Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 19 October 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ohio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Privacy?

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'm sorry, I don't live in the US - so maybe this guy is giving all kinds of info for free, in that case...I rest my case;).

It's a preview of an Obama presidency: ask a tough question about one of his socialist policies when he's trying to generate publicity and you'll be run through the ringer, so you better fall in line. I'm just curious as to whether we'll all be mailed our little red book or if we need to pick it up ourselves at the post office. --Amwestover (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (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.63.225.80.41 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Attacking the motivation of other editors violates ]. Discuss the contribution, not the contributor. betsythedevine (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The McCain-Palin has made a big rallying cry of Joe the Plumber, this plumber who supposedly is going to buy a business that is going to be taxed more by Obama. In the current climate, it's highly relevant that, in fact, a) he's not a plumber, b) he's not buying the business, c) the business would not pay any more in taxes under Obama's tax plan, d) Joe would in fact pay a lot less in taxes under Obama's tax plan, and e) Joe still thinks he'd pay more taxes under Obama because the right wing tin foil hat crowd has him convinced that Obama has a secret agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Obama's agenda is secret at all, he's made it quite clear that he's a Socialist. --Amwestover (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, people in Joe's income bracket will pay about $700 a year less in taxes under Obama's proposals than under McCain's.

Joe doesn't think it's going to work out that way, though. He's convinced that Obama's proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year is the camel's nose in the tent with which Obama intends to push the country down a "slippery slope" (Joe's words) that will allow him to raise everybody's taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, and this has nothing to do with the fact that he intends to redistribute wealth. Obama was quite open with this concept. It's a Socialist ideal. So there's not "secret" agenda, just a candy coating around his explanation. --Amwestover (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage you in a debate about whether Obama's ideas are better or worse for the country than McCain's, or whether they are or are not socialist. Those are complex issues that are way beyond the scope of the current discussion and completely off topic. We're talking about Joe Wurzelbacher. (Check the page title, in case you've gotten lost.) Joe Wurzelbacher will actually pay a lot less taxes under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan, but he apparently thinks he will pay more under an Obama Presidency because Obama will implement something extremely different from what he has proposed.

Please confine your response to the subject of Joe Wurzelbacher or go to a more appropriate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Quote?

Would it be possible to put a full recounting of the conversation in this article? Right now it is a severely shortened "quote" designed to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasendorf (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (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. --Amwestover (talk) 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. Jasendorf (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the full transcript available online? I was looking for it but couldn't find it. betsythedevine (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher Jokestress (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

How is this Significant?

I'd have to say most of America really does not care who this "Joe the Plumber" is. Rcollins03 (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher seems to suggest otherwise. Cheers, –Juliancolton 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Visitor Numbers also suggest otherwise. --Falcorian  13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted! It's a very notable subject at this time and there is no real debating that fact now.

It made Misplaced Pages look rather silly when this article was shown in a feature story on a national news show about how famous Joe the Plumber has become and the very top of the article that was shown as an example of just how significant he has become had that inappropriate nominated for deletion box on it.

As for the question does most of America really care who this person is, that may or may not be true. But that is not the criteria for a Misplaced Pages article. Notability is the criteria and there is a long list of sources in the article proving that.

76.241.69.132 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've yet to figure out the most the stuff in the 08 campaign is irrelevant garbage that has no bearing on anything yet is blown up by the media so much someone utterly insignificant can get a wikipedia page....I think you have bigger problems. :P --69.11.210.114 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the (poorly decided) AfD be linked from the top of this page? Шизомби (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, I see you have to click to see it. Шизомби (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

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

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

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

Parallel

May be we should write about the parallel with Sgt. William Schumann of the Wag the Dog movie? It's a similar political game. 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What would that be, astroturfing? Probably true but original research at this point. --Howrealisreal (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's called a Meme , but I have not seen reliable sources comparing the meme of "Good Ol' Shoe" in Wag the Dog to Joe the Plumber in the 2008 presidential campaign, however similar the cynical intended manipulation of public opinion may appear. Wait for the main stream media to discuss the analogy. Edison (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly MSM: Lampman (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Wurzelbacher on GMA on ABC

The wikipedia article states that Joe Wurelbacher had been contacted by the McCain campaign before his encounter with Obama. This is incorrect. Diane Sawyer asked if he had been contacted by McCain about the debate, not if he had been contacted by McCain before his Obama encounter. Nobody even knew who he was until Obama showed up in his neighborhood. He has since been contacted by McCain to appear at a rally. Please make this correction in your article. Correct News Oct. 17, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correct news (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please limit opinion on this article

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

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

The citation is to one individual's interpretation of candidate statement published in editorial weblog. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to the interpretations of the original author or the editor who added this text. PLEASE REMOVE. I cannot since I am not a long-standing editor and the article is semi-protected. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huedog (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

-- This is a very good point. I noticed the passage as well and I think that it is detrimental to the article to include this type of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.76.51 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I found the link to 'Share Our Wealth' informative, and as I didn't see why the clamor over the "share the wealth" phrase was occurring, the inclusion in this article helped me to line that factor out for me. Simply drawing a parallel isn't an opinion. I don't find the link to be an interpretation or bias, in fact I feel kind of sympathetic to the 'Share Our Wealth' intent, while I get the feeling that your complaint is that the 'Share Our Wealth' reference is denigrating. I don't find it denigrating nor admiring of Obama, I find it informative in showing why there is a clamor over Obama's "share the wealth" remark. I feel it illuminates the topic and the article. Perhaps it could be reworded, however I say leave it in. --VictorC (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I checked the sentence with its source, an opinion piece which it more or less reflects accurately. But somebody's vague guess about Barack Obama's motives hardly belongs in Misplaced Pages and certainly doesn't belong in an article about somebody else. So I took the sentence out. betsythedevine (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again i disagree. It's not presenting an opinion. It's only drawing a historic parallel that illuminates why a remark by Obama has drawn attention and clamor from observers. It's not interpreting Obama's statement., or guessing any motives on Obama's part. It's a link to an event in history that has some parallel relation and it allows the reader to draw an individual conclusion. It illuminates the article.--VictorC (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, someone need to read up on the difference between stating opinion and quoting reliable sources. I was the one who put this in, and I have to say the idea of myself as some kind of anti-Obama POV-pusher amused me a bit! This is not about POV, it’s an attempt to provide context. "Spreading the wealth" was the specific phrase that was highlighted by McCain in the debate, and has been used repeatedly since. Just look at The Daily Telegraph: "McCain taunted his opponent for wanting to "spread the wealth around".", The Los Angeles Times: "McCain cited that "spread the wealth" exchange", CNN: “he quoted Obama as saying he wants to "spread the wealth around."" etc. etc. I’ll remove the Huey Long-comparison, if that’s what causes offence, but it needs to be pointed out that "spreading the wealth around" was the controversial part of the exchange. Anything else is not NPOV, it’s just bland and meaningless. Lampman (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

From just coming through are the exact quotes of Obama necessary while it only paraphrases Joe's statements. This violates neutrality; if not politically, but it is biased based on conversation coverage. 134.50.14.44 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

article name

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

-I would say he's more known as Joe the Plumber.65.79.188.116 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It's true that Joe the Plumber is the name he has became famous as. Joe the Plumber is now a redirect to Joe Wurzelbacher. (Joseph Wurzelbacher is also a redirect to Joe Wurzelbacher 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.

76.241.69.132 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Keating Five Relationship

Wurzelbacher is an unusual name. I have read the current US census reported less than 180 Wurzelbachers in the entire USA, (suggesting it's not a very large family). Charles Keating's former business associate and son-in-law is a Wurzelbacher, he was a major figure in the Savings & Loan scandel. Since John McCain was one of the Keating Five & the reason for Joe Wurzelbacher even having this page, the surname Wurzelbacher deserves at least one sentence, and additionally whether or not Joe "the plumber" Wurzelbacher is or isn't closely related to Charles Keating's Wurzelbacher son-in-law. Of course, with the proper references. --VictorC (talk) 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. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media reports a connection, the article can include it. Articles can't include an editor's original research and speculation. betsythedevine (talk) 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. --VictorC (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is original research. Merely sharing a surname with someone does not entail any relationship. --Amwestover (talk) 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 Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A Business Week article pointed out that Joe "Wurzelbacher may have links to Charles Keating, the savings and loan executive at the heart of the Keating 5 political scandal that ensnared McCain in the late 1980s." A conservative strategist also pointed out that a Wurzelbacher family member close to Charles Keating donated $10,000 to the McCain campaign.

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 WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am bowing out of this argument. This incident has been reported, so I leave it to the moderators to decide. Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This story is getting some legs with reliable media starting to mention but only in the form "the National Enquirer says" or "blogs are claiming" or "might be related". Here's a Google News search link for Wurzelbacher + keating, sorted by date:

• http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&scoring=n&hl=en&q=+Wurzelbacher+keating&btnG=Search+News

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

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

His views on taxation

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

Relevant bits from WP:BLP: People who are relatively unknown 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, 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. betsythedevine (talk) 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. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Include, relevance. Bstone (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclude, until a reliable source reports on it and draws a conclusion. Otherwise it risks being original research and a violation of WP:BLP Dp76764 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: so the Toledo Blade 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? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response However, the source article is from the Associated Press. It's this. Nonetheless, it's not original research because it's *some* source. But you can claim it's not a reliable source. Timhowardriley (talk) 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 WP:BLP 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 WP:OR and may skew the POV of the article. $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 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 WP:BLP 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? Timhowardriley (talk) 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 WP:RELIABLE seems to convey some of it. Dp76764 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for "critical thinking" from reliable sources, how about this one from The Independent 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" ? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Include, because this may indicate that he is a tax protestor 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 Wall Street Journal and New York Post, have chosen to report the tax liens.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response: See, this is exactly my point "may indicate he is a ..." is original research. Dp76764 (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration may help. Erxnmedia (talk) 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 WP:NOT and WP:EVERYTHING; just because these things are reported on doesn't mean they belong in this article (and absolutely not in the main debate article). Dp76764 (talk) 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. Bstone (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• BTW: I have only removed that content twice. Other edits were mostly general cleanup and other issues. Dp76764 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this profile and the version at United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber have been aggressively whitewashed both for JP's tax liens and his views on taxation without representation. I think a Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration 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. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are suggesting that Mr. Wurzelbacher run for adminship (RfA, I presume you mean Requests for comment? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Meant to say Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Erxnmedia (talk) 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 WP:BLP 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. Arzel (talk) 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?Erxnmedia (talk) 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. Timhowardriley (talk) 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"Inclusionist (talk) 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? --Amwestover (talk) 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. --Howrealisreal (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It already has, but that doesn't justify adding it. --Amwestover (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Joe the Plumber is certainly a public figure (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. --Howrealisreal (talk) 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. --Amwestover (talk) 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.TomCat4680 (talk) 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. --Amwestover (talk) 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.--RS57 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

also if anyone want a primary source for the tax lien, here it is: link--RS57 (talk) 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. -- LisaSmall /C 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. Inclusionist (talk) 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. WP:BLP 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong include if Misplaced Pages is going to be the news, we should report what major media outlets are reporting. OhNoitsJamie 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 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. Collect (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Privacy

Seems to me like this guy was contacted by the McCain campaign prior to his encounter with Obama (see what he told Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America"). Coincidence? I think not. If indeed he was planted (and used) by the McCain campaign then he signed on for his 15-minutes and should have every detail of his life examined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.138.240 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Protection level?

Looks like it was sysop-protected until the page was moved. I didn't see anything in the AfD indicating that the level of protection was warranted, but I only skimmed it. Should it be at full or not? ~Eliz81 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely full. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well it's not at full right now... ~Eliz81 03:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it vandalism to report his tax problems?

Why is it vandalism to report Joe's tax problems? Its in the public record and that trumps his "privacy rights". He also gave up his right of privacy when he let it be taped by Fox News. Joe should be in jail. He doesn't pay taxes and he doesn't have a plumbing license.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve other than to denegrate him? WP:BLP is very clear on these issues. If you want to attack him then go to the Daily Kos or some other blog and write about it. This is not the place for Enquirer types of reporting. Arzel (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Except those issues are already part of the public discourse about Sam the (non)plumber. csloat (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Joe claims to want to buy a business valued at $500,000. Considering that he makes $40,000 and owes back taxes, this fact is very relevant because it call into question his motivation in making this statement and his credibility in general. Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dtaw2001, Ever heard of a business Loan? J. D. Hunt (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You think he's going to qualify for a loan for seven times his annual income when he can't even pay his back taxes or hospital bills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I wasn't attacking him. I was posting facts. Thats what encylopedias are for. It's not from the Enquirer either. Its from Bloomberg.com, a well respected source.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Those deleting well referenced facts appear to have partisan bias. Dtaw2001 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It's not a matter of whether or not you were attacking him. Other editors contributed similar text earlier today and it has created a discussion about it's validity and relevance in a biographical article per WP:BLP. --Amwestover (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Its completely valid and relevant. They are facts and thats all there is to it. and Dtaw is right, people are letting their politics blind their ability to report the facts, just like every newsmedia outlet out there. Why does Joe even have a Misplaced Pages article? He's just a "plumber" in a small town in Ohio. Does that mean I should write an article about my plumber? Just because you got on TV doesn't make your life encyclopedic. Why don't we just delete this article and move on with our lives?TomCat4680 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To Tomcat - The article is relevant because he is an part of an ongoing discussion between two presidential candidates and covered by every media outlet. Pretty notable J. D. Hunt (talk) 23:24, 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)

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

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

He is not a "public figure" as defined by SCOTUS. Collect (talk)

Request for arbitration on tax issues

I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Inclusion of tax liens and opinions about taxation of Joe the Plumber in Joe Wurzelbacher and United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber

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

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

The page is not protected just because the matter is sent up for arbitration. Additionally, my $.02 is that the arbitrators will decline to hear this, both because it is primarily a content dispute and because no real dispute resolution was offered (a section on a talk page is not dispute resolution). Therefore, editors here should be working on a compromise rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for arbitrators to act. Oren0 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The tax lien material is under arbitration. There was no dispute about quoting Joe's opinions on taxes. Would it be an acceptable compromise to put the opinions back in and leave the tax liens out until we hear from some actual admins? betsythedevine (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The tax lien is clearly relevant to his tax opinions. If the lien is adequately sourced (the AP source noted below seems adequate), then it should be in the article to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. And the ArbComm request (almost certain to be rejected) is not a reason not to include the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I do not understand why the tax lien is clearly or unclearly relevant to JtP's tax opinions. Please explain. I tend to feel that Joe's views on taxation are relevant to this article, and that they are not in violation of WP:BLP. I think one or two sentences on this subject are appropriate. However, I tend to feel that tax liens on Joe's propery are not relevant to the article and are in violation of WP:BLP. I might feel differently if it could be established that Joe deliberately underpaid or failed to pay taxes as a protest, but without establishing that fact, I find the lien immaterial to the article and a violation of WP:BLP. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that the fact that he owes back taxes (as evidenced by the tax lien) is relevant to his opinion about what taxes should be, regardless of whether the non-payment was intentional. Do we need a psyschological treatise or specific comment from a reliable source to that effect? I wouldn't think so.

And the tax lien is clearly reported by AP, generally considered to be a "trusted" source (reliable both as to content and as to notability). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Tax liens are filed a lot, and do not always represent anything more than a dispute about taxes owed. Most are not filed on people who refuse to pay taxes (in which case, I am fairly sure the amount would be higher). Since we do not have his tax returns, and I am pretty sure that such are not public documents, leaping to conclusions usually has one sad result. Collect (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. A tax lien represents a dispute about the taxes owed combined with an IRS Ohio Department of Taxation opinion that it wouldn't be paid voluntarily, or a failure to respond to requests for payment. Filing a lien, although not requiring a court order, does require a significant amount of paperwork on the IRS side, and is not entered into without some concerns on the IRS side. But, in spite of the fact that I generally agree with his position on taxes, all the relevant, sourced, background must be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. The lien was not filed by the IRS according to the stories. And the IRS routinely has to release improperly filed liens. But the lien stated is with Ohio. In FL, "liens" are routinely filed on property taxes, and are very common now. Other states, I am sure, vary. But the IRS is not actually relevant here. Collect (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ohio articles
• Low-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of politicians and government-people
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles