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 11:47, 31 October 2008 editVictorcoutin (talk | contribs)655 editsm →Not a plumber....: Here are two links to job descriptions which provide some clarity as to the distinction (from a plumber or "master" plumber) and pay that a plumber's helper might receive← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:51, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,131 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}}
| action1date = 2008-10-16
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=Low|needs-persondata=yes|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Wurzelbacher, Joseph|needs-photo=yes|nested=yes}}
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber
{{WPUSPE|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}}
| action1result = redirected
| action2 = AFD
| action2date = 2008-10-17
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher
| action2result = kept
| 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 =
| itndate = 30 August 2023
| itnlink = Special:Diff/1172964162
| dykdate =
| maindate =
| topic = socsci
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=B|listas=Wurzelbacher, Joseph|1=
<span id="deletion"></span>
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Low|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{multidel
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|OH=yes|OH-importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low}}
|list=
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
* 16 October 2008, ]
** Result: '''Speedy redirect to ]'''
* 17 October 2008, ]
** Result: '''Keep for now''' - issue may be revisited in time
* 20 October 2008, ]
** Result: '''Endorse''' outcome of 'keep for now'
}} }}
{{Press
{{pressmulti
| collapsed=no
| title= Misplaced Pages vs. Joe the Plumber Misplaced Pages users debate Wurzelbacher’s newsworthiness and notability | title= Misplaced Pages vs. Joe the Plumber Misplaced Pages users debate Wurzelbacher’s newsworthiness and notability
| author= Joshua Young | author= Joshua Young
Line 23: Line 39:
| org= ] | 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 {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 3 |counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Privacy? == == 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)
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 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'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;).
::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)


::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) {{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)
: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)
:::Attacking the motivation of other editors violates ]. Discuss the contribution, not the contributor. ] (]) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (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 ] — 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)
::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-->
:::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)
::::::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-->


== War reporting quote ==
Regardless of how and why, the particulars of this guy's life are not news and are not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. He is noteworthy for the question he asked and the answer he received. All the information dug up about the guy after the fact is totally irrelevant. His tax liens, licensing status, etc. have ''nothing'' to do with it. All that stuff should be deleted, and considering our living person policies, should be deleted immediately. ] (]) 09:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think it's relevant that a person concerned about higher tax rates isn't paying their taxes to begin with. ] (]) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::But we have to make sure this article does not turn into character assassination, he is getting enough of that in the general media. ] (]) 01:22, 27 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.
Information about unpaid taxes would be relevant if there was a direct connection between not paying them and his position on taxing. For example, not paid as a ]. Or not paid because he can't afford to pay them, and that's his reason for opposing Obama's taxing policies. However, we don't know why the taxes weren't paid. Maybe he didn't know, miscalculated, didn't get around to it, is engaged in a dispute about the amount, or whatever. Any supposed connection between his tax arrears/tax lien and his political positions at this time is just speculation, ], or ] on our part without ] to make the connections. — ] (]) 01:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


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)
:''Any'' scenario about the tax lien is relevant to his opinion on taxes, unless it was filed by mistake and he didn't receive notice because of a mistake in the address of tax filing. We can't speculate as to which scenario is accurate, but they're all relevant. — ] ] 03:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


::'''No''' scenario is relevant unless it is shown that he is a tax protester. Any other scenario is a synthesis of material. ] (]) 04:06, 27 October 2008 (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. ] (]) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (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)
== Full Quote? ==
::::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.
full 6 min on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::::Finally, removing a link without looking at it is not how the ] policy works. ] - ] 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
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-->
:::::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)
: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)
:::Eventually, I created one myself and posted it . ] (]) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:There's a fuller version of the conversation which includes more context leading up to the phrase "spread the wealth around". This could be referenced from the article (I presume betsythedevine's transcript cannot). ] (]) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


== article name == == 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This article should be named '''Joe the plumber''' 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 plumber'''. ] (]) 17:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
: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)


== Personal Life ==
-I would say he's more known as '''Joe the Plumber'''.] (]) 17:52, 17 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 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)
: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)


== Holocaust Remarks Neutrality ==
::In the meantime, Mr Wurzelbacher can utilize his publicity to ask Obama and McCain one crucial question regarding the future of our country -- "WHAT WILL YOU DO TO MAKE GOVERNMENT SMALLER, LESS INTRUSIVE, AND LESS EXPENSIVE?" (UTC)


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.
:::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)
::::What he said. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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)
:::: I concur. The Man's name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, his 'nickname' isnt as relevant as his correct name. This article should be called Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and "joe the plumber" should redirec to "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::I also think that the article should begin w/ '''Wurzelbacher''', and ''then'' mention that he is colloquially known as '''JTP'''. -- ] (]) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Been there. Unanimous approval of name change to JtP. Lots of prior discussion. Worms. Can. ] (]) 12:56, 29 October 2008 (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)
== Keating Five Relationship ==


::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)
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) ::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)


::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)
:::::::<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>


== Cameraman credit ==
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)


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


What conflict of interest? The facts are the facts. I shot the encounter, I have nothing to gain.
:::As a side note, some one call the proper people to keep an eye on Steve Dufour. -G


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


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>
:::::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)


: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.
::::::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)
: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)


::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)
:OK. I'm suggesting this. Since one of the perpetrators of the Keating Five scandal was a Wurzelbacher, and McCain is one of the Keating Five, the fact that Joe Wurzelbacher isn't related to the Keating Five is pertinent. It deserves a sentence along the lines of: "Coincidentally, Wurzelbacher is the surname of ] of the ] Scandal. Although John McCain was one of the Keating Five, Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are not related." I don't currently have the documentation for this, but I am very certain that this should be pretty easy to properly reference if it's posted. It's been a pertinent news item. --] (]) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::As there has been ZERO RS sourcing for the name being more than a coincidence, your proposed insertion is absloutely contrary to WP policies. Having a name in common is about as irrelevant a reason for making a comment as one can find. ] (]) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I feel that people familar with the Keating Five story will assume that Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are related. By including the information that they are not related, their names are coincidental, we can improve the article (with appropriate references). --] (]) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think it can definitively be said they're not related. Odds are that they are, it may just not be ''closely'' related. ] (]) 02:13, 24 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)
:::::Well it might be a good idea to eliminate confusion with a sentence saying that our Wurzelbacher isn't associated with the Keating Five Wurzelbacher. --] (]) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nope. All that would do is enter doubt. Putting in a negative statement just plain would be improoper IMHO. Frinstance, poist a mass murderer named "Alois Coutin" (fake name, no one sue! zero Google hits) would you want it in your bio that "Victor Coutin is not believed to be closely related to the mass murderer, Alois Coutin"? I would trust not! ] (]) 13:00, 29 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)

:'''Include''', "only material relevant to their notability" -- clearly his own tax status is relevant. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''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)
**OK, I checked the AP article. It says what it is quoted as saying. — ] ] 21:40, 19 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)

*'''Exclude''' - per ] and tangential information to the article which is about the meme and the person who gave rise to the meme. The info thus should not be included as violating BLP. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comments'''.
*:His being legally considered a "public figure" is irrelevant, except as to "our" BLP issues, as the AP article would be an invasion of privacy absent his being considered a public figure.
*:There seems a clear consensus to include. However, the BLP issue needs to be dealt with separately at ]. It appears the previous discussion there lea to a '''keep''' finding, but it may not have dealt with this specific piece of information.
* — ] ] 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
::We have a non-legalistic definition of not being a public figure at WP:NPF - People who are relatively unknown. He is unknown apart from his questioning Obama's policies in a way that was escalated in the 3rd canddiate debate and there being significant follow-up media reporting. The BLP issues relevant to him are contained at ] which is a subsection of ] - ''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 that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care.'' The material is tangential to his notability which was questioning tax thresholds and their policy impacts. There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you seem to take the position that if this article includes the JtP quote about taxation without representation, then it must also include the tax lien; contrariwise, if the tax lien is omitted, the quote about taxation without representation must also be omitted. I assert that this position is without rational basis. The tax lien item itself says that JtP was almost certainly unaware of the existence of the lien. We should presume that the existence of the lien implies exactly nothing about his opinions on taxation and exactly nothing about his ability to pay the tax in question. Even accepting the theory that JtP has become a public figure, the existence of a tax lien is in general not an encyclopedic fact, unless there is some special reason that it should be an encyclopedic fact. There is no special reason that JtP's tax lien is an encyclopedic fact. The fact that he has made public statements about taxation in general does not make his lien an encyclopedic fact.

I strongly recommend that his statement about taxation without representation remain in this Misplaced Pages article, because this statement is strong background on who is this person who asked Senator Obama about taxation and subsequently made televised statements on Obama and taxation. I strongly recommend that the tax lien be omitted from this Misplaced Pages article, because, even though it was covered in the <i>news</i> media, it doesn't belong in an <i>encyclopedia</i>, and it's in violation of ]. I recommend restoring the taxation without representation item but not the tax lien item. ] (]) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

*Note - escalated to ] --] <sup>]</sup> 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
**I note that at this point there are 12 editors who support inclusion and 8 who do not support inclusion <small>(apologies if I have not counted correctly)</small>. There are same who claim that this is consensus for inclusion. Firstly ] is not about numbers - we do not have a "convergence of thinking". Secondly ] issues are not overriden by numbers of !votes - hence my escalation to the BLP noticeboard. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that while the discussion is still ongoing, several editors (who actually have been abstaining from the BLP noticeboard discussion) both ADDED and subsequently DELETED the tax lien item. What is the use of having a noticeboard discussion while these editors are running roughshod and going half cocked through this issue? Please. Let's be civil about this. If there is a BLP noticeboard discussion that isn't resolved yet on this issue - these editors (who have been posting here and should be fully aware of the fact they are IGNORING the BLP noticeboard discussion) need to be directly dealt with, either here or by some other method of communication. This is especially frustrating to me, since I have been patiently participating in the BLP noticeboard discussion. I know that more than a few editors like myself could have just as easily swooped in and added or deleted the tax lien sentence instead. But we didn't. --] (]) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== 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)
:::What the hell? Ok, I'm not a contributor, just a regular reader of Misplaced Pages. Lately, often when I come to look for a particular article about a topic, I'm seeing lots of proposals for deletion. What the hell for? Why so intent upon deleting articles that people are clearly looking to read? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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)
::We remember Daisy and Willie Horton because they won the election. If McCain doesn't win, I can't see Joe Wurtzlebacher being relevant in re encyclopedic material. ] (]) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the lengthy article and even more massive discussion page, tied with the enormous interest in this gentleman in the US media, justify retaining the page. Will he be forgotten at some point in the future? It's too early to predict when or if that will happen. ] (]) 06:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Consensus: Dispute on tax lien issue expands to dispute on consensus ==

To modify what an author said about "democracy" a few years ago:

:"Consensus, wikipedia’s holy cow, is in crisis ... every kind of outrage is being committed in the name of Consensus. It has become little more than a hollow word, a pretty shell, emptied of all content or meaning...Consensus is Misplaced Pages’s whore, willing to dress up, dress down, willing to satisfy a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will."

Those who want to delete the tax lien information have used the word "consensus" quite a lot, as those who have wanted to keep this tax lien.<ref>including myself</ref> The stark difference is that the majority want to keep the tax lien information. I find a lot of hilarious contradictions in what is being said by those who want to delete:

{|border=1 cellpadding=5
|

'''Arzel'''

Inclusionist, you don't get to decide concensus. Furthermore this is a BLP issue to which concensus does not even apply --Arzel 05:24, 18 October 2008

The ] page:

:If the material is to be restored without significant change, then '''consensus must be obtained first''', and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article...

:New material should generally be discussed in order to '''arrive at a consensus''' concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

'''Matilda'''

WP:NPF - 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 - there is no consensus that this tax lien information is sufficiently relevant to his notability for it to be included in the article and breaching his privacy. --Matilda talk 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


no consensus for inclusion as it violates WP:NPF a subsection of WP:BLP ---Matilda 04:37, 20 October 2008

'''Amwestover'''

Undid revision 246305434 by JoshuaZ (talk) Refer to WP:CONS, there is certainly not consensus on this matter. --Amwestover 16:02, 19 October 2008

Undid revision 246304368 by JoshuaZ (talk) a.) consensus isn't a popular vote and b.) the matter is under review for arbitration --Amwestover 15:55, 19 October 2008

Undid revision 246195172 by Anomalocaris (talk) - Consensus has not been reached on this matter and there is an arbitration request. This is your LAST warning. --Amwestover (tax quote)

22:38, 17 October 2008 Undid revision 245989021 by Erxnmedia (talk) PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached. --Amwestover

Contribute to the consensus discussion or find something better to do with your time. --Amwestover (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tomcat: Please contribute to the consensus discussion if you think it is valid, and also be sure to review WP:BLP 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 discussion was held and the consensus was to keep the article for now. --Amwestover (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tax Issues: Partial revert of revision 245979287 by Anomalocaris - Consensus HAS NOT been reached on tax issues. Refer to the talk page. --Amwestover 21:50, 17 October 2008

→Tax Issues: Consensus iss not achieved in mere hours. Please stop re-adding this until consesus is reached. --Amwestover 21:42, 17 October 2008

Undid revision 245751809 by 89.159.146.135 (talk) Please refer to discussion page to reach consensus --Amwestover 21:16, 16 October 2008

'''Dp76764'''

Undid revision 245948202 by Bstone (talk) you can't call consensus after only 1 hour, give people time to reply --Dp76764 18:56, 17 October 2008
|}

# Okay, according to Dp76764, Amwestover, Matilda, consensus matters. '''But''' according to Arzel, consensus doesn't matter, despite Arzel voting to exclude this material.
# Amwestover and Dp76764 argue that consensus cannot be reached in "only 1 hour" or "not achieved in mere hours" '''But''' 2 days later, when the vote is 12 to 5 to keep, Amwestover still is arguing consensus. Three days ago Amwestover wrote: "PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached." Maybe tomorrow consensus would have been reached Amwestover?
# Arwestover pleas for more time, consensus cannot be reached in "only 1 hour" or "not achieved in mere hours" "PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached" but when the "consensus" Arwestover desires (i.e. a consensus supporting his views) is not reached Arwestover states: <br> a.) consensus isn't a popular vote and b.) the matter is under review for arbitration

Nothing against these four personally. I just find Misplaced Pages in general really pathetic. We all twist and manipulate words to fit our own narrow meaning, including me. Misplaced Pages makes us all no better than .

That said, I am asking a '''third party mediator''' to deal with this argument. I have had two really positive experiences in the past with mediators. ] (]) 05:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

*The matter has been escalated to WP:BLP/N. Consensus does not equal a majority view prevails. I have no difficulty with a 3rd party mediator being brought in. Note that the issue has been rejected by Arbcom as it is a content disupute. I owuld have thought WP:BLPN was an appropriate 3rd party forum for the time being but ... </br>I object to the language being used in this subsection heading - I find it offensive. </br>--] <sup>]</sup> 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::LOL, I am not surprised, why do the biggest edit warriors always have the ? It reminds me of those World soccer players who get lightly grazed in soccer and fall down as if they are about to die.] (]) 05:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Little to do with a thin skin - rather a dislike of an unnecessarily misogynous term which fails to help the debate in any way. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::], you seem to have been an editor on Misplaced Pages for some time. I believe you should review the guidelines on ], ], and ]. --] (]) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:There exists no consensus on including the tax liens. I count the "vote" as: Include: 4; Exclude: 6; Include only if views on taxation are also included: 2. Here are the comments I found (limit one per Wikipedian) and note that none of these arguments appeal to consensus:

:'''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.
:]: Strong include: Upwards of 625 news organizations reported on this lien
:]: Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there.
:]: 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.
:]: - This is clearly an uncomfortable fact for "Joe the plumber" fans, surely, but it has been a relevant issue in the debate regarding Joe's iconography as ], and his credibility as a critic of ] tax plan. There is no reason to censor this fact other than to protect his image. One might as well delete the ] from the ], or the ] from ]. Furthermore this fact has been verified and widely published by a number of media outlets, and the $1,200 ] has been admitted by Joseph Wurzelbacher on several media programs. If it can be explained, then explain it. Don't hide it.

:'''Exclude'''
:]: 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 WP:BLP.
:]: I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article ... may violate WP:BLP policies
:]: Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of WP:BLP.
:<s>]: Liens are not pertinent to his notability so they should be omitted.</s>
:]: I recommend restoring the taxation without representation item but not the tax lien item.
:]: There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is WP:OR.

:'''Include only if views on taxation are also included'''
:]: If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant.
:]: If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant.

:In conclusion, no consensus exists. I believe the ] argument is persuasive against including and the tax lien should be excluded on that basis. ] (]) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (re-edited to add Matilda) ] (]) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::Complete and utter <s>nonsense</s> failure to properly count the !voters. There is a clear supermajority for the assertions that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is appropriate, even considering BLP (on which I am neutral), and a clear supermajority, given that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is included, for the then the tax lien ''must'' be included. Whether he is a public figure for Misplaced Pages purposes seems open; the fact that he is ''now'' seeking interviews seems to lead in favor of him being considered a public figure. — ] ] 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::With this at another board for attention, I don't think it matters here, but after reading through this I'm in favor of including his tax lien information. It's relevant. ] (]) 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Arthur Rubin, you have repeatedly asserted on this talk page that if views on taxation are included, the tax lien must be included also. Only JoshuaZ has endorsed that view, and I have yet to read a compelling argument to support that view, which continues to be shared just by you and JoshuaZ. The tax lien could exist for any number of reasons, including an error in the taxing agency. We shouldn't infer that he is a deadbeat or a tax protestor, and the fact of the tax lien is simply not encyclopedic. ] (]) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If you add those who agree to the conditional, and those who think the tax lien is relevant and should be included independent of the the inclusion of the quote, you get significantly more people than those who think the tax lien should be excluded. Perhaps not a supermajority, but a ''clear'' majority. Now, looking back at it, I have doubts about the deputy clerk's statement being relevant, even though quoted by a reliable source, but we haven't looked closely at that question. Yet. — ] ] 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::If one were to count !votes , one gets 10 include, 2 conditional include, 6 exclude. — ] ] 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: Actually, above, I originally counted 4 include votes (Timhowardriley, Inclusionist, RS57, LisaSmall) and later, another yes vote was inserted by or on behalf of Miguel Chavez. That's 4, not 10 includes. Arthur Rubin, please list 10 different commenters on this page who had made statements supporting include the tax lien (not counting the two conditional include), prior to your above comment of 07:04, 20 October 2008. ] (]) 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::This article in now on the personna known as "Joe the Plumber." As such, it is no longer a "person" unde r BLP and, I submit, personal infromation does not belong in it at all. An article on "The Cowardly Lion" would not rationally have Bert Lahr's tax troubles in it, so this also should not. All claims that a lien is relevant are out the window with the change in focus of this article, as nearly unanimously supported. ] (]) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: A misinterpretation of what is at hand. The move was agreed to if you look at the move discussion to a large extent not because of some vague notion of a "persona" but because this is the name he is known under. Multiple editors explicitly supported the move with the caveat that it would not be used as not as an excuse to remove the tax information. ] (]) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, it is what <b>most of this entire talk page discussion has been about for some time.</b> Is a person who is known primarily for a single event a "notable person"? Answer: no. That is why the article is now properly about the event and the issues engendered by a chance encounter with a candidate, and not about the biography of that person. Just as an article on "The Cowardly Lion" would deal with Bert Lahr as he portrayed the character, and not be a biographical article on Bert Lahr. If Bert Lahr is a "notable person" then he would have his own BLP. We have now decided Joe Wurzelbacher is not a "notable person" in his own right, ergo under WP guidelines, he should not have a BLP on him. "Joe the Plumber" as a single "character" as it were gets an article -- parallel to what a Cowardly Lion article would have. Wurz's biography which would not meet WP standards in any case thus does not belong in the Joe article. If you feel his full biograohy is propery in WP, then an article under his full name would have to be there. ] (]) 13:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Go reread the discussion to move it. What someone is called isn't the same as whether or not they are a "character". The Cowardly Lion is a fictional character played by Bert Lahr. Joe the Plumber is not a fictional character. It is a term people are using to call Joe Wurzelbacher. Oh, and by the way we do have a an article on ] anyways. ] (]) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I knew that -- which is one reason why I gave it as an example. JtP is really about an event and issue -- and that is all. JW would be about the person, and the place for all the biographical stuff. JW would only be valid for a "notable person" and by the name change, we pretty much have agreed that JW is not a "notable person" under the BLP definition. Hence, under JtP, none of the personal stuff belongs. Under JW, if he were given an article, personal stuff might belong subject to BLP limits. ] (]) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
: Except see the move discussion section above. Moreover, this ignores the point about failing to distinguish between a character and a person with a name other than their given name. We're in the second case, not the first case. ] (]) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This has never been a concensus issue, is has always been a BLP issue, and all that is needed is ] to govern inclusion.

''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.''

He asked a question, and has subsequently been attacked by the media and is a victim of such. The notion of his taxes only serve to invalidate his question and denegrate the individual. Unless it can be shown why it is important to state this without any context it is in direct violation of BLP and thus concensus is irrelevant. ] (]) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
: Whether something is a BLP issue is a consensus issue. That is, if there is a consensus that something isn't a BLP then there's no BLP issue. For example, if someone repeatedly tried to delete ] claiming BLP1E and the consensus was against it that would be fine. BLP is not an excuse to impose your personal view of what an article should look like. ] (]) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with Joshua. BLP as a policy is not being subject to consensus, rather it's the interpretation, judgment, and application of what specifically is and isn't a BLP violation on a case by case basis. And that is appropriately subject to interpretation by consensus. No policy can be written in such a way as cover all possible cases and to not require any interpretation or judgment ever. I'm not saying that this specific content is, or isn't a BLP violation at this point, but that this issue is under active discussion here. Also, is it necessary to denigrate the press? — ] (]) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::You are seriously comparing him with John Hinkly? This is patently absurd. There can be no concensus whether something is a BLP violation, it either is or it is not. The fact that he has a tax lien against him serves NO PURPOSE other than to denegrate the individual. It is not relevant without ] to make the connection to his view on taxes, and no other link is even remotely relevant. Just because it has been reported does not neccessitate that it be included in his bio. This is a private citizen, and deserves a fair amout of respect for some basic dignity. All he did was ask a question, so those of you that are so upset with this guy just take a deep breath and step back and put yourself into his situation, or one of these days you will do something and the whole world will know that you stole gum from a candy store when you were twelve. Grow up. ] (]) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Obviously Joe isn't of the same degree of notability as Hinkly. And all you've done is repeat your argument. The bottom line is that people disagree all the time about what precisely constitutes a BLP violation. And we discuss it and get a consensus about them. If it didn't work that way we'd have no need to ever discuss BLP issues. Now, if you would listen to what people are saying we might actually have a productive discussion. You say that "Just because it has been reported does not neccessitate that it be included in his bio" most would agree to that in the general statement. Your next claim "This is a private citizen" is where people start disagreeing. And simply repeating that claim doesn't make it true. Finally, you demonstrate amazing levels of AGF by assuming that other editors are "upset with this guy" with frankly says more about where you are coming from in this article than anyone else. It doesn't take one to be "upset" with him to want to have a decent article that discusses relevant material. Grow up yourself and try to actually reply to the issues at hand rather than just repeat yourself. ] (]) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Re: ] (]) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)'''
I struck out my !vote in your talk post because I don't believe it accurately reflects my view. My view is actually closer to yours, Anomalocaris. I support not including the tax lien information, but only including the taxation quote if it's possible to put it in better context -- for instance including the specific question asked if possible. I think in addition to being irrelevant, the tax liens are a clear violation of ]. I think the tax quote is mostly irrelevant, but other editors think otherwise and it's not a violation of ].

My strongest view in all of this discussion is that including ''both'' the tax liens information and the tax quotes is a deliberate attempt at ], and this is completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and often used to push a non-neutral point of view. Several editors with this stance have tried to use the tax liens and his quote in combination to draw the conclusion that he's a tax protester. Putting the two contributions together without explicitly drawing the conclusion is in my opinion an attempt to hide the original research expecting the reader to draw the conclusion on their own and is just as bad, if not worse. --] (]) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
: All the media, left and right leaning, has published these facts (see a couple sections below for Fox News link, and WaPo etc. are in the article). Claiming this is original research done by Wikipedians is downright hilarious. ] ] 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::Every little fact that is dug up by the media about someone doesn't make it appropriate for a biography of a living person, especially when they're only notable for one thing. Regardless, that has nothing to do with my original point so elaboration isn't necessary. However, claiming that including a quote with not context on taxation and tax liens that he doesn't even know about, and then drawing the conclusion that he's a tax protester without a source <i>isn't</i> original research is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on a talk page. --] (]) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree that calling Joe a "tax protester" is totally inappropriate (unless multiple references do this, and I haven't seen them). But the his tax bracket and liens are relevant (see discussion further below, I won't repeat it here). ] ] 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I disagree that his tax bracket and tax liens are relevant. Joe the Plumber asked a question about taxes for small businesses. You don't need to be a small business owner to ask questions about taxes for small businesses, that's as ridiculous as saying that you need to be a woman to ask questions about abortion or black to ask questions about race. No matter who's asking the question, it still a valid question and Obama's response would be no different no matter who's asking the question. --] (]) 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== WE NEED A PICTURE ==

NOOWWWW!!!!111 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Your opinion is noted. &ndash;] ] ] 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Note that Misplaced Pages's reason for lagging in pictures is our commitment ], that can be used, reproduced, and modified.
:::I had wanted to take a picture of the plumbing business in question, but unfortunately all of the addresses listed in the phonebook for Newell Plumbing & Heating are in residential neighbourhoods. --] (]) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That is not unusual for a small business which does not need fancy offices. It is one of the types of businesses which is pretty much zoning-exempt. ] (]) 12:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::That is unusual for a business that SJW claimed was worth $250k. What business is worth $250k but has no office? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::I guess that would be based on your knowledge of small businesses then eh? Also, the picture policy on wikipedia is a joke, Any data is better then having nonexistent free data. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::Eh, well ... while I enjoy contributing photos to Misplaced Pages, I am '''not''' going to take a photo (]-style) of a man's ''house''! --] (]) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

*Try to contact Mr. Wuzelbacher in person to ask for a picture or just leave it alone. I don't see a need for an image of him. It is NOT a real BLP anyway.--] (]) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Tax lien redux ==

Including information about the tax lien while sourced does appear to be in contradction to our ] policy: ] "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability," Joe the Plumber is notable only for one thing - being discussed in the context of how tax policy would affect his ownership of a small business. His personal tax lien is completely irrellevant to what the candidates have been saying about "Joe the Plumber". -- ] 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:In that case the (Boston) tea party quote is irrelevant, and also should be removed under ]. There is '''no question''' that the lien is relevant to his quoted position there. — ] ] 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed -- ] 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::While I don't believe that his Boston Tea party quote is a BLP violation, I don't see that it adds much to the article either. I've no objections to its removal. ] (]) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::This is what I've thought all along so I definitely have no objections to the tax lien information being removed and his quote on taxation. --] (]) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I believe that the tax issue is relevant because Joe the Plumber has become synonomous with tax issues in the 2008 election. It is a documented fact that he not paid his taxes. Many people do not know about his unpaid taxes because it has not been covered much by the media. The reader can take that to mean whatever they want about his feelings about taxes in general.--~M 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Rainme <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::Misplaced Pages isn't an indiscriminate store for facts. Contributions have to be relevant to the subject's notability, and tax liens or opinions on taxation are irrelevant to JtP's notability. --] (]) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The Boston Tea Party/Taxation Without Representation quote is ''not'' a BLP violation, because it was given by JtP to a national audience. Moreover, it is important to leave it in this article, because it reveals JtP's ignorant antipathy to taxes in general by virtue of the fact that (other than felons and others who have been deprived of their right to vote) the only citizens of the United States who are actually victims of taxation without representation are citizens of the District of Columbia. JtP is a citizen of Ohio and a voter and is not a victim of taxation without representation. ] (]) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Unsourced material'''
The huge banner above this page is Template:Blp, template:Blp states:
:This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. '''Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.''' If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

] page at the very top of the article:

Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere ''strictly'' to all applicable laws in the ] and to all of our content policies, especially:

* ] (NPOV)
* ]
* ]

...Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Yet on the BLP noticeboard:

:The point is that verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion of material.--CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages is not the news. Not all information printed by the news is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. -- Amwestover (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority of people support the inclusion of this material, yet a handful of editors hold the article hostage.

Again, BLP was created because of ], to protect Misplaced Pages's reputation and from being sued. In this case there is no malicious lies at all. Joe is not going to sue wikipedia when we quote the ], no one is going to fault wikipedia for quoting this material.

] (]) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Well said, Inclusionist. I made the same argument at BLP/N, in response the duplicate discussion there. Note for the general audience: observe that "N" stands for "notice". That board is supposed to a place to leave ''notice'' to attract a wider participation in ''this'' discussion, not an alternate forum of debate for those that don't agree with the outcome on this talk page. That line of behavior is called ]. ] ] 11:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Reverted inclusion of this information. There is no evidence that consensus has been reached that this information is in any way related to Mr. W's claim to notability as "Joe the Plumber" -- ] 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: And I reverted you back because you obviously haven't understood the points above. ] ] 11:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I certainly have understood and completely disagree. His notatiblity resides solely in being used as an example of how tax policy would affect small business owners. His personal tax liens have no relavance to the fact that others have been using his hypothetical purchase of a buisness. While the basis for his notability and the tax lien both have the word "tax" in them, to say they are related is comeplete ]-- ] 12:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: My apologies. You seem to understand the concept of reliable sources when it comes to . In this case ABC, AP, WaPo and even Fox News seem to think that the tax lien is relevant to the topic "Joe the Plumber", so including this information is not original research on our behalf.
:::::: No Misplaced Pages article is limited to an enumeration of claims for notability. Notability has to exist for the article to be included in Misplaced Pages, but the article itself is not limited to such claims. See ]. ] ] 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::''As this section started out, I refer you again to: "]" This section of our BLP policy clearly is appliable here.''-- ] 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: The consensus at AfD and DRV was that he's notable for more than one even, otherwise the article would have been deleted per ]. Therefore, the above paragraph doesn't apply to this article. ] ] 13:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Correct. JtP is now a symbol of how tax policies under debate would affect small business owners. Not a vlaid subject for a full biography. ] (]) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Nope. His notability is because he drew attention to Obama's proposed tax changes. If you asked Obama about saving gas by keeping tire pressure up, would you think all your parking tickets should be printed in the paper because they are "Related"? Or that if you asked about immigration policy, that your genealogy should be inspected for any foreign ancestry? ] (]) 12:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
← Given the broad media coverage, he has become a ] public figure for his position on taxes, and the tax lien information is supported by multiple sources, so it belongs in the article. ] ] 12:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thre are several misinterpretations of Misplaced Pages policy here. '''If''' the tax lien were subject to ], ''then'' it should not be included in the article without a consensus that it did not violate ]. However, it seems clear to me that it is not subject to ]
:#We're not looking at reliable '''primary''' sources, as there are a number of reliable secondary sources that report the lien.
:#A good argument could be made that he's a public figure, not subject to BLP1E, and any relevant fact can be included. The tax lien is certainly relevant to the tax questions.
:#The lien is germane to his ''opinions'' on taxes, a number of which are still included in the article. The "toss the Brits out" quote is clearly ] without a reference to his actual tax sitution to the extent reported by reliable sources, and hence may also be a ] violation.
:And, the last time I checked ], there was a consensus for inclusion. — ] ] 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: (removed) ] (]) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I trust I misread your post. ] (]) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::How is the tax lein material relevant? I don't see consensus for inclusion. --] 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Inclusionist, that is '''blatant ]'''. People like you are the reason that this has gotten out of hand. --] (]) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

===Full protection===
Guys, please don't edit war about this. It's going to be fully protected soon. It's really not necessary; this kind of thing can be worked on the talk page. Really.

As for my two cents on the inclusion, I am fairly neutral. The information really should not have been made public by the media in the first place, though the cat may be out of the bag. But the kind of information I removed yesterday is silly (i.e., has a bad driving record). ] (]) 14:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: The press may be more restrained in France. ] ] 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

== Article fully protected for 55 hours ==

Hash it out here, guys. ] &#124; ] 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:We've already tried this, but there are multiple editors who are not exercising good faith and/or are unfamiliar with the consensus processes or even what consensus is. --] (]) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you? ] | ] 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The protected article is worst of all worlds -- it has the lien and not the tax quotes. ] (]) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Yes they protected ]. ] ] 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sure would've been nice if the protecting administrator abided by ] instead of applying the protection with zero context. --] (]) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Boy, I bet it would have been nice.... for you. ] &#124; ] 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, cuz you wouldn't want to exercise discretion when using Admin tools or anything... --] (]) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::As an admin also I'd like to support Tan here. He did what I would have done in the situation. Come along and protect the page as is. Using discretion leads to accusations of favoritism, corruption, you name it we get called it. Far better to simply protect the page as you find it. ] | ] 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a cop-out. If an admin's only role is to flip the switch with no regard for the situation, then whoever whines to the admin first wins. If discretion is explicitly not required then bots could do your guys' job. --] (]) 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think anyone will take it the wrong way; we'll take it exactly in the spirit that you meant it. ] &#124; ] 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks for the opinion, SmarterChild, but no thanks. My last comment was intended for someone with a pulse. --] (]) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::The whole reason there's this discussion is because we can't decide if it violates BLP or not. It's hardly fair to make one admin decide. &ndash; ] (]) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::<small>To me it is obvious (it should be to everyone), the page HAD to be frozen. Reviewing the history, some of the same items had been added, deleted, reverted and restored numerous times all within several hours. That's a disaster. What is worse, it was being done all by '''''folks who were involved in the discussion on THIS TALK PAGE'''''. You all should know better than that. This discussion isn't closed, and once the page is unfrozen, it STILL won't be closed.
:::::The point I'm trying to make is that, once the page is UNFROZEN, we will still all be trying very hard to come to an agreement on the issue of the tax lien information and its pertinence. That means we are expected not to mess with the page until such a time that there IS an agreement. Even a non-participant in this discussion should be able to see that this discussion has been going, and isn't resolved. In any case, consider this a request to, once the page has been UNFROZEN, bite your collective tongues, refrain from editing the page, and civilly continue this discussion to its resolution. Then AND ONLY THEN, should the item on the tax lien be altered.
:::::If things don't go according to my suggestion, I'm afraid what just happened a day ago will only be repeated, and we will only have ANOTHER freeze on our hands. No one truly wants that.
:::::'Nuff said. </small> --] (]) 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, Theresa, but not everything is black or white on Misplaced Pages and discussion is often warranted to clarify certain things, such as why this is a violation of the ] policy. Consensus is key in order to prevent edit warring. But editors such as ] have openly stated that the supposed majority should overpower the supposed minority by reverting their edits. Not only is this blatant ] and circumvention of the consensus process, but it demonstrates bad faith and I simply can't trust or respect anyone on Misplaced Pages who exercises bad faith. Misplaced Pages disputes can only be resolved when everybody is acting in good faith, and since this is '''definitely''' not the case here, I think the only solution is to remove the dispute material and put full protection on the article until November 5. By then, hopefully everybody will have cooled down. --] (]) 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you?" Hello, this is the second editor to falsely say this:
:]
::If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is proposed to be significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article; this should be considered case-by-case. In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV. In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.
::New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

My big question Theresa knott and Arzel, if consensus doesn't decide BLP issues, who does? Well of course! Theresa knott and Arzel will decide consensus for us! ] (]) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:No the policy page will do it. I keep citing that page. It's there for a reason.I note that you quote part of it but fail to understand what it is saying. ] | ] 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: ]. ] ] 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::@People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." ] | ] 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Joe is not a NPF anymore but a ], i.e. someone who ''thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved'', and he's doing his best to become less limited — he doesn't mind running for Congress, turns down no interview, etc. ] ] 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
'''Tax Lien: Omit''' I believe that the tax lien does not belong in this article because (1) it violates ] (2) it sheds no light on JtP's truthfulness and law-abiding-ness (3) it is not an encyclopedic fact but more analogous to a parking ticket. I have offered numerous reasons on this page why the tax lien could have occurred without his knowledge and why the tax lien could have occurred without his intent to underpay tax. None of my reasons have been rebutted except by appeal to authorities who are either at a different level of government (federal vs. state) or represent another state (California vs. Ohio) or in other ways are not relevant authorities. Meanwhile, an authority who actually works in a relevant department in Ohio has been quoted in the media asserting that JtP almost certainly did not know about the lien. Also, it has been noted that, now that JtP is aware of the lien, he is making arrangements to pay the amount owed. Furthermore, I did a survey a few days ago of the comments on this topic and reported the results on this page, showing that a majority agreed that the tax lien does not belong in this article.

'''Taxation without Representation: Include''' I believe that JtP's comment on taxation with representation does belong in this article because it was a statement he actually made to a national audience and it adds depth to understanding JtP and his views on taxation. To be blunt, the comment was ignorant or stupid, because citizens of the 50 states are represented in the House and Senate (citizens of the District of Columbia have no senators and a non-voting delagate in the House of Representatives.) Too bad for JtP that he said this stupid thing, but he did, and it is encyclopedic about who JtP has become since encountering Barack Obama, so it stays in.

''' Lien unrelated to Taxation without Representation''' One commenter, Arthur Rubin, has repeatedly asserted that the tax lien must go in if JtP's views on taxation go in. I have repeatedly challenged whatever arguments have been proposed to support this theory, and I believe that the theory remains unsupported by anything but flimsy speculation at best. ] (]) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Where does it violate ]? There are three guidelines for removing information. ]. Which one does the tax information violate? ] (]) 00:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

== absurd number of cites which were not independent in research ==

The tax lien claim is follewed by a slew of cites -- almost all of which can be traced back to one or two cites. Usage of massive cites for one claim is contrary to WP policy. One is sufficient. A dozen is ludicrous. ] (]) 16:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Which policy is it violating? &ndash; ] (]) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::Who cares! Collect is right] | ] 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::He may be, but I doubt there's a policy that determines how many citations are allowed. It looks ugly that's for sure. &ndash; ] (]) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: The reason for that ridiculous amount of references for one statement is that the previous versions with (a lot) fewer references constantly got reverted. ] ] 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::The version with the fewer references was constantly reverted because it was a violation of ] and there still wasn't consensus on the matter. The newer over-referenced version still suffers from the same problem. --] (]) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Repeatedly claiming that it is a violation doesn't make it one. See ]. ] ] 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Surely you meant to link to this policy: ]. And likewise, claiming that there's consensus when their isn't doesn't mean there's consensus. --] (]) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your civility, and I agree with everything else you said. Thanks! ] (]) 16:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit of a neutral party when it comes to the Tax lien issue and I am not convinced it need to be included or not, but I am curious how those who claim it is a ] violation claim this. It seems to me that this tax lien claim is very well sourced, so it is not conjecture or fiction but rather well cited. So- how is it a BLP violation? ] (]) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Just because it is citable doesn't make it noteworthy. We should always be cautious with adding possibly contentious stuff on BLPs. &ndash; ] (]) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::That's not answering the question. My question is, very clearly- how does including information on Joe's tax lien with many reliable sources violate ]. ] (]) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::See . &ndash; ] (]) 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Personally I am claiming it is BLP because it is potentially harmful (as is much of the other stuff in the article) yet is irrelevant. As I already stated BLP instructs us "It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bit this is a titillating claim as he is not some kind of tax lobbiest or political figure. He is an ordinary guy of the street, not a public figure and we should not be airing his dirty laundry. ] | ] 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::Well, it is nice to see some honesty on wikipedia for a change. Wikipolicy and all of those acronyms really don't matter unless it supports your own "right" POV. ] (]) 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think you understand what i meant by that comment one little bit. ] | ] 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote ]:

:"Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, '''unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.'''

:"Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the ]. See also ]."

:"Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."

It is really simple. Can we please quit, obfuscating this issue with wiki-lawyering and misused acronyms. ] (]) 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::You are quoting a section that explains what is and is not an acceptable source. I am argiung that even though the sources are good. The material should not be included because it violates this guy's right to privacy. So the above is meaningless to the debate at hand. ] | ] 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Given this is a widely known fact, covered in the national media, and discussed ] on these talk pages, how exactly are we violating his privacy? ] (]) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Just because the press is violating it, doesn't mean we have to. &ndash; ] (]) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::The press is fleeting. Todays news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers. A Misplaced Pages article isn't. ] | ] 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I disagree, Misplaced Pages is lot more dynamic than the press. Try to edit a NYT article after it's been published. If in a year (or 10) someone did a google search on "Joe the Plumber", they would get the mass of article that talk about the lien, with or without inclusion in Misplaced Pages. We are not the only source of information on the internet.] (]) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You appear to be saying that it's OK for us to include it now because we'll change it later? ] | ] 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Tell me what this looks like: "There is a judgement lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of income taxes. Barb Loisie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, explains that "there is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien." ". "^ "Joe the Plumber Takes Center Stage at Final Presidential Debate", ABC News, October 16, 2008
^ Abrams, Rhonda (October 24 2008). "Strategies: Going beyond 'Joe the Plumber'". USA Today.
^ Rockwell, Lew (October 23 2008). "Presidential Election 2008: Joe the outlaw". Small Government Times. " And yet taxes are also close to Joe’s heart because it also turns out that he is delinquent on his property taxes, which are similarly too high and similarly unjust. The Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid."
^ Seewer, John (October 16 2008). "Is 'Joe the Plumber' a plumber? That's debatable". Associated Press. " Wurzelbacher owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax, according to Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. In January 2007, Ohio's Department of Taxation filed a claim on his property until he pays the debt, according to the records. The lien remains active."
^ "Joe’s cup is running over — with scrutiny" (October 16 2008). Wall Street Journal. "Various news outlets are reporting that records indicate Wurzelbacher is not licensed as a plumber, and that he has a tax lien pending against him for $1,182.92. "
^ Guzman, Monica (October 16 2008). "The real 'Joe the Plumber'". tle Post Intelligencer. "Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't have a plumber's license and has a tax lien on his house. He probably wouldn't want that broadcast to his neighbors. Now, just because he asked Barack Obama about taxes, it's been broadcast to the whole world."
^ Donmoyer, Ryan J. (October 16 2008). "`Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic, Owes Taxes". Bloomberg.
^ Goodspeed, Peter (October 16 2008). "Spotlight gets old fast for 'Joe the Plumber'". National Post (Canada).
^ Tapper, Jake (October 16 2008). "McCain Planning to Spend Time With ‘Joe the Plumber’". ABC News.
^ Breitbart, Andrew (October 20 2008). "Plumber Joe vs. Brawler Josh". Washington Times.
^ Ibanga, Imaeyen (October 16 2008). "America's Overnight Sensation Joe the Plumber Owes $1,200 in Taxes". ABC News.
^ a b Cauchon, Dennis (October 16 2008). "Press vets 'Joe the Plumber' after last debate". USA Today.
^ Barnes, Robert (October 15 2008). "Joe the Plumber: Not a Licensed Plumber". Washington Post.
^ Barnes, Robert (October 17 2008). "After Debate, Glare Of Media Hits Joe". CBS News.
^ "Profile: Joe Wurzelbacher" (October 17 2008). BBC.
^ "'Joe the plumber' isn’t licensed" (October 16 2008). Toledo Blade.
^ "G-4801 -LN-200701803-000". Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas (January 26 2007). Retrieved on 2008-05-05. " Including OR from actual court records (a primary source) and quotes which, by consensus, were not deemed proper in the article (Rockwell). Including inferences about his neighbors. A mass of material which is not even argued for by those who want the lien in this article. All, IMHO, improper, not fit for BLP, OR, SYNTH and Ossa on Pelion. ] (]) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:], since you will , , regardless of how many sites are there, the "One is sufficient" statement is dubious. I didn't add all of those citations to try to convince you, I added all those citations to show how ridiculous and marginalized your position is to everyone else.
:As I wrote above to you:
::The absurd number of references were added after an absurdly small handful of editors decided that they knew what news was better than the entire Western journalistic world, and continued to delete all references to the tax lien. ] you were one of those choosen editors who know more what is news than the ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., etc., etc., etc. To name only a couple out of hundreds of news and television organizations.
:] (]) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::One -- thank you for the personal insult. Two -- deeting when one is actively seeking consensus AS WE WERE is part of the process. Three -- juvenile behavior which you admit to is not part of rational WP consensus seeking. Fourth -- I am not the New York Times, but I know WP rules and procedures at this point, and deliberately putting gas on a fire is not going to work. ] (]) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages isn't about news. We are an encyclopedia. So what papers decide to include isn't necessarily the same as what we include. Do you agree that the number of references is too large at the moment. Yes or no? ] | ] 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Where one single ref from ABCNews covers the entirety of the tax lien section, having an additional 16, many of which add absolutely nothing, is absurd. ] (]) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::It is very juvenile and petty to have that many references, it is pratically screaming "Joe owes taxes!". Grow up. ] (]) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Speaking of , you are treading pretty close to incivility here. ] &#124; ] 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Hey, I am trying to uphold the basic tenents of ], just exactly what are you trying to do? ] (]) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::He's trying to stop an edit war. Stop attacking him please. ] | ] 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's okay, TK, we've moved his attacks to my talk page now. ] &#124; ] 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Under a different set of circumstances - one where the issue with the tax lien was not well known or reported - I'd agree that this was a BLP/privacy issue. But that's not this particular set of circumstances. Here we are just encyclopedically documenting what's already out there. There's no privacy - as far as this issue is concerned - to be violated here. Furthermore, any arguments that the information is "irrelevant" are obviously specious as the notability and prominence of JtP has to do with tax issues.] (]) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Every notice when a person's rational argument collapses, they start personal insults? Collect, Theresa knott, and Arzel have had the legs kicked right out from under them. ] doesn't support their deletions in fact it contradicts pretty much everything they say.
:Some editors here are throwing out every acronym they can imagine to justify the deletion. Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues.<span id="consensus"><span>
:{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!align=left| This is despite what the BLP clearly page says
|-
| ]: "If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is proposed to be significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article; this should be considered case-by-case."

]: New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources.
|}
:...Even other deletion editors who support their views say consensus is needed.] (]) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yet more bad faith from Inclusionist, what a surprise. Do you think we don't know how to click on links or something? The FIRST paragraph in '''Restoring deleted content''':
::<blockquote><i>In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.</i></blockquote>
::<s>I mean how stupid could you be?</s> You linked <b><i>right to</i></b> the part of the policy which states that the burden is on the restorer of content. The reason there are personal insults hurled your way is because you're a bane to the Misplaced Pages community. Seriously, go find something else to do with your time. --] (]) 02:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Please, remain civil. The reason you are having personal insults thrown your way is...oh, wait, Misplaced Pages specifically forbids personal insults like "how stupid can you be". Make your points in a more appropriate manner, and '''respect''' other editors. ] (]) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I do not respect editors who blatantly admit their bad faith, as Inclusionist has. They are a bane to the Misplaced Pages community. Since he's admitted his bad faith I've stopped responding to any of his comments and remove any content he puts on my user page since the opinions of editors acting in bad faith are unimportant to me; but I just couldn't resist pointing out how he linked to policy which shatters his argument. It was just way too tempting. --] (]) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::If you don't rrespect other editors, then you should find a forum other than Misplaced Pages to post your thoughts. Civility is a requirement for participation here. There are many blogs on the internet where it is not required. ] (]) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Still, be the better man, err...editor or whatever. Though I certainly do not doubt your intentions at all, you are only trying to improve the article. ] (]) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I striked the personal attack. I stand by everything else I said. --] (]) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with others who request that, until the question of whether the tax lien is in or out, there should be exactly one reference, and I agree with others who suggest keeping just the first one, from ABC News, and deleting all of the others. As I understand it, even the person who put in all the excess references acknowledges that this was not done for "encyclopedic" purposes, but just to discourage deletion of the tax lien section. So, I hope that we can all agree to keep just the ABC news reference and remove all of the others, pending resolution of whether the tax lien section is in or out. ] (]) 06:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

== This article should be deleted ==

See headline. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Or merged with the election one? ] | ] 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agree with Theresa. It would be bad to remove it completely, but seems quite notable to include on the election page. It really doesn't deserve its own article, and since its creation has caused nothing but trouble. &ndash; ] (]) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::Already proposed for deletion, and kept quickly. ] (]) 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually it appears it was speedy redirected See ]. I wonder why that was undone? ] | ] 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I think there was a DRV somewhere. &ndash; ] (]) 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article was created as "Joseph Wurzelbacher" after the first AfD for "Joe the Plumber" closed as a redirect on October 16th. The article immediately went to ] which closed as "Keep for now", and that keep was endorsed at ]. The article was renamed to "Joe the Plumber" on October 20th after unanimous consensus to do so on the article talk page while the DRV was in progress, which of course overwrote the redirect. An article causing trouble is not great grounds for deletion, otherwise there would be many contentious articles removed from WP, including many political, religious, and sexuality ones. — ] (]) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:Except this one has been contentious from the beginning, and is borderline notable. &ndash; ] (]) 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I disagree. Given, I'll defer to the knowledge of more experienced Misplaced Pages editors, but this man has become internationally known (if not renowned). Secondly, the mere fact that this man has become a magnetic topic for quite a slew of editors who seem to be unable to resist editing topics (even before discussion has been resolved whether or not to even include or exclude them) on this page shows that the person has achieved an unignorable facet of notoriety at least among Misplaced Pages editors. Third, the page itself has gotten national media attention, and I'll wager is getting hits from websurfers from all walks of life on a continual basis. Perhaps the three foregoing observations are reasons enough to prevent the page from being deleted? --] (]) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Being talked about extensively in every single post-debate speech by the Republican presidential candidate, his running mate, and frequently discussed by the Democratic candidate is an extremely high degree of notability, witnessed by tens of thousands of newspaper articles. ] (]) 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. He has become an infamous election phenomenon on par with Dukakis' tank shot or Bush I's "Read my lips". The fact that he, as a person, is completely lacking in notability is irrelevant; in fact, this combined with his delusions of immanent wealth and refusal to understand Obama's tax policy has made him a perfect personification of American Conservatives' myopic deification of this "bitter self-made man" archetype. If you're going to challenge his notability, the exact same argument can be made for ]. But in the end wikipedia has an obligation to document notable individuals, even if they in no way "deserve" to be famous. Oh, and no one is impressed by belligerent attempts at article deletion. Despite the unfortunate trend that has been underway for some time here, taking a hatchet to wikipedia's article count is no way to earn wiki-street cred. Peace. ] (]) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher considering a run for congress ==

See . Can we please give up the notion that this individual is at all attempting to be a private figure or that he is of limited notability about a specific event? ] (]) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:He was approached and asked to do it was he not? He's flattered, his foolish pride doesn't make him notable. Of course if he actually runs then that's a different matter, but let's not jump the gun just yet a while. ] | ] 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: BLP is not an excuse for paternalism. Just because we are Misplaced Pages editors it is not an excuse for us to assume that we have a better idea about what is good for Wurzelbacher than what he does. Calling it "foolish pride" is frankly condescending to Wurzelbacher and unjustified. ] (]) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Fair point, but my main argument remains. He isn't actually running for congress yet. So it's premature to treat him as a public figure. ] | ] 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Ok, he probably isn't a public figure in the most general sense of the word but he's certainly at this point made it very clear that he isn't trying to be a private figure and he's definitely continuing to give interviews. At very minimum he's a ] and we should keep that in mind for what information we put in the article and whether we have any sort of obligation out of BLP to merge this with anything else. ] (]) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:] :( --] (]) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Oh for crying out loud. Just because something is called a blog doesn't make it a blog for RS purposes. Note for example how The New York Times has "blogs" which are completely reliable sources. That's now what we mean by "blog" and you should know that by now. The Hill and its constituent parts even the parts they choose to label "blogs" are perfectly ]. Moreover, he said it on Laura Ingraham's show which is a reliable source. And if you really want to be stubborn about this see for example . ] (]) 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Blogs should not be used as sources. Often blogs include links to their source material, and <i>that's</i> what should be cited. Many reputable media sources have blogs, but their main purpose is for user comment or editor opinion amongst other things, not necessarily news. If it is to include quick tidbits about the news, often there is a corresponding article which is usually linked as well. --] (]) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::User:JoshuaZ, there is no point. They will argue what the definiton of "is" is.
::::You have been here long enough on wikipedia to see this.
::::An even more reputible source will pick this up, and Amwestover will still be arguing.
::::The blog is quoting the show, the clip can be found on the joewurzelbacher2010 page, middle of the page. Any guess whether this will change anything? ] (]) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The story has hit the big league: ; . <font color="404040">]</font> 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
:To the folks that have drawn a line between public figures and private citizens, does his stated intention to consider running for office suffice? If not, when?23:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::No, and when he actually runs. If he does that I will consider him a public figure and reverse my opinion. ] | ] 06:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
He is clearly a public figure, by his own choice and actions. Joe is seeking to extend and expand his present notability. The New York Times says he "is fast becoming a brand" and that Wurzelbacher has "signed a management deal meant to keep him in the public eye." The article says he might seek to be an "inspirational speaker" or an endorser of commercial products . No shrinking violet here who seeks his privacy. Seems as much an intentional celebrity as, say Paris Hilton. ] (]) 04:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Question for those who want to delete the tax lien information ==

# How does the tax lien information violate ]?
# ] lists three criteria for inclusion ], which rules does the tax lien information violate?
# Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues. But the BLP page contradicts this ] So do we determine BLP issues by consensus?
# In response to a question "Which policy is violating?" Theresa Knotts wrote "Who cares! Collect is right", what did Theresa Knotts mean by this? ] (]) 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::The tax lein is not noteworthy. If you want to include it in a criticism or commentary on how the media has sought to discredit this man, I am all for it. Those facts are not anywhere in the article. I would also include that some in the media have gone so far as accuse him of not using his "real name". This article is very factual, but not complete. There should be a section criticising the media for its actions on reporting trivialities in efforts to slander this man. Here are some references:
::* http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/17/feeling-plumber-fatigue-media-turns-joe/
::* http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200810170006?show=1
::* http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct19/0,4670,JoethePlumberMedia,00.html
::* http://www.knx1070.com/-Joe-the-Plumber--strikes-back-at-media/3163348
::] (]) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Bytebear, I warmly welcome your contributions when this article is unprotected, I agree "There should be a section criticising the media for its actions". I think what you have to say has merit, and I will support any inclusion from sources such as foxnews and other well established sources. I can help you find any sources for any of your inclusions. ] (]) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1) From BLP "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability" as I have already stated

2) Irrelevant, see my anser to #1

3) Yes and no. It's certainly not decidable by a majority vote

4)''Collect'' claimed that having a ridiculous number of citations is against policy,''How do you turn this on'' questioned which policy that was, My comment "Who cares? Collect is right meant 'I think collect is probably wrong about it being explicitly written down somewhere but who cares? We don't generally right down ridiculous examples in policy because that would be stupid. Collect is right about there being far too many references for one undisputed statement let's concentrate on that fact and not worry about it" But it's old hat now anyways because the excessive refs have been removed. ] | ] 00:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:''From BLP: "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability"''
::Regarding 1, again, the ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and hundreds of journalists seemed to find the tax lien information very "relevant to their notability". BLP repeatedly mentions "references" when it talks about "relevance". In BLP, Relevance and references go hand in hand. Otherwise editors have no way to determine what is relevant and what is not. Then, as seen here, editors could delete anything they wanted to arguing "relevance". The way you interpret BLP, ignoring references, gives editors no guidance on how to gauge relevancy.
:Two ''is'' relevant, because it is the litmus test of what should be in the article. This information exceeds all requirements for ]
:3: Thanks for clarifying.
:I am not sure what you are saying in 4, after reading it over and over. It is really not important either way, compared to the other questions. ] (]) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::No I disagree about point two. It states what ''can'' go in an article, not what ''should'' go in an article as you stated. Anything that breaks any of the three rules absolutely cannot go in an article, but that does not mean that it necessarily should if it passes them. The tax lien IMO is not relevant to his notability, so should no go in the article because of my first point irrespective of the fact that it does not break any of the pules mentioned in point two. ] | ] 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== discuss content not contributor ==

(removed) In the spirit of focusing on the article, not the editors. ] (]) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:Please discuss content not contributor. Your question number 1 has been answered numerable times. Mr. W is ]: being used as an example in the debate and afterwards as an indicator of how income tax policy would affect small business owners. When people are notable for only one event, we concentrate solely on the event and not the person. Mr. W.'s previous non-income and non-small business tax liens are in no way related to the fact that he has been used as an example by the presidential candidates and therefore are not germaine to the event. 2) and 3) are aslo covered by that and number 4 is ] - the excessive inclusion of sources is such that it carries the implication of guilt. -- ] 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::''Mr. W is ]''
::Can you cite specific policy?
::''Mr. W.'s previous non-income and non-small business tax liens are in no way related to the fact that he has been used as an example by the presidential candidates and therefore are not germaine to the event.''<span id="relevance"></span>
::{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!align=left| Here is what ] mentions about relevance:
|-
|
*]: The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable ] have published about the subject and, ], what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have ]. Instead, '''relevant''' sourced claims should be woven into the article.
*]: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is '''relevant''' to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
*]: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is '''relevant''' to an ''encyclopedia'' article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include ] and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
*] Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, 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 ].)'
|}

::There is a common thread in all of these passages: Every passage about relevance talks about reliable sources on the subject. The entire ] article talks about reliable sources.
::'''Nearly the entire Western journalistic world agrees that this is relevant, Hundreds of journalist in the most prestigious news organizations.''' Red, your views are in the small minority, both here on wikipedia, and in throughout the world.

::''2) and 3) are aslo covered by that'' no, they are not. Editors claim consensus is not necessary, and ] does. Please cite policy.

::''number 4 is ]'' I am quoting an editor. When an editor says the don't care about what policy, that is troubling. (removed as per above)
::''the excessive inclusion of sources is such that it carries the implication of guilt.'' This makes no sense.
::] (]) 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::It is getting harder to assume good faith when you are apparently not even reviewing the wikilinks included, but since you asked:
::::Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

::::If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our ] policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. '''Cover the event, not the person.''' {{unsigned|TheRedPenOfDoom}}
::::Purpose of the above? ] (]) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::"Lets please focus on wikipolicy." Looking forward to your response to my four questions.] (]) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Looks like your main accusation is against ]? Have you posted on her talk page? ] (]) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Often in edit wars taking the argument to an editors talk page makes tensions worse. Now that I have removed this section, lets focus on the article. I have a thick skin, and have been called, much much worse on wikipedia. ] (]) 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: (ec many) I'm afraid I agree with Inclusionist; perhaps because I'm an admin, people aren't accusing me of bad faith, but the arguments above are ''not'' accurate.
:::::::: If he were ], then ''only'' statements related to that event should be included. This clearly excludes any statements he made to reporters, and the tax liens, the question of whether his license actually allows him to work or would allow him to buy the business, or, in fact, whether he possibly ''could'' buy the business, would be irrelevant. But I don't think that's the case, any more. The fact that he's seeking publicity seems to take him out of that mode. However, at the very least, facts about him which ''legitimately'' attack his credibility should be allowable, if his statements (as opposed to questions) are to be included. The tax lien, whether or not he's aware of it, discredits his basic knowledge of taxes (even if his statements on taxes didn't do so).
:::::::: I quite agree that the multiplicity of sources is unnecessary, but I can't really blame Inclusionist for that mistake. The claim being made by the exclusionists here is that the content is not relevant, rather than the source not being a reliable ''secondary'' source, making it '''clearly''' allowable under ], if not excluded under ]. — ] ] 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: And BLP does override consensus, in a sense; to include material clearly subject to BLP, there has to be a clear consensus that the material is '''not''' excluded by BLP for it to be included. That doesn't apply to the tax lien, as it's ''not'' clearly subject to BLP. It does apply to the other lien and his driving problems. — ] ] 23:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Since when is someone who questions a candidate about the effects of their tax policy on small businesses subject to a "credibility" check? Since when are we attempting to use Mr. W. as tax policy analyst whose "credibility" would be a concern? The problem is that this article is still structured as if "Joe the Plumber" is a specific individual. It is not. It is an event. True, the event was sparked by one individual's question, and true that the fact that the media have done massive investigations of Mr. W. are vital parts of the "Joe the Plumber" event. But that is how these concerns should be addressed, through a re-structuring of the article -not by laying out all the facts of Mr. W.'s life. -- ] 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Red wrote: "getting harder to assume good faith" Enough with the good faith, bad faith okay? Please stop assuming I have or have not read a policy page.
::::::::::Again, please, enough pointing fingers at my alleged NPA violations and ignoring those who support your POV.
::::::::::Lets focus on the policy.
::::::::::Red mentioned: ]
::::::::::As I wrote above, this entire section of ] is talking about an article about an individual. This article has gone through a 3 deletion requests and a deletion review, the community decided to keep. So this section irrelevant to tax lien information.
::::::::::Red wrote: ''Since when is someone who questions a candidate about the effects of their tax policy on small businesses subject to a "credibility" check?''
::::::::::Why not write the journalists at ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc, etc. These hundreds of journalists seemed to find it very relevant.
::::::::::Bytebear, above, had a great idea:
:::::::::::'''Why not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds. '''
::::::::::This way Red, your concerns and views are reflected in this article too.
::::::::::Again, does the tax line information meet the three BLP requirements for inclusion? ] ] (]) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::<s>When you ask for which policy supports the posistion when it has been linked to an summarized any number of times and you yourself have included the link to the policy in your request, it is indeed proper to ask if you are editing in good faith.</s>
:::::::::::] and the number of journalists writing on a topic does not validate that it is an encyclopedic topic. -- ] 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<--
I would be satisfied with the tax lien being removed, '''provided''' that none of Joe's statements outside the questions he asked Obama were included. The tax lien is '''clearly''' relevant to his opinions on taxes, even if he didn't know about it (which is also doubtful, but maybe the Ohio Department of Revenue files liens without first telling the person that he owes taxes.) The lien is clearly adequately '''sourced''' from '''secondary''' sources, so there is no ''plausible'' reason for excluding it if '''any''' of Joe's statements are included. (I don't think BLP1E applies, so there would be no reason to exclude the material, but I'm not as certain as to that.) — ] ] 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:Putting the word ''clearly'' in boldface does not make the verb it modifies any more correct. I have posted numerous times to this page clear and cogent reasons why the tax lien is ''not'' relevant to JtP's opinions on taxes or any other issue, and my arguments have never been rebutted, certainly not by Arthur Rubin. Based on what we originally knew, the tax lien could have been a clerical error, although that now seems unlikely since apparently JtP is making arrangements to pay the amount. Even if we know that the lien was not an error, there are numerous ways that JtP could have not known of its existence, and if it's true that he's making arrangements to pay the lien now (that the lien has been publicized in the media) that supports the theory that he didn't know. Arthur Rubin asserts that even if JtP didn't know about the lien, it is still ''clearly'' (?) relevant to his opinions on taxes, but he gives no reason why this is ''clearly'' so. Suppose I were in the local news media arguing that there are too many stop signs in my home town. And suppose it were discovered that I were late paying my vehicle registration tax. What relevance would my late vehicle registration tax have on my opinion that there are too many stop signs, whether I knowingly or unknowingly was late with my vehicle registration tax? ] (]) 09:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::I don't see a credible argument, here or above, how I anyone who knows what a tax lien ''is'' wouldn't think it relevant to his opinions on taxes. Of course, if his opinions on taxes (including Social Security) were excised from the article, then the lien would no longer be relevant to that, and would only be appropriate, under ], if he's a ]. I ''believe'' he is, but that's subject to argument. — ] ] 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Dear Arthur: ''I'' know what a tax lien is and ''I'' don't think it is relevant to his opinions on taxes. I presume good faith on the part of JtP. I presume that he intended to be law-abiding, but somehow he made an unintentional error and wrote the wrong amount on his tax check, or mailed it to the wrong address, or in some other way, unintentionally underpaid a tax. In the absence of proof that he intentionally underpaid, he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. For the benefit of those of us whose minds think in smaller steps than yours, would you please, at long last, give us step-by-step reasoning that shows why the existence of the tax lien is relevant to his opinions on taxes? Love, ] (]) 17:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) RE'''Why not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds. ''' I think this may be approaching a place where we (or some of we) can agree. I am sorry I did not fully read this earlier. I would frame it more as a section that looks at how all the media approached Mr. W's private life which can include Fox's criticism of those approaches. -- ] 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Whilst I'm not entirely comfortable about this I would be willing to go along with it with respect to the tax lien in order to achieve some stability in the article. I suspect that many of our views are likley to change one the election is over, or he actualy decides to run for political office. However we would need to be extremely careful because if we have a section on press smeers then we should not repeat those smeers all over again. The tax lein is one thing, but there is whole host of other stuff that should not go in. And how would we stop people from doing that? ] | ] 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::::(Attempt to point out that ] is wrong suppresed. He is wrong, but I don't want to go into detail as to why he's wrong, as that would necessarily comment on ''his'' personal beliefs, which is not subject to discussion here. Suffice it to say that tax preparers, IRS employees, and even a few different species of ] on one of the boards I monitor agree that the tax lien is relevant to his statements on taxes. No one outside of Misplaced Pages has stated it's not relevant.) I've given my reasoning before. Absent extrordinary conduct by the Ohio Department of Taxation, Joe would have recieved at least 4 letters ''reminding'' him of the taxes due, before the lien was filed, probably including a mailing to his previous address, if he had a typo on the address he used filing his last tax return. (That the lien is placed on the property suggests a letter was also mailed to the property address, but that's not proved ''beyond a reasonable doubt''.) The lien is strong evidence that those letters were sent; and that he owed income taxes, was aware of the fact, and had still not yet paid them. '''That''' is relevant to his stance on income taxes. It's a chain of reasoning, but each link is clear.
::::However, even under the most restrictive version of BLP, we don't need to demonstrate relevance; we only need demonstrate that the relevance is indicated by reliable sources.
::::As for Theresa's comment, if we could agree to keep ''relevant'' material in the article, there would be more of us able to remove ''irrelevant'' material without further argument. Personally, I don't see any way to include comments about how "the media has unfairly treated Joe", without going into details as to what that unfair treatment was, and without making ]-violating accusations against the mainstream reporters, but I'm willing to be convinced. — ] ] 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::"No one" has stated it is irrelevant? Um -- '''how many cites outside WP do you want?''' As for your source on Ohio practice -- so far you have '''not''' provided one. I had friends in college who liked "proof by repeated assertion" but I did not accept it then either. When the deputy clerk of court says there is a 99% chance Joe did not know, that, to me, is indicative of how things are handled in Ohio. Unless, of course, you come up with a solid source? ] (]) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I haven't seen a reference outside of Misplaced Pages stating it's not relevant. The assertion by '''a''' deputy clerk of the courthouse (possibly of the Court, but the sources seem to differ) that he almost certainly didn't know about the lien is irrelevant, as the question would be whether he knew of the underlying tax dispute indicated by the lien. And '''you''' have not preovided a reason why it's not relevant. "Proof by repeated assertion", indeed. — ] ] 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: Dear Arthur Rubin: I don't understand ''Anomalocaris is wrong suppresed''; what did you mean by that?

::::: Your statement ''He is wrong, but I don't want to go into detail as to why he's wrong, as that would necessarily comment on ''his'' personal beliefs, which is not subject to discussion here'' is unbelievably lame. On this page, I have given detailed reasons supporting the theory that the existence of the tax lien is irrelevant to his views on tax lien. I characterize your reasons as either appeals to personal authorities, which is not acceptable evidence here at Misplaced Pages, or mere assertion that it is ''clearly'' relevant. Kindly provide reasons that the tax lien is relevant to his views on taxation, without appealing to personal authorities and without simply declaring that this is ''clearly'' so. Note: I ask this ] but because I really, truly wish to understand your argument, and I believe others want to understand it too.

::::: In the past, you have claimed that in California, the taxpayer is sent at least four notices before the lien is imposed. I do not believe you have ever provided evidence that the same is true in Ohio. If you have such evidence, from a ], please provide it.

::::: Contrary to your assertion, I have provided ''numerous'' reasons why we cannot be sure that the tax lien is relevant to his views on his taxation. They are all over this page (and possibly its archives). Just search for my name and you will find my reasons. Sincerely, ] (]) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I did not read this whole page of discussion on ], but the question of his tax lien caught my attention. He was aware of his tax lien, which was filed by the Ohio Dept of Taxation. I am sure he had ample time to make other arrangements before the state filed a suit against him. The court case was held in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on January 26 2007 case no. G-4801-LN -200701803-000. This information is available to anyone with access to the internet.(As is all public records on anyone, scary, but true. ) It is a reliable source and not a biased point of view. Whether to include or not is left up to all of you. Happy editing! Peace <span style="color:#62eee6;font-weight:light;font-size:light;font-family: Jokerman;">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Acknowledge Here that We Need to Abstain From Editing ==

<BIG>''THE UNRESOLVED CONTROVERSIES UNTIL DISCUSSION

''ON THESE MATTERS ARE CLOSED</BIG>

'''TO AVOID THE PAGE BEING FROZEN AGAIN:'''
This refers to the information on tax liens. We aren't likely to resolve this soon enough to avoid another edit war. In retrospect of what happened the last two times the page was frozen, I am asking all participants in this discussion to abstain from editing the page as much as possible until we have resolved our differences to a suitable level of agreement. This is going to be the only way we can avoid having a repetition of the situation we have now. I know we're all aware of why the page is frozen now. I hope you will all follow me in making here a difficult, but necessary pledge:

''''''I promise not to edit the page until we have resolved the issue of the tax lien information.''''''

Whether you decide to follow my lead in this or not, whatever my stance on this, I am making a pact with you all not to edit the page till there's a definite agreement here. Thanks in advance for your cooperation and your participation. I hope I get more of a response out of everyone than a bunch of crickets chirping. --] (]) 00:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The "lien" stuff should be removed pending real consensus. Anyone who removes current discussions should be ashamed. ] (]) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have though this through properly. Personally I'd be willing to state that I won't '''remove''' the tax lien from the page without consensus. But I'm not willing to state that i will not edit the article at all. If we all agreed to do that the page may as well be frozen. Editing, if done correctly, should consist of trying out alternative wordings, organising etc in the hope of getting to an acceptable compromise solution. ] | ] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think perhaps the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_limited_public_figures
:would be of interest. I suggest that if we were to follow the law which actually currently applies to many in WP and around the world, that a great many such controversies would be averted. ] (]) 13:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be following ] since there is still disputed material in the article:

<blockquote><i>In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.</i></blockquote>

It's very unambiguous and has been completely ignored throughout this entire dispute. If it remains off the <s>talk page</s> article until consensus is reached, maybe we'll actually get somewhere. But we have editors who are blatantly editing in bad faith, and re-asking questions when they don't like the answers, so I think we'll all be experiencing deja vu. --] (]) 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:Exactly. The tax lien is relevant to his opinions on taxes, as determined by the first poll; sourced to secondary sources (some of which report the primary source); and hence should be included, if any of his opionons on taxes are. I have no objection to the ''actual'' wording of ], but BLP does not support your proposed actions.
:If the article were to exclude all of his comments except the actual question to Obama, then the tax lien ''might'' be irrelevant. Otherwise, it's relevant, and excluding it is an ] violation.
:It seems the only ''particular'' version of the article which could get consensus is one on JtP the phenomenon, excluding all the information about the person. I could agree with that until the consensus for inclusion of the lien is established. — ] ] 19:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::This whole section seems moot. We ''resolved'' the tax lien question above in the first !vote, where the only arguments against inclusion were challenged, and consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion. None of the following polls or arguments (mostly requiring tourchered interpretations of ]) seem to be about that issue. — ] ] 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Hang on a minute the !vote further up this page has 10 for including and 7 for removing it. That does not like resolved to me! ] | ] 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Please forgive me, I have until now assumed that commenters use ''!vote'' to mean an individual vote against something. Is this correct? If not, please clarify what is meant by ''!vote''.

:::Arthur Rubin, please clarify where on this page a vote was conducted on the question of including the tax lien. A few days ago, I attempted to review comments on this subject; I summarized the results and I found if anything a preponderance leaning against it. (Amwestover had made a comment opposing including the tax lien and I counted Amwestover as an exclude vote; as far as I can tell, that was a correct analysis of Amwestover's opinion, but Amwestover crossed out his "vote".) I believe that the current preponderance of different commenters is still to exclude the tax lien, but I haven't tallied since my previous effort.

:::Also, please show how the poll on the question of the tax lien showed that people favored including the lien because of its purported relevance to his opinion on taxes, as opposed to including the lien for whatever other reason.

::: That the lien has been widely covered in the media is not under dispute; but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and its content should be encyclopedic. ] (]) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::::!Vote means "This is not a vote and you can't simply count numbers" It doesn;t mean a vote for no. ] | ] 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Why freeze the editing of the article when only one or two sections are under dispute? These sections should be marked with disputed tags and discussed on the talk page. Doing this would allow other sections, that are not under dispute, to be further constructed. I believe that this is important given the 24 hour news cycle and the amount of information and/or activities of Joe Wurzelbacher on which the media has been reporting during the past two days alone. Thanks. ] (]) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

: I would go along with an unfreeze of the article in general with a freeze on the tax lien (even though I believe the tax lien should be deleted). However, I am not aware of a process in Misplaced Pages that freezes only part of an article. Can we trust the Misplaced Pages community to voluntarily adhere to a section freeze? Also, I think there should be a strict time limit on such an honor-freeze, because (as I believe the lien does not belong) it should not be frozen with the lien for more than a limited time. ] (]) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== protection ==

The article is protected from editing. Edits should be made through protection ''only'' if a consensus for them has first been reached here on the talk page and then only by an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:Talk pages should not, in general , be protected. Did you mean the article or its talk page? The talk page is where anyone can discuss how the article can be improved. Unless there are exceptional reasons, such as recurrent ] violations, the protection should be lifted. ] (]) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::(ec) I meant the article - clarified. ] (]) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== Samuel should not have an auto license ==

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/128323
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Since Joe clearly make himself a public figure after the initial Obama question, the bar to BLP violations is somewhat lower than for a ] because of the available reliable sources. However, this new information violates even the somewhat less stringent ] requirements for a public figure. Defamatory or negative information about a person that has no <s>reasonable</s> direct connection with what he/she is notable for is inadmissible regardless. Even though he is a public figure, he still has the right to privacy and I very seriously doubt he gave informed consent to this level of scrutiny. If he actually runs for political office, that may be a different story as they know what they are buying into. This information cannot be added to the article. — ] (]) 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::On the ] discussion page, I proposed that WP should follow the increasing body of international law on privacy. This article is a '''poster child''' for such a policy clarification. ] (]) 13:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::Claimed non-payment of small amounts for some traffic fines and taxes hardly supports the wholly negative spin of the above post. Moreover, I'd want to see highly reliable sourcing (and more than one) before even a neutral mention of something like this went into a BLP. ] (]) 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:This is getting ridiculous. This is obvious smearing. --] (]) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*I strongly oppose including this in the article. It is completely irrelevant to the political topic the article is covering, and serves only to defame the subject - thus directly violating BLP. ] (]) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed. We've been over this. Last week. It's still up here on this page: ] I, too believe that it's irrelevant. I don't see how it's private (it seems to be of '''''public''''' record, not '''''private''''') but there is no connection to the topics covered in the article. I disagree that it's defamatory. How could the TRUTH ever be defamation??? --] (]) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering the ongoing consensus in this thread as well as the consensus achieved in the previous thread ], can we mark this issue as <nowiki>{{resolved}}</nowiki> and that it does not belong in the article based on clear consensus? In other words, isn't this a ] by now? — ] (]) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:I have to agree with the consensus above, there is no place for this information in the article. ] (]) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good move in removing the full text of the article. — ] (]) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== Shouldn't the article title be a real name? ==

I noticed this is discussed throughout the this talk page, but shouldn't ] be moved to ]? Yes, I know the man is known as "Joe the Plumber", but if someone types in "Joe the Plumber", it could just be redirected to "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher". That is the guy's real name. ] (]) 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:Nope; ]. Broadly, Misplaced Pages uses the most commonly-used English name of the subject. <font color="404040">]</font> 14:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:And it was done by overwhelming consensus. Not even close. ] (]) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:A consensus has already been built to name this article "Joe the Plumber". See ] to see the relevant discussion. ] (]) 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article about this subject has been named at various times:
#]
#]
#]
#] (current name)
It was the event, not the person, that was notable and there were ] concerns originally. Now Joe the Plumber is notable ''per se''. And in accordance with ] as pointed out above. Currently the other three names redirect to JtP. So the current title is the correct one, I believe, and the one supported by an unanimous consensus at the time it was moved. — ] (]) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:See also ] which personified women in blue collar jobs in defense plants in World War 2, as Joe the Plumber personifies the effects of tax policies on small business operators. "Rosie the Riveter was most closely associated with a real woman, Rose Will Monroe." But the jobs available to women was the issue and not the individual war worker. The presidential candidates are certainly not going on day after day because they are concerned about the effects of tax changes on this one single individual. ] (]) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:Very good example, Edison. And don't forget McCain's "Joe the Plumber Tour" bus campaign tour in Florida which even further strengthens the concept of JtP as a personification and ], rather than a bio about the person behind the JtP ] ]. — ] (]) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::I back this proposal/approach as well. -- ] 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::In today's McCain ads on TV , there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual. ] (]) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::The meme "Joe the plumber" predates this campaign. See Google News archive "IN THE END, DECISIONS, DECISIONS- Philadelphia Inquirer - NewsBank - Nov 11, 1984: "It did please her husband, Joe the plumber, an unabashed fan who views the President as a paragon of the bold and manly American ideals that Joe esteems...", "Arizona Daily Sun - February 5, 1973, Flagstaff, Arizona: "If anybody told Joe the Plumber that he couldn't split a 6-pack with his old pal Jake the Barber...", "Chronicle Telegram - December 11, 1972, Elyria, Ohio: ".. for people like Joe the plumber so he can afford a driven limousine and have some fun.", "News Journal - August 12, 1965, Mansfield, Ohio: "When last heard from Joe the plumber was giving lectures to anyone who would listen and displaying his two remaining pancakes as proof of his veracity.", "The President's Neck," Deseret News - Google News Archive - Jan 3, 1949: (about President Truman): "...the only time they worry about him is when he asks for the wheel of one of the White House cars, and starts passing trucks on blind hills, just like Joe the plumber out for a Sunday spin with the kids and the old lady.", "The Vidette-Messenger, December 21, 1948, Valparaiso: "So did a few others when it became apparent that the small plane business wasn't going to develop. Joe the plumber just wasn't going to latch onto one to take the wife and kids for a Sunday spin." Thus the meme "Joe the Plumber long predates Wurgelwitz first picking up a pipe wrench, with or without a license. ] (]) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Suggested breakthrough compromise ==

] proposed:
:"If you want to include in a criticism or commentary on how the media has sought to discredit this man, I am all for it. Those facts are not anywhere in the article. I would also include that some in the media have gone so far as accuse him of not using his "real name". This article is very factual, but not complete. There should be a section criticising the media for its actions on reporting trivialities in efforts to slander this man." 20:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception:
*(undent) RE'''Why not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds. ''' I think this may be approaching a place where we (or some of we) can agree. I am sorry I did not fully read this earlier. I would frame it more as a section that looks at how all the media approached Mr. W's private life which can include Fox's criticism of those approaches. -- ] 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
*Whilst I'm not entirely comfortable about this I would be willing to go along with it with respect to the tax lien in order to achieve some stability in the article. I suspect that many of our views are likley to change one the election is over, or he actualy decides to run for political office. However we would need to be extremely careful because if we have a section on press smeers then we should not repeat those smeers all over again. The tax lein is one thing, but there is whole host of other stuff that should not go in. And how would we stop people from doing that? ] | ] 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::Inc -- can you '''avoid shifting bits and pieces of the Talk page around?''' I find it disconcerting at best. Thanks. It does not make discussing anything easier at all. This is not a "breakthrough compromise" by the way ] (]) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
:::He didn't really shift it. Just copied various responses to this section. ] | ] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*That's no "compromise": that's an NPOV-violating ideological attack on the press. Any reporter who didn't pursue this information would be failing to do her/his job. --] &#x007C; ] 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*I don't think it has any place in this article, but this may be a valid compromise. I also firmly disagree with Orangemike. The private citizen has a far greater weight than the press which has acted extrememly irresponsibly in this matter. ] (]) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*I think it's a fair commentary, but it focuses on the press. The focus of the topic is supposed to be Joe the Plumber. I don't actually object to it, in any case. If this goes through, I suggest some linking with the article on ] as well. Additionally, (as many of you most likely already know) I've always interpreted the tax lien info to be a matter of public record and fair game. --] (]) 03:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:Fair game for what? Taking the guy through the ringer? ] (]) 04:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::'''<small>Public record. All records that are public. Any public record. Public record is fair game for inclusion on any Misplaced Pages page. Any Misplaced Pages page. Any page on Misplaced Pages. All pages on Misplaced Pages consist of public information. Public knowledge. Public record. If it is public. </small>''' --] (]) 16:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I actually think it's fine to include the media context. McCain turned the man into political message. As such, Misplaced Pages can and should cover it. Of course we can include plaintive bleats of Fox News and others who are trying to add fuel to the fire. We can also include other media voices, including those feel it's legitimate coverage. Attempts to draw a hard line between BLP and writing about the "meme" (as others have put it) have made it easy for one side to obstruct the other. Arzel, if you think Joe the Plumber is about a private citizen, with special treatment that neither he, nor his promoters have sought, your putting him into a class that hasn't existed for weeks.] (]) 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
* The issue on the tax lein is not notable. There are tons of tax leins out there, and the only reason Joe's situation is magnified is to discredit him. If you are going to include something not noteworthy, and claim it is noteworthy, then you need to add the context of its noteworthiness. That is why you need to include media bias into this article. Hope that makese sense. ] (]) 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
: This has been discussed at length before. Take a look at the past efforts to delete this article, and when that didn't work, there was a whole lot of forum shopping with the same result (keep). There are many reasons differing groups have published the lien information, including some efforts to discredit him (and more specifically McCain's use of him). But that on it's own doesn't mean we should eliminate the fact. Keep in mind that McCain has developed a mythology around "Joe the Plumber" based on this guy and his opposition to paying more taxes and has continued to thrust Joe into the spotlight. McCain made him a political football, and his PUBLIC tax history is part of the political posturing. Fact finding on this topic is a natural, and relevant path which is why hundreds, if not thousands of news, information, and other outlets have reported on the lien.] (]) 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Plumbing career ==

I removed the section because i don't think it's relevant, he could easily have been an electrician, bricklayer or anything. The licensing issue is certainly likely to be damaging to any future plumbing career he might have so we need to be mindful of that. ] | ] 07:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:Mmm inclusion simply revered without explanation. So I've tried again this time only removing the licensing issue which is completely irrelevant and only brought out by his opponents in an attempt to discredit him. ] | ] 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this <b>fact</b> has been mentioned by both the associated press and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden(who said on ] that he wanted to "stick up for Joe the <i>real</i> plumber), trying to misguidedly censor it is ridiculous.

:Try getting a consensus for your opinion. Absent one, and absent an identity you will likely not get one, your opinion has little weight. Thanks! ] (]) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Hey! Don't be rude to IP editors. ] | ] 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I don't know about the full career, but the fact that he's unlicensed is relevant. To my knowledge, he's allowed to work in his capacity because he's under the supervision of a licesnse plumber. That would not be the case if he bought the business, per the framing of his question to Obama.] (]) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't see how that makes it relevant at all. His question is about the tax he would have to pay ''if'' he brought the business and ''if'' it made that much money. Since the question is hypothetical then so what if he would also require to register as a plumber? It's immaterial to his notability. ] | ] 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm surprised that you see no relevance here. His overstatement of his potential to buy and manage the business has become a major discussion point and provides context. McCain has based his campaign on the harm that Obama's policies would inflict on the person and the symbol of Joe The Plumber. The real person is in conflict with the myth that McCain has woven which is why it's in the news. ] (]) 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I agree that his overstatement of his potential to buy is probably relevant. It's the fact that he is unlicensed that I take issue with. ] | ] 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It's a matter of degree I suppose, and I think it's relevant - so we can agree to disagree.
It is of interest that Newell is a corporation. The owner of a corporation does not need a plumbing license, and as long as the corporation has a licensed plumber supervising work, that is all that is required. ] (]) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:And in theory, Joe could buy Newell, and then float junk bonds to buy Roto Rooter in a leveraged buy out - then he'd really be subject to taxes on the wealthy. Joe's lack of licensing puts him in a very weak position to a) make enough money to buy the company, and then b) hire the plumber who'd supervise him (if he were to continue working). In that scenario, why would a licensed plumber who can legally contract out his services be subordinate to someone (in a 2-3 man organization) who cannot. Joe needs that other guy more than that guy needs Joe.] (]) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::Um -- MOST corporations hire people who, theoretically, could work for themselves. Many people prefer not to have to own trucks and the like, as they can make good money with much less paperwork. And the idea of being an owner means one does not have to do the grunt work. Your real question should be "does Joe expect to have sufficient assets to buy a company?" And that is something we do not know at all. ] (]) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: Theresa, I hope this doesn't sound obtuse, but wouldn't the fact that he is doing plumbing, representing himself to (Obama & the public he deals with) as a plumber, and doing plumbing work as a "pirate" (slang term meaning without necessary licensing, thereby taking jobs away from legitimately licensed professionals) suggest something about his voracity? If he is being dishonest in his profession, stealing work from legitimate, licensed plumbing professionals, then is this reflection on his integrity, thus the weight of his presented position? --] (]) 16:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Nope. Ask any plumbing contractor whether every employee holds a separate plumbing license. Or every roofer whether everyone working on roofs is a licensed roofer. Or everyone using a nailgun on a construction site holds a separate carpentry license. And working for a licensed contractor is not "pirate" work at all. ] (]) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::So, Collect, if what you've said here (combined with your observation about a supervisory licensed professional) is right, the licensing issue seems to have absolutely no relevancy. --] (]) 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::It is right, and the licensing brouhaha is of remarkably little relevancy. ] (]) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I must disagree. I've changed my mind. The fact that this discussion is taking place proves AT LEAST some relevancy. In fact, to quell this discussion, I'm afraid that the answer may have to be that we include a sentence or two containing the two points that you've made previously: Joe the plumber isn't licensed independently as he's an employee of a plumbing corporation; The plumbing corporation isn't licensed but contracts a licensed plumber to supervise their work. --] (]) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Not absolutely -- the corporation is not a "licensed plumber" but has to be a "licensed (plumbing) contractor" which would be like any other license held by a corporation. The person actually supervising work would have to be a "licensed plumber" but I would hate to have anyone think the corporation itself is not licensed to do work. It, according to news reports, is definitely licensed as a corporation. Clearer? ] (]) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Let's include a sentence about licensing, justifying Joe's status as an unlicensed individual. There seems to be a lot of clamor in favor of loudly proclaiming that Joe has no license, that he's operating as a pirate. If in fact he isn't a plumbing pirate, then why not add this fact in reflection to the news item that he isn't licensed? I'd rather you add this, but if you don't want to, I can do it (perhaps not as well as you). --] (]) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I don't think he's pirate if he's working under a licensed plumber. That's unfair to Joe. He's a plumbers assistant. It was McCain who overstated his title and invented the character for his own purposes.] (]) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I just finished an update to the section. Hope it doesn't get reverted. It's still a little rough, but I did not eliminate any facts or references & put things into context. It now reflects the relevance of the fact that Joe doesn't have a license but it's only required for independent plumbers (Joe isn't an INDEPENDENT plumber). Also added that Joe has no control or responsibility over the license issues of the company he works for. --] (]) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ohio tax records ==

The claim is made that "Ohio tax records" show Newell grossed under $100K. As he is clearly not poor, and he has at least two employees, the claim is suspect. As the Ohio tax records are not apparently public, I wonder just what real source exists for this claim. At this point, I really doubt its veracity. ] (]) 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:Further: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_dp1mf9 states the "A. W. Newell Corporation" estimated annual sales at $510,000. A bit different from the unsourced $100,000 I should think. ] (]) 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::If A. W. Newell is a corporation rather than a sole proprietorship or partnership, then wouldn't that affect how they're taxed? Don't they get bagged with corporate income taxes rather than personal income tax? So according to that's 39% for anything over $100K. (And oddly back down to 34% after $335K, who wrote this crap?) I'm hardly an expert when it comes to business taxes, but if we're going to scrutinize the actual business that Joe the Plumber was talking about, we should do it with the correct information. This could even make Obama's point moot since his response was not geared towards a corporation. --] (]) 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::The claim was made that it only made $100,000 per year. Sounds to me like that was "net income" which is generally kept low by the owner taking a good salary. It is likely sibchapter-S, as are many such small businesses. And Joe did make clear it was a "business" which pretty much says it all. S-corporations do not pay corporation income taxes as a rule, as the income becomes personal income. The reason for using a corporation is "limited liability" and also the pragmatics of insurance and worker's taxes. I pretty much assumed it was a corporation ab initio. ] (]) 17:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== New lead paragraph ==

I've modified the lead paragraph as part of an effort initiated by TheRedPenOfDoom to re-draft the article. My intentions in the lead paragraph are to make it clear that this is a biography, state the person's full name, their profession, their purpose, and how he became notable. I wanted to make it clear that Joe the Plumber isn't a metaphor or a meme as some have suggested. I think that without sources that this is original research. I do believe that it is not original research to claim that he is a prominent figure of the middle class (or else why would there be a Misplaced Pages article for him?), and there are sources explaining how he is being used as a figure of the middle class.

If there is a meme or phenomenon in all this, it's the campaign strategy of referring to middle class Americans as <Given name> the <Profession>, such as Tito the Builder or Jane the Librarian or whatever. This is a new section I'm working on, but I'm only in the beginning stages. If anyone wants to help or beat me to it, feel free. --] (]) 14:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:Lots of prior discussion. Lots of reason not to make unilateral changes. Thanks. ] (]) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::Just bein' bold :-P --] (]) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::Tightening up a little per ] ] (]) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Looks good; trims out some unnecessary detail. Overall, I think it's a better summary than what was there before. --] (]) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Agreed that campaign strategy has broadened thing, so don't just use that to eliminate every item you don't like about how he's been represented in the media. The fact that his legal isn't "Joe the Plumber" suggests that the name is more than just about this guy. Likewise, the "Joe the Plumber" is not about Joe alone. McCain has been using this guy for a while to make a broader point. This has been covered in the press and is not OR by any means. ] (]) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Then cite it, otherwise it is ]. From what I've seen, and from all the sources I've checked, Joe the Plumber refers to Joe Wurzelbacher. Being a popular member of a group of people and being a metaphor for that group are two different things. Joe the Plumber is not the new Joe Six-pack.
:::::And if this is no longer a biography then all personal information about Joe Wurzelbacher should be stripped from the article since it would be irrelevant. --] (]) 15:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to keep the lede clean and free from political posturing. This may be a problem, but we can try. ] (]) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:Actually being a member of, and being a metaphor for, a group are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. There was a real person behind the ] concept from WW2, as Edison pointed out, but it's the metaphor or icon that's remembered. Joe the Plumber as a symbol will most likely also be remembered long after Joe the person isn't. — ] (]) 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but we as Misplaced Pages editors are not qualified to conclude whether or not Joe the Plumber refers more to the possible metaphor than the man himself, and nobody is really qualified at the moment to speculate whether Joe the Plumber will be remember as a person or a symbol. We need to have sources to cite these conclusions and nobody has been able to provide them. Until then, this article should remain structured as a biography. Having references to Joe the Plumber being an "idea" and then having the article be all about Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't make sense. --] (]) 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida. Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.
:::*"When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)
:::*"This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC)
:::*"No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." and "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade
:::*"Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." and "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times
:::*"Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post
:::— ] (]) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I was simply replying to your claim that Joe the symbol may be remembered long after Joe the man; it may be an innocuous conclusions but it's still a speculation that we are not qualified to make so it's best if we don't have that mindset without sufficient proof.
::::I've had a chance to skim through all of your sources. All of them discuss either how Joe the Plumber is an icon or being used as a symbol. However, they also all refer to Joe the Plumber specifically as Joe Wurzelbacher. I don't see any detachment of ''Joe the Plumber'' from Joe Wurzelbacher. Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate to structure this article as if Joe the Plumber is a symbol rather than a person. ''Joe the Plumber'' is still very attached to the man.
::::I by no means think this makes your research all for naught. In fact, I think we'd be derelict in our duty to not include contributions to the article about how Joe the Plumber has been used as a symbol or face for the middle class and small business. But I don't see evidence that would suggest that more often than not, when you say ''Joe the Plumber'' you're not referring specifically to Wurzelbacher. --] (]|]) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::Does the word "polemic" in the lede sound like it might not be proper? ] (]) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::No, it doesn't fit. He's a symbolic figure (or metaphor, icon, etc.), not a polemical figure. Also, the word is not part of everyday common vocabulary. — ] (]) 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I definitely think it's improper, and not really logical either. There's no controversy as to whether or not Joe the Plumber is middle class. --] (]) 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::: ''Polemic'' does ''not'' belong in the lede/lead. I also don't like "and a representation of the middle class." I recently edited the first sentence to say:
::::'''Joe the Plumber''' is a common reference for '''Joe Wurzelbacher''' (full name '''Samuel Joesph Wurzelbacher'''), an ] ] who achieved fame in October 2008 after being mentioned in the third presidential debate of the ].
:::The "who achieved fame" part was taken from an old version and had survived for quite awhile before the changes of 14:19, 27 October 2008 by Amwestover, where "and a popular figure of the ] during" was inserted, improperly in my view. Unfortunately, my version didn't survive more than a few minutes, and I am not going to get into an edit war over it. ] (]) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::::I agree that polemic is not appropriate for the lead; it's a word that carries POV connotations and I fail to see the dispute in identifying him as middle class. I think that claiming that he's a representation of the middle class is original research (along with all claims that Joe the Plumber is a metaphor or meme rather than a person) and is also not appropriate. When I took a shot at rewriting the lead, I introduced him as a "popular figure of the middle class" because I think that's the most appropriate way to address him at the moment. I think fame is too strong a word to use for him, and for me it seems like an incorrect descriptor when it comes politics -- but I don't doubt that others may feel otherwise. --] (]) 18:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

With essentially no support for "polemical" being in the lede and since I have '''repeatedly''' asked anyone who inserts "polemical" into the article to come to Talk, I would ask anyone who sees that improper edit to revert it quickly. It is now verging on vandalism on this page. Thank you! (I have changed it the limit, and now step aside for anyone else to protect this page) ] (]) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== PoliSci ==

If this is to be a useful article it needs to be about the concept, not about the person. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:As it's structured right now, this article is a biography. Claiming that it is a concept without source is ]. --] (]) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. Sadly, I've not the time to do the research to prove my point, but I asssure you it's out there. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:Once you find the time to do the research, then you may include it. Until then, it's ] which is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::As I recall, you made the decision to make it purely biographical and have not yet dealt with the symbolic and political application. I will add This was not a consensus approach and decisions have been made within a couple of hours. Not everyone checks this article in 10-15 minute intervals. Do you promise to allow other sections that allow for the inclusion of Joe the Plumber as more than person? There are many articles that discuss the JtP as more than the man and several were cited above. Are you still claiming there's no sources that do that, and it's all WP:OR? If so, please give us your threshold so we don't waste our time.] (]) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Get over yourself, pal, I didn't decide squat. I simply spot original research which tends to be rampant in political articles. --] (]|]) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Not very polite. I'd welcome your apology now if you don't mind. ] (]) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See the thread above at ] for my listing of sources for the concept of Joe the Plumber as a symbolic or iconic figure used in this campaign. He's the ] for a particular demographic sought by McCain. As just a plumber, voter, or Ohio resident, Joe the person is not notable ''per se''. The reliable sources used these specific terms and applied them to the subject: icon, symbolic hero, symbol, iconic Everyman, symbol, proxy, and political symbol. There are seven quotes in five articles. Next step is to restructure the article to be about the symbol, not the man, as that is the really notable aspect of this article, and a reason it survived an AfD and DRV as a keep. — ] (]) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:Finally. Agreed, fully and completely. Thanks for the persistence and follow through. ] (]) 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:I commented in the aforementioned thread, but basically I don't think a restructuring is in order. I do, however, see an opportunity for valuable contributions to the article. --] (]|]) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== Duplication in the lead ==

It is unnecessary to in the lead. ] 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:I had cut it once in an earlier incarnation of the lede. See ] for guidelines for the lede. ] (]) 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::We have a ] policy, for the lead. The lead it way too short and needs to be expanded. ] 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::I don't understand why the . It added context. ] 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::"Polemical" has specific incorrect connotations. See "New lead paragraph" supra. ] (]) 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I can't think of a better qualifier word. ] 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Then '''no''' qualifier word is the better choice. Quod erat demonstrandum. ] (]) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

]. I trust that settles it. {{unsigned|Notchdoctor}}
:I'm assuming it won't... --]]] 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Joe the Plumber is a public figure ==

Political leanings and taxes are relevant issues for this public person. He brought up the general issue about taxes and therefore it is relevant. He also talked about his political leaning such a social security. ] 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Try using existing sections for this. Thanks! ] (]) 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sorry. Feel free to move my comments to the appropriate section. Thanks for your help. ] 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Article Hierarchy ==

Right now the article is only divided into high level sections. I'm wondering whether we might want to do a little grouping, perhaps one section that deals with 1) His Introduction via the Obama exchange, followed by, 2) Joe the Man (and efforts to research the man), and 3) the McCain Campaign's exploitation of the "Joe the Plumber" mythology. I think most of the section are fine as is, but some might be subordinated to others. Thoughts? ] (]) 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:Frankly -- the bio stuff should be last at this point so it can be deleted if the consensus so chooses. I would also suggest "exploitation" is an inapt term for a campaign seizing upon an issue which was not foreseeable. ] (]) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::Pick a word - I'm not fussy. You say "potatoe", I say "potato". I just don't want us to confuse the man and the myth as we edit things. I think we agree that they should be kept separate after we explain the evolution. I'll let this sit a day or two unless there are bolder editors out there than I. ] (]) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This article is also a biography. Making general comments to change or delete sections of this article will not move the article forward. The bio stuff is appropriate for this article. ] 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, I'd still suggest we keep the bio portion earlier to match how things evolved. It's a more logical narrative structure --> Joe the man begets Joe the Plumber.] (]) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::We should keep the bio stuff intact. Do you or anyone else have any specific proposals on moving forward. ] 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yes. Removing the bio would make for a more rational discussion of the JtP campaign issue -- taxation. ] (]) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::You're persistent - I'll give you that. But past efforts to eliminate Joe's biographic info have not been accepted by most editors. Also, I've asked this before - in your view, when will it be acceptable to include some of Joe's bio information? What's the threshold? This guy gets more ink than many celebrities, and still you are arguing he's not notable as a person. Why is that (still).] (]) 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Representation in Ohio - Specific to Holland Ohio (Joe's Residential Zone 43528) ==

In the section on ] we're quoting a factually untrue statement. Since the statement "taxation without representation" links DIRECTLY to ], we need to stipulate that the revolution was fought, AND WON. The ] and ] both ARE IN EFFECT. Joe HAS representation:
<blockquote>
'''Holland Ohio Representation''' (zip code 43528)<br />
Ohio State Government
Barbara R. Sears, State Representative (R)<br />
Peter S. Ujvagi, State Representative (D)<br />
John A. Husted, Speaker of the House, Ohio House of Representatives, 127th General Assembly<br />
Senator Mark Wagoner, (R) Ohio Senate<br />
Senator Teresa Fedor, (D) Ohio Senate<br />
Governor Ted Strickland<br />
'''US Government:'''<br />
Marcy Kaptur, Congresswoman (D) 9th District Ohio<br />
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, US House of Representatives<br />
George Voinovitch, (R) Senator Ohio<br />
Sherrod Brown, (D) Senator Ohio<br />
George Bush, (R) US President
</blockquote>Being from the USA, I hate thinking that international websurfers reading this might not realize that Joe is represented, CAN call or WRITE or TALK to his representatives, and he can VOTE. I am trying to enter a notation on this. The fact that there is a US Constitution isn't POV nor is it "original research." The fact that Joe isn't taxed without representation happens to be wrongly omitted from the article, and Joe's POV isn't reflecting REALITY. Misplaced Pages can quote someone saying "the earth is flat" but the article should reflect that this isn't a factual statement. Joe's statement isn't factual. ''']'''. Let's figure out how to enter this into the article. --] (]) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally unneeded. Not remotely relevant. And the quote is not being used here in a manner related to WP:SOAP. ] (]) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, just because Joe uses hyperbole and probably doesn't really understand the differences between now and 18th Century Colonial America is his problem (kinda sad though). So long as the quote's accurate, that's what we need.] (]) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::What is alarming it links to ]. That isn't at all appropriate, making a clarification desirable. Joe suggests at this "time" there is no representation, and agreed, quoting that is necessary. But we need the light of knowledge here that the statement is blind to the truth. Without that it's passive advocation, and falls into ]. Not all Misplaced Pages users are in the USA. Many Misplaced Pages users reading this will not know Joe isn't being accurate there. --] (]) 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:::No. This is not a "Joe is not a Plumber" "Joe owes taxes" "Joe doesn't know that we do have tax representation" and so forth article. Get off your own soapbox and leave the guy alone. ] (]) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::::How a about a wikilink in his quote that links to appropriate section of the American Revolution Article. Joe's phrasing was likely a reference to that. Readers can then inform themselves on the history without our editorializing in this article. ] (]) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Joe the Plumber vs Joe Wurzelbacher in lede ==

We have been edit warring over the first part of the lede. Some editors insist on '''Joe the Plumber''' as first and highlighted words, others on '''Joe Wurzelbacher''' (or his full name) as first and highlighted words. The article title is Joe the Plumber and style is that that the title be first in the lede. Also, there is sufficient consensus here that the lede should start with "Joe the Plumber". More generally, this article is more about Joe the Plumber as a symbol or metaphor than about Joe the person, although obviously he is one of the persons behind the metaphor, but not the only one. And as ] also pointed out above: ''In today's McCain ads on TV , there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual.'' Also note that Joe the Plumber is an historical reference and clearly predates this campaign as researched by Edison in ]. There are references from the 1940s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

But if editors keep flip flopping this lede, the article will eventually be locked again and/or editors will be blocked. Please discuss substantive changes here '''before''' changing the article. Consensus trumps ] in controversial articles. — ] (]) 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that the article should be more generic in regards to Joe the Plumber, however the weight and focus placed on Wurzelbacher's private life implies that this is more of a bio than a metaphor for an Average Joe. If it is to remain Joe the Plumber, then a lot of crap needs to go (this article is badly written anyway). If editors are going to insist on the personal aspects then the name should change. ] (]) 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::Is there any source for "Joe the Plumber is the _professional_ name .."? That wording seems inappropriate to me. -- ] 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::To flog the dead horse here... the article can be about both. The person and the symbol depend on each other for the article to be fully informative and it's arbitrary (in my view) to suggest it be only one or the other. It would be like discussing the story of Batman without mention of Bruce Wayne. ] (]) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:No, there are no sources listed for JtP as a professional name, I haven't seen any, and I think it's inappropriate and needs to be removed ASAP if it pops up again.
:And, yes, the article is obviously about both JtP as a metaphor and Joe W. as a person, since the current application of JtP is to him as a person. However, it's overly slanted toward the bio side, without sufficient context for JtP as a current metaphor and icon, and, to a small degree, the historical context. I'm not saying all current bio content about the person should be removed, just placed into context so it's clear that the term means both and doesn't look like it's almost exclusively a bio. — ] (]) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::Agreed. We had reached a stable lede, and making it unstable seems unwise. JtP is specifically not a "professional name", and trying to insert that in the article goes against several WP precptes. ] (]) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
::Miscellaneous stray edits fixed (I hope I got them all), long quote removed from lede, lede back to JtP as I have seen no consensus otherwise. Thanks! ] (]) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== tito munoz? ==

Does this article need a reference to "Tito Munoz" who (apparently) is one of a bunch of added figures for the campaign? Should all the names arising in the campaign be attached to this article? Thanks. ] (]) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:If referenced from a reliable source that addresses the comparison, such as ] aka '''Tito the Builder,''' then yes, a mention would be appropriate. Thanks. ] (]) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


== music contract ==

IMHO, such a reference is rather irrelevant to either the campaign tax issue or to his bio. Any other opinions? ] (]) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:I would think there should be space in the bio that he's signed on with a publicity company. I think titling the section "Music Career" is a bit premature...and only focuses on one aspect of what they mention in the reference as potential pursuits. --]]] 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::Per Onorem, I have revised the section to be more in line with the actual broader focus of the source. And then moved it into the existing Media section.-- ] 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Dun & Bradstreet ==

The article cites the 2007 D&B report, which gives facts different than what JtP told the NYT. As Mattnad pointed out, the D&B report is older than the JtP interview, and JtP surely knows the facts. But the contradiction may be more apparent than real - for all we know the company shrank significantly since the D&B report was compiled, which would have been well before it was published. Let's just present the facts themselves: JtP told the NYT x; in 2007 D&B reported y, and let the readers judge for themselves. -- ] (]) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

::Last I checked Dunn&Brad's website listed the number of employees as an '''''ESTIMATE''''' but our article has always taken the number as absolute? --] (]) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::D&B sends people out in the field. If they say "8" then it is 8. Joe probably works with another plumber, and so his statement is likely that 2 guys work for Newell on his truck, not that only two work for the entire company. At least Occam's Razor would suggest this is what happened. ] (]) 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::D&B does less than that. They call, ask for some facts, and then rarely update. The more likely answer is that they are smaller now than they used to be. Even the 2007 date refers to how recently they checked the file, which could have been simply making sure the business was still at the same address. I used to do M&A work and D&B was a starting point, but we were careful with their figures for private companies due to stale information. The smaller the business, the more likely the information was stale. How do I know this? A D&B sales representative told me! ] (]) 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Interesting since a small business I was involved in got a visit from D&B about every two years. You really feel the business shrank by 75% in a year? Basis for that claim? $500K p.a. businesses are not all that small. ] (]) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::What makes you think D&B visited them at all in 2007? Updating a file could mean just that. Anyway, I cannot imagine Joe's is lying about the size of the business he's worked at for 6 years. Are you calling him a lier? Or perhaps you think he's plain wrong? How on earth might he know how big that business is, working there full time.] (])
::::Someone better fix their website? Why do they put the letters "'''EST'''" before the figures for number or employees and the annual income? I think that EST might be the abbreviation for "estimated?" Don't you? ''' I cut and pasted something from the : <small><blockquote>
::::::::Also Does Business As:Newell A W Plumbing & Heating
::::::::NAICS:N/A
::::::::SIC #Code: View Details
::::::::Est. Annual Sales: View Details
::::::::Est. Employees:8
::::::::Est. Employees at Location:8
::::::::Contact Name:Alan W Newell
::::::::Contact Title:President & Treasurer
</blockquote></small>'''
::::--] (]) 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Perhaps you should be aware thet D&B also uses the '''same template''' for GE and the like -- where the word "estimate" is correct. And GE itself does not have a precise count of its employees either. For small businesses, the figure is usually '''very accurate.''' Ditto for gross sales. ] (]) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::OK. I wasn't aware of that. The word "estimate" is actually correct. So? Employees estimated at eight, "accurately?" I can't see how that offends anyone. Why would they use the term "Est." if it were an exact number, anyway? I feel the article must reflect this. We should have it say something to that effect. --] (]) 21:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Qualifications ==

In the interests of improving the article, does anyone know what Joe's qualifications are for running for office? e.g. is there any record of him having foreign policy experience, financial sector experience, etc. ] (]) 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:It is not for us to decide or discuss his qualifications.-- ] 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:: He's a US citizen, over the age of 25. That's all the qualification he needs. -- ] (]) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:::What about intelligence, education? Is this pertinent? Is this a trend? --] (]) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::As far as wikipedia talk page is concerned? No, they are not at all relevant. The ] is a means to discuss how to improve the content of the article.-- ] 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It depends on what your agenda is. --] 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::There is still an issue as to his notability in the first place. I think trying to analyze his entire life is unwarranted. ] (]) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::No agenda; just trying to get things in perspective. With all of the talk about who is qualified in this election, I thought it was absolutely pertinent. As far as his notability - are you serious? He's as notable as one could want. ] (]) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

::::''just trying to get things in perspective'', ahh, ok, i guess. Anyways, did you have specific "material" that you wanted to add to the article to help with getting things in perspective? --] 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::The notability of "Joe the Plumber" as being mentioned ad nauseum during the debate and in the media thereafter as a representation for how proposed tax policies may affect certain individuals is not under question, as far as I can tell. However, Mr. W himself as a person ] is indeed under dispute, and under the WP:1Event guidelines, discussion of Mr. W must be limited to specifically the event for which he is notable. -- ] 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::He is now notable for multiple events: being mentioned on the debates; seperate entities trying to get him elected; talk shows; videos; etc. ] (]) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::His talk show appearances have all been in relation to the JtP call-out during the debate. At the point where he actually declares a candidacy or releases a record, then we have moved beyond 1 event. Talk, rumors and speculation about future notability does not equate to notability. -- ] 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::As stated previously, I am trying to determine if anyone knows such things and if so we may come to a consensus to be able to add such things, if they exist, to the article. ] (]) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Try a news.google search. -- ] 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I already did. I was hoping others had add'l info. ] (]) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Joe's no more or less qualified than any other aspiring politician. Aside from legal requirements, there's no threshold. Even convicted felons can run for, and stay in office, as we've recently been reminded by Ted Stevens. Gotta love the high ethical standards of our US Senate!] (]) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I am unsure as to how your preceding comment is intended to improve the article. ] (]) 21:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry you're having difficulty with that one.] (]) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Not a plumber.... ==

Shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to reflect that he is not acutally a plumber - i.e. he does not hold a liscense? He may be referred to as such, but technically he does not hold that position.
:It's discussed under the section. ] (]) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:: He ''is'' a plumber. It's what he does. What difference does it make whether he has a license? A license doesn't make someone a plumber. Plumbing is a trade, not a "position", whatever that means. -- ] (]) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This guy is one persistent sock, it's getting old. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722"
face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; ] 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

::You don't think it's slightly ridiculous that people are arguing that unlicensed plumbers aren't plumbers? (Oh, and pipefitting and plumbing are not the same thing.) ] (]) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please confine your discussion on this article talk page to items directly concerned with improving the article content. Side discusions will be removed to user talk pages per ].-- ] 23:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

::::The distinction between "plumber" (meaning master plumber) and "plumber's helper" is significant. I disagree that we should say Joe is NOT a plumber, but he certainly isn't a "master" plumber. He is clearly a "plumber's helper," and might be termed to be an "assistant plumber." Here are two links to job descriptions which provide some clarity as to the distinction (from a plumber or "master" plumber) and pay that a plumber's helper might receive: <br /> Annual Gross Salary: $58,100<br />
:::: Annual Gross Salary: $57,700 --] (]) 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] merge proposal ==

*'''Comment''' There is a discussion on merging ] with "Joe the Plumber." The discussion is located at, ]. Thanks. ] (]) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

:*This proposal has led to a further discussion on the BLP nature of the article, the concern being that the only notable issue is the relationship with Joe the Plumber. This discussion can be found at, . Thanks. ] (]) 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

== Some editor's question ==

I'm trying to add that on October 30 that Joe and McCain were on the same stage, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081030/NEWS09/810300265 is my reference, please revert page to how it was before my recent update, It did not update to the correct section. Should there be a section itself for "campaign appearances" separate from campaign references by the candidates.

== Linking within direct quotes discouraged by our Manual of Style ==

Since this has come up recently: -- ] 21:55, 30 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: