part of the question and if it was. anybody registered as a republican (or democrat) are invited to attend ralleys for that party. your conspiracy is a joke <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:]. Don't take it personally, but nobody cares about your speculations unless they're published in a reputable and/or peer reviewed media. --] (]) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::Also spamming the page -- see supra for the same claim. ] (]) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== Protection level? ==

Looks like it was sysop-protected until the page was moved. I didn't see anything in the AfD indicating that the level of protection was warranted, but I only skimmed it. Should it be at full or not? ~]]<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:Definitely full. ] (]) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::OK, well it's not at full right now... ~]]<sup>]</sup> 03:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

==Why is it vandalism to report his tax problems?==

Why is it vandalism to report Joe's tax problems? Its in the public record and that trumps his "privacy rights". He also gave up his right of privacy when he let it be taped by Fox News. Joe should be in jail. He doesn't pay taxes and he doesn't have a plumbing license.] (]) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:What purpose does it serve other than to denegrate him? ] is very clear on these issues. If you want to attack him then go to the Daily Kos or some other blog and write about it. This is not the place for Enquirer types of reporting. ] (]) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Except those issues are already part of the public discourse about Sam the (non)plumber. ] (]) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::csloat must watch the obama press organ, I mean 'Countdown with Kieth Olberman'. 'Sam the (non)plumber' is a direct quote of Olberman (the guy who only attacks McCain and not Obama and only has guests that support his highly biased view - That pisses me off and I'm not even for McCain, but Ron Paul, or now Bobb Barr.) Besides his name is Joe. Many people go by there middle name. So Joe

:: Joe claims to want to buy a business valued at $500,000. Considering that he makes $40,000 and owes back taxes, this fact is very relevant because it call into question his motivation in making this statement and his credibility in general. ] (]) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Dtaw2001, Ever heard of a business Loan? ] (]) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: You think he's going to qualify for a loan for seven times his annual income when he can't even pay his back taxes or hospital bills? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:TomCat4680, we don't believe that it is vandalism, but there is a consensus discussion going on about whether or not it violates ]. --] (]) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I wasn't attacking him. I was posting facts. Thats what encylopedias are for. It's not from the Enquirer either. Its from Bloomberg.com, a well respected source.] (]) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree with you. Those deleting well referenced facts appear to have partisan bias. ] (]) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Contribute to the consensus discussion or find something better to do with your time. --] (]) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It's not a matter of whether or not you were attacking him. Other editors contributed similar text earlier today and it has created a discussion about it's validity and relevance in a biographical article per ]. --] (]) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
::Its completely valid and relevant. They are facts and thats all there is to it. and Dtaw is right, people are letting their politics blind their ability to report the facts, just like every newsmedia outlet out there. Why does Joe even have a Misplaced Pages article? He's just a "plumber" in a small town in Ohio. Does that mean I should write an article about my plumber? Just because you got on TV doesn't make your life encyclopedic. Why don't we just delete this article and move on with our lives?] (]) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::To Tomcat - The article is relevant because he is an part of an ongoing discussion between two presidential candidates and covered by every media outlet. Pretty notable ] (]) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Tomcat: Please contribute to the ] if you think it is valid, and also be sure to review ] to see why people have a grievance with the contribution. And I don't think an article is warranted for Joe the Plumber either, but a ] was held and the consensus was to keep the article for now. --] (]) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

::::"Joe the Plumber" was selected by the McCain campaign as a meme for the 2008 presidential campaign, just as ] was a meme in the 1988 presidential campaign. It is bogus to demand the deletion of a factual, referenced and encyclopedic article about a theme chosen to try and win the presidency of the United States, when multiple reliable sources have had substantial coverage of it, and when both presidential candidates discuss it day after day. Joe himself chose to appear on multiple national news programs. Joe is in fact '''not''' a plumber, by virtue of his not having a plumber's license and he hasn't even completed an apprenticeship, but he chose to present himself as a plumber. If a presidential campaign chose to present as a major campaign theme the plight of a disabled war veteran, and it turned out that multiple reliable sources presented substantial coverage of how he was not disabled and he was not a veteran, that would be encyclopedic. ] (]) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

::::'''Agree, public figure.''' The phrase "Joe the Plumber" is encyclopedic, and so are the details of the man behind the meme, particularly when they contrast with the iconic image initially presented. Facts in the public record, such as his income, occupational licensing, and tax delinquency, are directly relevant to his role in illustrating the two candidates' tax policies. He has chosen to give multiple interviews to many media outlets, and is presently scheduled to appear on the Sunday political talk shows about 36 hours from now. He is a willing public figure and entitled to the protection for living persons, but not for more than that. — ] ]/] 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::He is not a "public figure" as defined by SCOTUS. ] (])

==Request for arbitration on tax issues==

I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:
*]

:Would you kindly point out a Misplaced Pages policy page that says what people should do to an article from the time an arbitration request has been submitted until the time that the request has been fulfilled or rejected? Your position seems to be that your submitting this to arbitration has the effect of temporarily banning inclusion of Joe's opinions on taxation. Whether this understanding is correct or not, please show how Misplaced Pages policies support a temporary ban on including Joe's opinions on taxation, if you believe such a ban exists. Othewise, please acknowledge that no such ban exists. ] (]) 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE my request for arb was not to prevent the info from being included, it was to get around an edit war towards getting it included or having definitive consensus why not. However, request for arb is bleeding into another deletion review and everybody seems to be ignoring these mechanisms, so it is still just a free for all until November 4th, at which point I think all interested parties will forget this page ever existed.] (]) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

::The page is not protected just because the matter is sent up for arbitration. Additionally, my $.02 is that the arbitrators will decline to hear this, both because it is primarily a content dispute and because no real dispute resolution was offered (a section on a talk page is not dispute resolution). Therefore, editors here should be working on a compromise rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for arbitrators to act. ] (]) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::The tax lien material is under arbitration. There was no dispute about quoting Joe's opinions on taxes. Would it be an acceptable compromise to put the opinions back in and leave the tax liens out until we hear from some actual admins? ] (]) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::No. The tax lien is clearly relevant to his tax opinions. If the lien is adequately sourced (the AP source noted below seems adequate), then it should be in the article to avoid ] weight. And the ArbComm request (almost certain to be rejected) is not a reason not to include the information. — ] ] 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Arthur Rubin, I do not understand why the tax lien is ''clearly'' or ''unclearly'' relevant to JtP's tax opinions. Please explain. I tend to feel that Joe's views on taxation are relevant to this article, and that they are not in violation of ]. I think one or two sentences on this subject are appropriate. However, I tend to feel that tax liens on Joe's propery are not relevant to the article and are in violation of ]. I might feel differently if it could be established that Joe deliberately underpaid or failed to pay taxes as a protest, but without establishing that fact, I find the lien immaterial to the article and a violation of ]. ] (]) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's clear that the fact that he owes back taxes (as evidenced by the tax lien) is relevant to his opinion about what taxes should be, regardless of whether the non-payment was intentional. Do we need a psyschological treatise or specific comment from a reliable source to that effect? I wouldn't think so.
:::::And the tax lien is clearly reported by AP, generally considered to be a "trusted" source (reliable both as to content and as to notability). — ] ] 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nope. Tax liens are filed a lot, and do not always represent anything more than a dispute about taxes owed. Most are not filed on people who refuse to pay taxes (in which case, I am fairly sure the amount would be higher). Since we do not have his tax returns, and I am pretty sure that such are not public documents, leaping to conclusions usually has one sad result. ] (]) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree. A tax lien represents a dispute about the taxes owed ''combined'' with an <s>IRS<s> Ohio Department of Taxation opinion that it wouldn't be paid voluntarily, or a failure to respond to requests for payment. Filing a lien, <s>although not requiring a court order,</s> does require a significant amount of paperwork on the <s>IRS side, and is not entered into without some concerns on the IRS side.</s> But, in spite of the fact that I generally agree with his position on taxes, all the relevant, sourced, background must be included. — ] ] 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Congrats. The lien was not filed by the IRS according to the stories. And the IRS routinely has to release improperly filed liens. But the lien stated is with Ohio. In FL, "liens" are routinely filed on property taxes, and are very common now. Other states, I am sure, vary. But the IRS is not actually relevant here. ] (]) 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, you recently edited this article under this description: (his opinions on taxes are ] weight without his sourced tax info, deleting section). I believe WP:UNDUE is intended to relate to Misplaced Pages articles containing opinions on general facts, such as the shape of the earth, which is, by most expert opinion, approximately spherical, and under WP:UNDUE, minority views ascribing a flat shape to the earth do not appear in the Earth article. I don't believe WP:UNDUE is intended to relate to Misplaced Pages articles containing opinions about personal taste or the way things ought to be. The minority opinion that ] was a better composer than ] would not be appropriate in most articles, but if there were a notable music critic named, say, Joe Musiccritic, and Joe Musiccritic had publicly stated this viewpoint, WP:UNDUE would not bar putting this fact about Joe Musiccritic's views in the Joe Musiccritic article. Consequently, I am going to restore JtP's views on taxation, which I believe are germane. If you can find some policy other than WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP under which these views don't belong in this article, please tell. ] (]) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:BLP is all that is needed. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of ]. If he is notable it is because of his question to Obama, Obama's subsequent poor choice of words, and McCain jump on Obama's response and numerous mentions during the debate. This focus on his taxes is nothing more than an attempt to deflect what this issue is really about, and to attack this man because of it is really sickening. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with WP. ] (]) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'd just like to point out that the request for arbitration specifically states that both his tax issues and his quote on taxation are being discussed. Until the request is completed, material on neither matter should be contributed to the article. --] (]) 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::Is there a rule that by filing for arbitration someone gains ] of an article, and becomes the arbiter of what can and cannot be included in it? I am unable to find such a policy or guideline. ] (]) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry about misreading the article, but in most jurisdictions, only ''property tax'' liens are filed automatically against ''that property''. All other liens require an explicit decision by the taxing agency that there is a risk of non-payment. The Florida examples above probably fall into that category. And I concur with Edison; I don't see how an RfAr ''request'' blocks the relevant information from being in the article. In fact, normally, an RfAr ''acceptance'' doesn't prevent editing the article without an injunction. Still, it seems to me that his personal tax status is ''clearly'' relevant to his opinions on tax policy, and we have a reliable source for the tax lien. I personally think his opinions on tax policy are as relevant as he is, but I'm willing to defer that decision for a few days. — ] ] 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Please explain why the fact that he has a tax lien against him is important and is relevant to the question he asked Obama. Show how this is not just an Ad Hominem attack against Joe to make the question he asked invalid. ] (]) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

==Second Famous Plumber==
Even though Joe Wurzelbacher had a appearance with Senator Barrack Obama about his income tax plan and his name mentioned at least 20 times in the last presidential debate, he made himself really famous in the United States as the "Second Famous Plumber" in some people's worlds. For an example, serious video gamers, the "First Famous Plumber" for them, Mario. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Deletion? ==

'''Keep - '''Many I think are confused about this "Joe the plumber" and that's why I came here. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Must be Deleted! ==

Is this a joke???!! There's an article about a guy who has no significance whatsoever except for being mentioned in a presidential debate. This article has to be deleted because this is absurd. ] (]) 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:There is a debate about deleting it or not, if you want to participate: . ] (]) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::There has been much more than a "mention." There has been nonstop coverage by McCain and rebuttals by Obama. See ] discussion above. A "failed campaign meme" is highly encyclopedic. This is not a one-off flurry of coverage of some unfortunate plumber whose ] was mentioned on the Evening News. He inserted himself in the presidential campaign, he was discussed over 20 times in the final presidential debate, and he has been discussed by both candidates every day since, as he himself has appeared in national news shows since and been discussed in reliable sources worldwide. ] (]) 03:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just delete this in 2 months when no one remembers who the hell this guy is ] (]) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:We remember the "]" commercial from the 1964 campaign , which was only broadcast once by the Johnson campaign. We remember the ] commercials by the Bush, Sr. campaign of 1988 . Why should we quickly forget "Joe the Plumber," the chosen meme of the McCain campaign of 2008, intended "to put a human face on tax policy" per a commentator on CNN 18 October? ] (]) 04:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

==Tax Liens: 1 or 2==
On the main page, the sentence states:

"There are two judgment liens against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of income taxes."

But I believe this should only be one, the second one is a lien by St. Charles Mercy Hospital, as per the for this sentence:

{|border=1 cellpadding=5
|
He will need the money. Wurzelbacher's new notoriety has brought to light the fact that he owes nearly $1,200 in unpaid taxes.

"There is a judgment lien against him for nonpayment of income tax," Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, told ABCNews.com. "The state files hundreds of liens a day. It means he owes that money."

Losie said Wurzelbacher owes $1,182 from January 2007, but no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien.

"There is no judge pulled, there is no attorney assigned... There is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes," Losie said.

A second lien has been filed in the courhouse against Wurzelbacher for $1,261 that he apparently owes St. Charles Mercy Hospital. That lien was filed in March 2007.
|}
] (]) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

==Phone call by McCain==
*'''Keep''' the article&mdash; ] phoned Joe:; "Joe" is a tremendously notable subject, not only of "]," but a ] of how a simple man without distinction of race, color and religious credo, can be ]d (like me, ], a jobless ] ] ]] who rents a dilapidated house in ], ], ], since ]), not only because of the notability of the subject-persona, but because of ] in political-] history, respectively.--] (]) 05:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== {{tl|Coatrack}} ==

I tagged this article as a coatrack because it is patently not a biography of this individual's life but is, at best, a description of his role in current discourse around the US election. At worst it is political journalism masquerading as biography.

What is particularly disturbing is that the article, in a number of places, attempts to discredit the individual with information that would be ignored as trivial in any other biography. For example, the inclusion of the minutiae of plumbing accreditation in Ohio would be laughable were it not a textbook example of ]. ] (]) 05:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:State officials and mainstream news media have found major inaccuracies in the claims that he is a plumber, that he is likely to buy the business, that the business makes over $250,000 a years, and that Obama's tax proposals would cost him money. McCain has continued to discuss "Joe the Plumber" as the face of tax policies at campaign appearances every day. "Joe" has done interviews with numerous national news programs. This is not at all a one-off news story about something that happened to a plumber. The article should not be censored or deleted to make it easier for one party in a U.S. election to use this individual as a campaign meme. The essay "Coatrack" is not policy and does not apply in any event. ] (]) 12:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree, CIreland, and I think that's why this article has been nominated for deletion, twice. This article is more like WikiPaparazziism than journalism. Along with that, there's been numerous attempts to insert original research into the article: drawing conclusions from a quote on taxation to his tax liens, linking his qualification as a plumber to the validity of his question, six degrees of Charles Keating, unsupported claims of Joe the Plumber being a character rather than a real person, and there's probably several others I've missed. Of course, often the original research carries a non-neutral point of view.
:And all the guy did was ask a perfectly reasonable question. Heaven forbid! --] (]) 05:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

== WP:BLP1E ==

Per ], I'd '''very strongly''' suggest that this topic be moved to something like ] and focused on the ''controversy'' instead of the ''individual''. He obviously has no inherent notability '''beyond''' the debate mentions and subsequent investigations by media outlets. Since his notability is completely dependent on ], we should cover the event and not the person. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 06:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

: Please go over to and suggest it if you haven't already. And anybody else who wants to weigh in on deleting or redirecting the article should also express their opinion on that page, not here, since an actual decision will get made based on what's there not on what's here. ] (]) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Dear betsy, it's a complete accident that I am reading this page where you have contributed! ;-) As an impartial observer, I think that Joe the Plumber is not just about one event. He is the very symbol of the people who create something and who are threatened by socialist plans of left-wing U.S. presidential candidates. It is an eternal problem that transgress all epochs. If the page about Joe the Plumber should focus on one event, then the same thing holds for other people covered by this encyclopedia such as Barack Obama, a community organizer who is also famous because of one event only (a speech in 2004; plus the lore that was glued around it, just like in the case of Joe the Plumber). Lubos --] (]) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion that this article fails ] is fundamentally flawed as BLP1E clearly states that its subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual" however with Mr. Wurzelbacher's numerous interviews with the news media (including CNN, Fox News, Good Morning America, CNBC, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, and the BBC according to the ), he is hardly a low-profile person. Examples of this include how Senator McCain invited Mr. Wurzelbacher to join him on the campaign trail (), and how Mr. Wurzelbacher was invited to attend Sunday's McCain rally in Toledo, but cannot because he is flying to New York City for television interviews on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday .

As I noted at the DRV discussion, while Mr. Wurzelbacher may at first glance appear to be an essentially non-notable figure, he has irrevocably changed the `08 presidential campaign in much the same way that ] changed the `88 presidential election, or ] changed the ] murder trial, or ] changed the tone of the anti-war movement. --] (]) 19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:I think you are taking that a little to far. There is no evidence that he has changed the election. Unless you mean by change, that asking a presidential candidate a question that they answer poorly will result in getting their life trashed by that party and the MSM. If this continues, no one will ever want to ask another question of a political candidate. ] (]) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::Note that it goes far beyond "asking a Presidential candidate a question." Thousands of people have done that in the present campaign, but only Joe was mentioned over 20 times in the last presidential debate, in McCain's commercials, and every day since the debate in McCain's speeches. "Joe the Plumber" is a highly notable campaign theme. ] (]) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


== War reporting quote ==
:::I think you are focusing on the wrong cause and effect relationship. Joe's question is not what caused this event, it was the response by Obama and the subsequent use of both the question and the response by the McCain campaign. ] (]) 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


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


As a compromise, I've it back with an additional (Daily News) non-YouTube source. I don't want to remove the video because the Associated Press is reliable, and people may want to watch for themselves. ] - ] 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Even more than the tax lien stuff, putting his driving license problems into this article violates ]. It has no bearing on his tax opinions, his talk with Obama, his being or not being a plumber, his planning or not planning to buy a business whose annual profit just happens to be the exact cutoff where the Obama tax plan changes the tax rate to a higher percent.


:The AP dispatch and transcript is likely best - I have cited the HuffPo publication of that dispatch, where some of the context makes clear whay SW was concerned about. Cheers. ] (]) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Before people start accusing me of trying to whitewash this bio for political reasons, let me point out that I am a . I also really care about making Misplaced Pages the best source of information that it can be. Putting snarky garbage like this into an encyclopedia article makes us all look bad. For the sake of the credibility of the actual relevant information that's in here, please don't try to turn this article into a "Wall of Shame" for its subject. Thanks. Betsy Devine. ] (]) 12:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::The additional context you added seems fine. ] - ] 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


:::You, as an Admin, should know that the use of YouTube is not recommended. Generally speaking when people add comments made by individuals which are being inserted for POV purposes from YouTube sources I remove them with even looking at the video since it is generally a waste of my time. Simply because it is an AP upload doesn't change this fact and certainly isn't a good guide for the notability of the comment. Now that there is some actual reporting on it, it is a little better, but still questionable as far as weight. ] (]) 01:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:As simple facts, they don't belong in the article, agreed. But to the extent that news articles talk about how "going public", as Wurzelbacher did, results in publicity about a whole lot of things (his income, his tax liens, his driving license problems, etc.) that he hadn't expected, then ''that'' is worth including (I'd argue), particularly if there is a more generic ] article that this morphs into. In other words, if someone says "Do you want a 'Joe the plumber' experience?", they're probably asking (to some extent) "Do you want your whole life exposed?", and this article, by omitting the exposures, doesn't help the reader understand such a question.
::::Link any policy that says we can't reference YouTube content published by a major news agency. The fact that they're using YouTube as a video host is really irrelevant. The real publisher of the content is the Associated Press, a reliable source. The comment was notable and reported on at the time. The two additional links should make that clear. Given the significant coverage at the time, the fact that the trip is reported, and the balance quote about his belief that "mainstream news outlets" are "demonizing Israel", I don't see a weight problem.


::::The ] says, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided)." It doesn't fail "restrictions on linking"; it is not blacklisted and there is no copyright problem. Nor have you indicated that it fits one of the "normally to be avoided" criteria.
:To be clear - I'm arguing for including "meta" stuff here - ''analyses'' of how Joe's life got exposed; I'm not arguing for simply listing the exposed facts. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


::::Finally, removing a link without looking at it is not how the ] policy works. ] - ] 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::So we should trash this guy's life so that there is a Joe the plumber experience? That doesn't sound very logical. Seriously, what did this guy do to piss so many people off that they feel it is their obligation for everyone to know every piece of dirt about him? ] (]) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::To be more precise, ] does not cover links used as sources. However, ] also allows the source. The Associated Press "is reliable for the statement being made", which is that Wurzelbacher made the statement. ] - ] 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


== Aspiration to be President ==
::: There is no provision in Misplaced Pages policy for using the biography of a living person to shame and abuse that person, no matter how horribly evil you might consider him. ] (]) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


:::Thank you to Betsythedevine for trying to put standards of quality before political tripe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I know that Joe the Plumber has stated he wants to run for President. However, I can't find no webby reference. I know because my cousin's buddy is from Sandusky and saw him campaign. What is the best way to put in a reference for that? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The best way is to Find a ] and show the community that the topic is ]. results from google.news.com (the non-blogs) are generally considered reliable. -- ] 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


==Life Imitates Art== == Personal Life ==
Added an internal link to the 1920's cartoon, "Mr. Block" ] (]) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


There was some objection to edit. Nothing in the edit is counterfactual and all of the sources are verifiable. Please don't revert without explaining the specific problems. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I don't see the logical connection....unless you are trying to say that he is an idiot for supporting the republican party when all rationale says that he should support the democratic party. Seems an awful lot like original research to make that connection, and not really appropriate for his bio. Let's please stop attacking this person. ] (]) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:Read ], ] and ]. Then read the ] noticeboard discussions about this sort of "edit." Cheers. ] (]) 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::The specific problem? well: EVERYTHING. -- ] 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::You're slipping Collect, you forgot ].--] (]) 18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::<g> I take you you read the proposed edit. ] (]) 19:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*Just so it can't be said that specifics weren't given, I'll give one. There's many similar issues, even multiple cases in single sentences. It's a soutcable fact that he's christian. It's a sourcable fact that he was married in a park. But once you write a sentence "Even though he claim to be christian he got married in a park." You're taking ] using some ] and coming out with a sentence that spins the facts in a ].--] (]) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


== starting a life on its own == == Holocaust Remarks Neutrality ==


The article mentions the fact that he's been criticized for these statements, but it neglects to include any substantive information as to the grounds for such criticisms. For example, in the 1938 act that he was apparently referring to, gun laws were made more lax, not more stringent. They largely deregulated many different firearms and made it a lot easier to obtain both guns and ammunition. The very notable exception was the clause banning Jews from owning guns. However, other targetted groups, such as gays and gypsies, were not barred from owning guns. Nevertheless, this did not stop those groups from being slaughtered en masse during the Holocaust.
Women's self help website, ivillage.com, has a front page article about Jane the Plumber. This suggests that the Joe the Plumber idea may be somewhat long lasting. The article is not political in nature. Bob Barr, running for Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and a likely contender for a distant 3rd place in the election (or 4th after Ralph Nader) now uses the term "Bob the Builder" http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/bob_the_builder.html


All this suggests a valid reason to have a Joe the Plumber article. If this develops more, then the shift of the article could be toward Joe the Plumber and less toward Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. ] (]) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Besides, there's no evidence to suggest that the German military would have been thwarted internally by a scattered minority group armed with hand guns. This is of course a speculative point that can be debated ad nauseum, but at very least, it should be included in the article alongside Mr. Wurzelbacher's argument. ] (]) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


:You would need to find a "reliable source" making the claims you make -- alas most sources refer to the 1938 acts as being ''restrictive'' on gun ownership. Thus you appear to be engaging in "original research" ny Misplaced Pages definitions (]). Cheers. ] (]) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
== Additonal (relevant) information re: Joe The Plumber ==


::I agree with this, but the statement Joe made is incorrect - Germany instituted gun control in the 1910s. He apparently was only criticized for mentioning the Holocaust/WW2, not on the substance of his argument. ] (]) 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
as only established users can add to this entry, I'd like to point out that there's some new information regarding "Joe the Plumber's" licensure at: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/17/best-response-to-the-joe-the-plumber-license-frenzy/ ] (]) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:The source is a conservative blog so I don't think that contribution would last long in the article. --] (]) 05:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
::Blogs are only very rarely reliable sources, and Malkin's isn't a reliable source. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Too bad really. It is an amusing remark. ] (]) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


::Comparing your opponents to nazis is as old as the hills, especially when you have nothing else to stand on. That said, there are sme reliable sources that critique Mr. Plumber on his hyperbole. ] (]) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
== A new low for wikipedia... ==


::Mattnad is absolutely right. In fact, what I said about the 1938 act was taken from another Misplaced Pages article (don't recall which off the top of my head; it was the one about that act though). And yes, that article was well-sourced. You seem to be the one engaging in original research with your statement that, "alas most sources refer to the 1938 acts as being restrictive on gun ownership." Which sources, exactly? The act was more restrictive on gun ownership for Jews, but for all other groups (including those that were targetted for extermination) it was less restrictive. ] (]) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
...Regarding this edit . The reference cited is not from the "Indiana Express" but from the ] ie from ] not ], which is halfway around the planet. Please correct or there will be a amply justified article on ] lampooning this absurd error.] (]) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


== Cameraman credit ==
:An honest mistake is a new low? Relax, it is not the end of the world. A reasonable person would assume that the article is from a source in Indiana which is geographically next door to Ohio. The real low on WP is the attempt to trash Joe because of his question, why not show some outrage about that? ] (]) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Regarding ]'s] recent edit...
::Which question? He asked more than one. I'm more disappointed that McCain and others took this and ran with it as personal income tax and business taxes (partnership, S-Corp, Corporation, whatever) are handled differently hence muddying the water in hopes of confusing the issue. Or were you refering to a flat tax? Obama's answer was dead-on accurate and matches estimates by economists and the Dept of the Treasury.
::Anyway, how was he being trashed? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


The name of the person who shot the video is critical to story. Had there not been a video of the encounter, there would be NO "Joe the Plumber". Don't be so quick to discount attribution. In this case - the cameraman made the decision to shoot the encounter in its entirety. It's precisely for that reason that the candidate engaged in the debate.
== Why would anyone delete this article? ==


What conflict of interest? The facts are the facts. I shot the encounter, I have nothing to gain.
Come on, people who want this article deleted know NOTHING of Misplaced Pages. This fits in along with the rest of the politics articles. Don't ever delete this article. ] (]) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I was there - I witnessed the debate. Had I not shot the debate, you would have nothing to edit.
== Date of birth ==


Your edits don't delete Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, and many others who had no involvement in the debate, yet you gratuitously credit them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)</small>
BLP does not apply to when a person is notable. This article still exists as a biography. ] 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:This person is not in himself notable - he has not for example run for public office. Accordingly information about him should not be published on wikipedia unless relevant to the scope of the article. His date of birth, unlike that say of John McCain, is not relevant to the article scope. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


:If you shot this incident, you have a clear conflict of interest as involved person (atleast regarding details about yourself) - please read and follow ]. A conflict of interest does not only involve financial relations, but lots of other kinds of possible connections with a topic. Regarding attribution: generally speaking, inline-attribution is only necessary when the content is controversial or a direct quote, or when the person's involvement is relevant for the narrative ''and'' independently sourced. The detail about the cameraman doesn't fit any of these criteria and can be skipped without loosing vital information.
==Move this article to ]==
:Regardless, please suggest sourced changes involving yourself here on the article talkpage instead of adding them yourself (you can use ] for such suggestions). Also please note, that personal knowledge ("I was there") cannot be used for verification, not even from journalists or other experts. All information ''must'' be based on reliable published sources (usually secondary sources). Pinging {{ping|Jordgette}}, as they were mentioned in your message. ] (]) 17:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles should be located at the most commonly used name. "Joe the Plumber" gets 10,037 hits at Google News , but "Joe Wurzelbacher" only gets 7,164 Google News hits . McCain and Palin are daily referring to this campaign meme as "Joe the Plumber," so I propose a move to that title, as was called for by many contributors to the AFD and the DRV. Please indicate "Support" or "Oppose" with a policy based rationale. ] (]) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


::The relevant bit for sourcing is ABC News. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, ABC News shot the video. The name of the ABC News employee is not notable and, as far as we know, has not been mentioned in any secondary sources. COI or not, that makes the cameraperson's personal identity as irrelevant as the person holding the boom mic or the producer who chose to air the clip. There's a COI guideline because it's difficult for the person involved to assess this objectively. Also worth mentioning, Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer ''are'' notable persons. ] </small>]] 18:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think it's pretty obvious. "Joe The Plumber" is what people who access Wiki will be looking for.] (]) 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


:::For now I have kept the other minor changes which may be an improvement (but probably need a closer look too), but removed the self-attribution. {{ping|Westwilshire}}, please read and follow the above advice about editing in this situation. Adding such self-attribution against the clear concerns of two editors and with a blatant conflict of interest is not acceptable. Please do not revert again without consensus. ] (]) 18:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - as per nom - ] states ''Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers.'' - the debate and newspaper reporting refer to Joe the Plumber. Moreover the rename would allow focus on the issues for which this meme is notable and not issues related to the individual per ]: ''Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability.'' --] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is a much more common search term, and it puts us on firmer footing to focus the article more on the prominent political meme, and less on the biographical details of one individual. ] 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:51, 10 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe the Plumber article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 16, 2008Articles for deletionRedirected
October 17, 2008Articles for deletionKept
October 20, 2008Deletion reviewEndorsed
November 1, 2008Articles for deletionKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 30, 2023.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections / Ohio Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Change to real name?

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

I think it's still a bit early for that. Lots of people run for congress and are not particularly notable. His notability still arises from being known as "Joe the Plumber". If he actually does become a Congressman, then he will be notable in his own right and the article can be moved then. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time to move the namespace. It seems POV not to identify a major-party candidate for Congress by anything but his real name. Moncrief (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Either way, in any case there will be a redirect. Purely rationally, it is best to use his real name now. My gut tells me that he won't be elected, and he'll be known ever after as Joe the Plumber (so we can wait until the election). Smallbones (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "what my gut tells me" is never a reason to do something on Misplaced Pages. Yikes. At any rate, I hope someone will move the namespace. I don't normally edit this page, so I don't want to do something that will ruffle feathers. Do we need a vote? Moncrief (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Lets wait on a change. If he gets any traction and coverage, then we can change. Redirects will handle any varations for now. To prove the point, a google search for "Joe Wurzelbacher" gets news reports with "Joe the Plumber" as the lead rather than his legal name. At least for now, he's known by that monicker. Mattnad (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
All right, but he already has "traction" and "coverage." National news stories (on NPR this morning, for example) have appeared on his U.S. House campaign. For Ohio voters, his candidacy is a prevalent story. I can't think of, or imagine, any other major-party candidate for the U.S. House whose WIkipedia article namespace is anything but that of his or her actual name. I am willing to wait, and your point is well taken that news editors still call him "Joe the Plumber" in headlines (as in the NPR example here), but I'll keep an eye on this article, and initiate a vote on changing the namespace if need be. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
He's the republican nominee in his district so he is quite notable by his legal name now. I would say it should direct to his legal name and not Joe the Plumper anymore. --GoHuskies990411 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Joe the Plumper? It's Plumber, not Plumper. I agree with you, but I'm not all that into fighting the necessary battle over it. Moncrief (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When the mainstream media makes the switch to his real name we'll follow just as we stick for now with their lead.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you make it so that Joe the Plumber (sorry funny typo before) just re-directs to his real name? When he's sworn in to Congress, the Speaker of the House isn't going to say Joe the Plumber, do you solemnly swear... It's silly an encyclopedia uses Joe the Plumber. News organizations use nicknames all the time. --GoHuskies990411 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say it isn't time yet. The moment he wins, the article can be moved. Until then, he's a political candidate whom 99% of people know by the nickname, which will continue to be the case if he loses. Consider the musician Slash — that is the name people know him by, and as usual, that is what his article is called (even though the article starts by giving his real name). If Slash ever won a Congressional seat, the article would likely be moved at that time, but probably not before. To put it another way, Joe's present notability is dominated by his notoriety from the 2008 election, not because he's running for office now (which anyone can do). But if he wins, being a U.S. congressperson will immediately trump his past notability. -Jordgette 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The difference is Slash calls himself that. It's his brand. People who know him probably refer to him as Slash as well. I think the media dubbing you a nickname is something entirely different. Do people that know him go "Hey Plumber!"? I don't see why if you type in Joe the Plumber it wouldn't just redirect to his real name. --GoHuskies990411 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

War reporting quote

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

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

The AP dispatch and transcript is likely best - I have cited the HuffPo publication of that dispatch, where some of the context makes clear whay SW was concerned about. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The additional context you added seems fine. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You, as an Admin, should know that the use of YouTube is not recommended. Generally speaking when people add comments made by individuals which are being inserted for POV purposes from YouTube sources I remove them with even looking at the video since it is generally a waste of my time. Simply because it is an AP upload doesn't change this fact and certainly isn't a good guide for the notability of the comment. Now that there is some actual reporting on it, it is a little better, but still questionable as far as weight. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Link any policy that says we can't reference YouTube content published by a major news agency. The fact that they're using YouTube as a video host is really irrelevant. The real publisher of the content is the Associated Press, a reliable source. The comment was notable and reported on at the time. The two additional links should make that clear. Given the significant coverage at the time, the fact that the trip is reported, and the balance quote about his belief that "mainstream news outlets" are "demonizing Israel", I don't see a weight problem.
The actual guideline says, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided)." It doesn't fail "restrictions on linking"; it is not blacklisted and there is no copyright problem. Nor have you indicated that it fits one of the "normally to be avoided" criteria.
Finally, removing a link without looking at it is not how the reliable sources policy works. Superm401 - Talk 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
To be more precise, Misplaced Pages:External links does not cover links used as sources. However, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources also allows the source. The Associated Press "is reliable for the statement being made", which is that Wurzelbacher made the statement. Superm401 - Talk 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aspiration to be President

I know that Joe the Plumber has stated he wants to run for President. However, I can't find no webby reference. I know because my cousin's buddy is from Sandusky and saw him campaign. What is the best way to put in a reference for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The best way is to Find a Reliable Source and show the community that the topic is appropriate for inclusion. results from google.news.com (the non-blogs) are generally considered reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life

There was some objection to this edit. Nothing in the edit is counterfactual and all of the sources are verifiable. Please don't revert without explaining the specific problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Then read the WP:BLP/N noticeboard discussions about this sort of "edit." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The specific problem? well: EVERYTHING. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You're slipping Collect, you forgot WP:SYNTH.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
<g> I take you you read the proposed edit. Collect (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just so it can't be said that specifics weren't given, I'll give one. There's many similar issues, even multiple cases in single sentences. It's a soutcable fact that he's christian. It's a sourcable fact that he was married in a park. But once you write a sentence "Even though he claim to be christian he got married in a park." You're taking multiple sources using some original research and coming out with a sentence that spins the facts in a non-neutral way.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Remarks Neutrality

The article mentions the fact that he's been criticized for these statements, but it neglects to include any substantive information as to the grounds for such criticisms. For example, in the 1938 act that he was apparently referring to, gun laws were made more lax, not more stringent. They largely deregulated many different firearms and made it a lot easier to obtain both guns and ammunition. The very notable exception was the clause banning Jews from owning guns. However, other targetted groups, such as gays and gypsies, were not barred from owning guns. Nevertheless, this did not stop those groups from being slaughtered en masse during the Holocaust.

Besides, there's no evidence to suggest that the German military would have been thwarted internally by a scattered minority group armed with hand guns. This is of course a speculative point that can be debated ad nauseum, but at very least, it should be included in the article alongside Mr. Wurzelbacher's argument. KrisCraig (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You would need to find a "reliable source" making the claims you make -- alas most sources refer to the 1938 acts as being restrictive on gun ownership. Thus you appear to be engaging in "original research" ny Misplaced Pages definitions (WP:OR). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this, but the statement Joe made is incorrect - Germany instituted gun control in the 1910s. He apparently was only criticized for mentioning the Holocaust/WW2, not on the substance of his argument. 68.110.28.104 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Comparing your opponents to nazis is as old as the hills, especially when you have nothing else to stand on. That said, there are sme reliable sources that critique Mr. Plumber on his hyperbole. Mattnad (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Mattnad is absolutely right. In fact, what I said about the 1938 act was taken from another Misplaced Pages article (don't recall which off the top of my head; it was the one about that act though). And yes, that article was well-sourced. You seem to be the one engaging in original research with your statement that, "alas most sources refer to the 1938 acts as being restrictive on gun ownership." Which sources, exactly? The act was more restrictive on gun ownership for Jews, but for all other groups (including those that were targetted for extermination) it was less restrictive. KrisCraig (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cameraman credit

Regarding recent edit...

The name of the person who shot the video is critical to story. Had there not been a video of the encounter, there would be NO "Joe the Plumber". Don't be so quick to discount attribution. In this case - the cameraman made the decision to shoot the encounter in its entirety. It's precisely for that reason that the candidate engaged in the debate.

What conflict of interest? The facts are the facts. I shot the encounter, I have nothing to gain.

I was there - I witnessed the debate. Had I not shot the debate, you would have nothing to edit.

Your edits don't delete Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, and many others who had no involvement in the debate, yet you gratuitously credit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwilshire (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If you shot this incident, you have a clear conflict of interest as involved person (atleast regarding details about yourself) - please read and follow WP:COI. A conflict of interest does not only involve financial relations, but lots of other kinds of possible connections with a topic. Regarding attribution: generally speaking, inline-attribution is only necessary when the content is controversial or a direct quote, or when the person's involvement is relevant for the narrative and independently sourced. The detail about the cameraman doesn't fit any of these criteria and can be skipped without loosing vital information.
Regardless, please suggest sourced changes involving yourself here on the article talkpage instead of adding them yourself (you can use Template:request edit for such suggestions). Also please note, that personal knowledge ("I was there") cannot be used for verification, not even from journalists or other experts. All information must be based on reliable published sources (usually secondary sources). Pinging @Jordgette:, as they were mentioned in your message. GermanJoe (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The relevant bit for sourcing is ABC News. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, ABC News shot the video. The name of the ABC News employee is not notable and, as far as we know, has not been mentioned in any secondary sources. COI or not, that makes the cameraperson's personal identity as irrelevant as the person holding the boom mic or the producer who chose to air the clip. There's a COI guideline because it's difficult for the person involved to assess this objectively. Also worth mentioning, Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer are notable persons. -Jordgette 18:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
For now I have kept the other minor changes which may be an improvement (but probably need a closer look too), but removed the self-attribution. @Westwilshire:, please read and follow the above advice about editing in this situation. Adding such self-attribution against the clear concerns of two editors and with a blatant conflict of interest is not acceptable. Please do not revert again without consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Categories: