Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:27, 9 January 2009

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).

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 4 days

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. 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 16, 2008 Articles for deletion Redirected October 17, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept October 20, 2008 Deletion review Endorsed November 1, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Joshua Young (2008-10-20). "Misplaced Pages vs. Joe the Plumber Misplaced Pages users debate Wurzelbacher's newsworthiness and notability". Colombia Journalism Review.

Joe the Correspondent

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/joe-the-plumber-headed-to-middle-east/ This should def. be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmccann (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Current Occupation of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber)

Template:RFCbio

A couple of editors want to keep calling SJW a "plumber" as his occupation in the lead and the infobox based on his past work. Attempts to reason with them have failed; when asked several times for sources that support for this position, they have not. Instead, they argue that he was previously a plumber (based on their interpretation of the dictionary definition), therefore he is a plumber.

Recent developments and more detailed research say otherwise:

• Per the lede paragraph "Wurzelbacher is currently promoting digital converter boxes for analog television, his political watchdog group, his charity, and his book he describes himself as "unemployed." Note it does not say he's currently doing plumbing work at all.

• There is also considerable evidence he was never working legally as a plumber. In Ohio, there are rules about what's required to work legally as a plumber. Per Joe_the_Plumber#Plumbing_and_licensing, a section that recently was nearly unanimously endorsed in a recent RFC after an editor tied to eliminate it several times before being blocked. User:Collect usually picks out a union reps comment that Joe could legally work in parts of Ohio, but there are other official sources in that section that say he's not a plumber at all. The preponderance of the available evidence is that Joe was never, and cannot be a plumber in Ohio until he completes certain steps, including his apprenticeship. Of course, this only would matter if he were actually employed as a plumber, but he says he's not. Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose to all reconsideration of this thirtieth bite at the apple The infobox does not say "current occupation." The discussion as to whether a person who acts as a plumber is a plumber has been fathomed multiple times now. The BLP/N consensus has not been challenged. The issue of "illegal" was dealt with by the union itself which said he could legally be a plumber in the townships. The issue as to whether a person hired as a plumber was a "plumber" was dealt with multiple times. This is the thirtieth "bite at the apple" on this, and each time it is worthy of WP:LEW. The change in the lede was against consensus, as you are well aware. Lastly this RfC improperly seeks to make a personal attack on an editor. Collect (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I like how you consistently claim to singlehandedly determine consensus here, Collect. You take WP:BOLD to a whole new level of boldness. Tan | 39 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the BLP/N discussion? David Shankbone, Mosmof, Wikidemon, and more than a dozen others are part of my "singlehanded" consensus -- seems to me that they are not my sockpuppets, and their consensus does count. Thanks for removing your "singlehanded" slur ASAP. Collect (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not removing anything. I've protected this page several times as a direct result of your edit warring. Tan | 39 17:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Astounding -- as I am not even one of the people with most edits on this topic by a long shot <g>. Did you not know that? Collect (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Collect, where do I use the word "Illegal" here? Please stop misrepresenting my comments. That's unfair and not assuming good faith. Mattnad (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your wording was "There is also considerable evidence he was never working legally as a plumber." Seems to me that the dictionary meaning of "illegal" was what was intended, but if you assure us that you did not mean "illegal" in any sense, then I will take you at your word. Collect (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't know you didn't understand what quotation marks meant. My bad.Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Try looking at any manual of style. If I say "Mattnad said 'xxx'" then I am ascribing the exact words to you. In case you did not notice, I referred to the UNION REP's comments in that sentence. That is why the sentence was written as it was written. Is your umbrage dealt with? I accept your assurance that you did not mean to say nor imply "illegal" with regard to Joe's employment as a plumber. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collect. Joe the Plumber is a plumber. Despite claims to the contrary, it has been shown that he can legally work as a plumber under the supervision of a licensed plumber, which he did while working for Newell. However, he can't legally hire out as an independent plumber without proper licenses. Also, he's a plumber per dictionary definitions previously supplied and as generally used in society, based on those definitions. He may be a currently unemployed plumber, as well as a wannabe author and a wannabe politician, and a wannabe whatever else. If he's serious about not continuing as a plumber, and earns income from these new jobs, then he's a former plumber. Just as Obama is a former Senator. Most people change occupations; if nothing else, from student to something that brings in income. Saying that one is an author doesn't mean one is an author until one writes and publishes. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Just as Obama is a former Senator" - but you are saying Joe is currently' a plumber (unemployed, unlicensed, etc) - how do you reconcile this?Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. He is still a plumber if he is just temporarily unemployed, for example by collecting unemployment insurance as a plumber. Or he is a former plumber if he doesn't intend to return to working as a plumber, for example by having resigned as Obama did. — Becksguy (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're all speculating on what Joe might want to be. But I can also speculate that since he's now well known he can't be a plumber until he gets with the program. From now on he can't fly under the radar and work outside the law the way we did before (not withstanding the very hypothetical possibility that he might be able to work in the townships, IF, he were employed by a licensed plumber).Mattnad (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Collect. This is a campaign meme exaggerated beyond all sense. The guy is obviously a plumber by any reasonable definition. I've never seen the standard of licensing quibbles applied in any other article. John Glenn says his occupation is "astronaut". John McCain says "naval aviator". I could go on and on. Kelly 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Question What does Joe himself consider his current occupation to be? Baseball Bugs 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Query -- as the infobox does not say "current occupation" and "current" is not required for (say) John Glenn, what difference does "current" make here? Beethoven's "current occupation" is "decomposing." Collect (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Except Joe is still among the living. So if he were to fill in the infobox himself, what what he put under "occupation"? Baseball Bugs 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have his 1040, so we are forced to surmise what he would say his gainful employment had been - and the surmise would have to use the last one which was actually stated -- "plumber." "Unemployed" is not an "occupation" - it is a state of employment only. Unless you consider "unemployed actors" (somewhere around 95% or so) to not be "actors" or the like? I do suspect John Glenn is not currently employed as an astronaut, right?

• Not a plumber - Not licensed and cannot be licensed unless he does some work. I remember all of this hubbub that if he's working, then he's a plumber. Collect said that over and over and over. He's not a plumber according to ohio officials and other sources, and he's not working. Oh, and John Glenn is a former astronaut according to NASA. So Collect, you are wrong again.Bruno23 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Current infobox on WP John Glenn says ... "astronaut." As we said. So much for calling me wrong on what the infobox usage for John Glenn is. Collect (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think his point, per the link to the NASA website, is that reliable sources say otherwise and that John Glen is not, in fact, an astronaut. Of course Collect cherry-picks his examples from Misplaced Pages (which is not a RS on its own) and crows about it. Well done Collect: we know you're someone who would never let the facts get in the way of your conclusions. Now, why don't you run along to the Sarah Palin biography and get rid of the qualifier of "former" in front of "Former local news sportscasting" in the infobox, per your approach here.Mattnad (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I stated what the WP infobox said, and I was told I was wrong in what the infobox said. Did that elide your notice? Last I checked, this is also an article in WP. If you want to change WP practice, in BLPs, then I suggest you propose those changes on the BLP board. Simple. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber as per nominator. travb (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Not a plumber. If Joe calls himself a plumber per the dictionary definition, he goes to jail for fraud. Joe is as qualified to call himself a plumber as he is to call himself the governor. SluggoOne (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Not a plumber I disagree with the requirement that occupation must be a "current" employement, but SJW is not and has not been a "plumber" in Ohio (or any other state that I am aware of) in anything other than common misconception based on a misapplied nickname created from a hypothetical question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• He was a plumber. The claims that Joe the Plumber was never a plumber are just plain juvenile. Get over yourselves, seriously. Really, who are you to tell a guy who's been a plumber for years that he's not a plumber? Gimme a freakin' break... There's plenty of proof that he was operating under the law. In fact, the actual law was linked to -- apparently several times, but POV-pushers keep removing it.
  However, it appears that he may be plumbing no more. It seems like he's soaked up this 15 minutes that was forced on him from multiple sources and moved on to other things, so it appears that he's a former plumber and should be indicated accordingly in the infobox and the lead paragraph. Since I'm pretty sure he's not Homer Simpson, I don't think he'll have a laundry list of former jobs so retaining information indicating his former trade is more than appropriate, especially since it's the source for his nickname (or sobriquet, whatever the hell the final word was on that). --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Not a plumber, apparently. The page already makes clear that he is considered a plumber for the purpose of public discourse about him, there's no need for it to be used inaccurately as his "official" occupation. csloat (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were to just delete csloat's vote right up there, it would seem kind of crass. I'll just point out that this vote came a few hours after he was given a three-month block from editing what admin Penwhale called "any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months." He knew that, too, since his vote came right in the middle of his discussion with Penwhale. Amwestover's vote came before he was given the same block, so his should stay. Any edits or input from either should be disregarded with due diligence, unless we think Joe the Plumber isn't relevant to the 2008 Presidential election. (Or if I'm incorrect when I suppose an admin has blocked both from contributing here, my mistake.) SluggoOne (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they are both allowed to contribute to talk pages. Off topic, IMHO I think the 3 months block was a bit harsh. If a block was warranted, then a shorter period would have been worth trying. Mattnad (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was over the top, too, but when a block was suggested, a dozen editors weary of Amwestover and Sloat's constant edit warring enthusiastically supported it. There was literally nobody opposed to it except, of course, Amwestover. This feels like Amwestover is posting partisan whining with no real substance, and Sloat is following him around, opposing everything he does. While it looks like I was wrong (Penwhale: "You may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes"), I think this discussion has gotten silly enough without these two here to bring down the maturity level even more. They both voted, cancelling each other out, and, cruel as it may sound, I hope that's the end of input from them. SluggoOne (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you guys talking about? This page is on my watchlist, I saw the rfc in an edit summary and responded to the rfc; I'm not following amwestover around. I have no interest in interacting with Amwestover on this page too and the topic ban specifically encourages discussion on talk pages in any case; it only prohibits changing the articles. And frankly the block was a very strange action I haven't seen a precedent for at wikipedia; there was no sense of anyone even trying any alternative to blocking, and there wasn't even much of a discussion before the block was imposed, certainly no input was solicited or looked at from the two main parties involved. It's surreal. But there's no reason to assume that the only reason either of us is editing is to snipe at each other; we've had no interaction before the mccain page and I doubt our interests overlap enough beyond that to make it difficult for us to avoid each other after this. But please don't blow this even more out of proportion than it already is. csloat (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a Plumber - not licensed. Outed when McCain made him a prop. Now unemployed. I'm not a doctor but a pretend to be one on TV. Enuf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.118 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a Plumber i would say this negates collects claim of a consensus, but i am sure he would disagree. the man worked in plumbing (the field and the pipes) as an assistant- it is an insult to real plumbers everywhere to call this man who never bothered to complete an apprenticeship a plumber. Brendan19 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a Plumber He was never a plumber to begin with. As soon as he became famous he quit his job (or may of been fired) because he has better things to do or he could not continue practicing as a plumber without a license. This is not complicated. The word got out he doesn't have a license and it was time for him to move on to bigger and better things. He is now an author. Good for him! QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and clarify my position: Since I was ask for my "professional" input I give it another try.

By (state) law he is just not a plumber but rather worked as a plumber under someone else's license.

But what I was thinking the last days/weeks is the following:

We just don't know his occupation so why not leave it out of the info box as it can explained in the article? And again, Joe is just not that kind of public figure to deserve his own BLP (at least in the past and right now) since he is not known by other than the (past) election coverage. That's why it is almost impossible to get reliable up-to-date info on him. So what we can't source we can't and shouldn't include here. Sounds simple and is simple but I know there are enough editors who are not willing to go this way. Very unfortunate.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a plumber though clearly worked in the past in contracting and plumbing. Just don't list any occupation. This category is important for clear professionals like barbers, architects, lawyers, construction workers and not ambiguous occs like journalism, economists. Licensing seems to be what we can use for consensus. LaidOff (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sub heading to say unlicensed plumbing work to be consistent with the actual text of that portion of the article. The text says he was unlicensed and i.e. not a plumber. If the article's text is incorrect, i.e., in Ohio you can work without a plumber license, then change the article. I am not an Ohio lawyer. LaidOff (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a Plumber Whether he was is irrelevant. This is a BLP and he is not currently plumbing for income. He is not laid off waiting for another plumbing job. His life has been changed by fame. He is writing a book and speaks at events. People change occupations all the time. Why can't Joe? Garycompugeek (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a Plumer although I must say, I am stunned by the passion involved in this argument. I cannot believe that people care that much about the semantics of an occupation of a guy who we did not know 4 months ago and will little remember 4 years from now. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

that he no longer plumbs

This helps the writing style because we now need to separate the current activities which are not water and pipe related from his past work. This way we need not decide whether to call hm a plumber and merely say that he had done plumbing work. A plumber as well as a non plumber could do it. Non doctors could practice medicine. Some or all states outlaw it, but we have had people who did. LaidOff (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you propose that in BLP for all such articles? If you could gain consensus over there that all people who no longer practice the occupation listed should have it noted as "former" that would be an interesting proposal. I would also, moreover, concur that one is not an "author" until one has been remunerated for one's writing, or an "artist" unless one has actually sold one's artwork. Collect (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Authors and artists don't need licenses. Plumbers do. travb (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. The union stated he could legally be a plumber - which should be dispositive. Licensing requirements are far from universal and far from uniform on this. The issue, moreover, is whether the proposed change to BLP practice would be made were an editor to propose it. Collect (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah Collect ... taking one bit of evidence and making your whole case on it. Yes, one union rep said he could work in the townships, but we have the same union saying he's not really a plumber. And then there are several other sources in that section, including reference to local officials, that say he can't work legally anywhere, and that he's not a plumber. Of course you tried so hard to keep this information out (wonder why). And Collect, you earlier wrote that Joe's allowed to be a plumber when working for a licensed plumber. Have you forgotten your own argument that you made so extensively? You are much less firm on that point now that Joe's unemployed. Now you say that licensing requirements are "far from uniform" (to you at least). But for the local officials that sent a letter to Newell threatening the company with the loss of their license for having Joe on the job, the rules were clear enough. Mattnad (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- you leave out the other editors who made the same points. And the Ohio contractor laws. And a bunch more. And there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY LETTER WAS SENT. Sorry to burst that bubble <g>. No letter was sent threatening any loss of license at all as far as any source I can find says. Seems to me that election games are still running rampant on your part -- did you see how the RfC is progressing on this page? Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ain't you the little parser. OK, here we go: "Wurzelbacher said he did not need a plumber's license to do residential work with Newell Heating & Plumbing, but David Golis, a Toledo building-inspections official, disputed that. "We were just discussing that we will send a letter to the owner of Newell reminding him" of the city's requirement that all who do plumbing work be licensed or in apprentice or journeyman programs, Golis said.". So now you're demanding evidence that they sent the letter - even when we have reliable sources that show they intended to send a letter. You demand so much from reporters to show that actions were taken by the city against JWS and his employer..... but all you require for yourself is opinion and a dictionary. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You stated that the letter WAS sent. No source for that claim. The union said he could legally be a plumber in the townships. There is a source for that claim. Claims with sources are proper in articles. Claims without any source are not. Collect (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is your best argument? OK. Letter was not sent. The officials just said they will send a warning letter because Joe is not allowed to work as a plumber, per multiple source. Here's an observation: other editors might respect you more if you'd argue the major points rather than going off on tangents. Mattnad (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? You were the one who made the unsourced claim. Blaming me does not work. Collect (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

silly argument, collect. its well sourced that he cannot work as a plumber, but he can work for a plumber. your attempts to confuse the matter are fairly transparent. i find it interesting that republicans and democrats will paint themselves into tiny corners to defend silly arguments just because that is the party line. i seriously doubt anyone would try so hard to call s. joe a plumber if there werent political reasons behind it. of course the same could be argued for saying he is not a plumber- except for the fact that there are sources which directly dispute calling him a plumber. Brendan19 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this points to why I wanted the article to be about the meme not about the person. However, as near as I can tell Joe is not licensed as a plumber; and I know for a fact he could not present himself legally asa plumber in Philly: note, that the Ohio and Philly laws are essentially the same.

I'm afraid I simply cannot uderstand the logic of trying to warp the facts simply to call this guy a plumber in the appropriate legal sense.

As for the party-line crap above, the party-line is utterly irrelevant: what is relevant here, to chew my cud for the tenth time, is WP:RS and WP:V. PERIOD. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW: dispositive is rarely used. Second "could" in the same post is a subjunctive conditional. I "could" be a pope based on the standard requirements. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• From above: "The union stated he could legally be a plumber".

Yes, indeed he could as could anybody as long as s/he gets a license. Plumbers and electricians are in most if not in all states required to hold a license to do work on their own as a contractor if not working under another contractors license where their not official plumbers or electricians. Fact.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

taxes again?

No mention of the "tax lien" has been in the article for ages -- yet someone wishes to place it in the lede. Also adding "unlicensed" about his plumbing into the lede which was decided multiple times not to belong in the lede by consensus. Again -- the unpaid tax bit is not in the body of the article per consensus, hence doies not belong in the lede, and the bit about the license was also by consensus not allowed in the lede. Is this actually clear? Collect (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Was told to go to Talk -- where I have been already <g>. Still feel that we hhad already REMOVED the "unpaid tax" bits from the entire article and that it does not, therefore, belong in the lede. Also that consensus has said NO to putting the license in the lede, but one editor, who told an admin his intent, has now tried to edge it in quoite deliberately. This is not proper in WP to say "I know the minute we try to change the infobox and lede, Collect will revert saying there's no consensus for change. Any advice on approach? I'm trying to avoid the likely edit war on this one." Dang straight -- and laying out a game plan does not make your "we" any stronger. Collect (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, there have been several RCF on this talk page that show the consensus is against you on this point. Most editors think his licensing status is relevant. Furthermore, it's relevant that Joe owed taxes at the time that McCain made him a "mascot". Per the latest issue of Newsweek, "Starting point: After grilling Barack Obama about his tax plan during an Ohio rally, "Joe the Plumber" comes up 25 times in the final debate and becomes a John McCain mascot. Turns out his name isn't Joe, he's not a licensed plumber and he owes taxes.". You have worked very hard to eliminate his tax issues and his licensing issues from the article. If you like, I can more fully develop a section on his tax problems and the reaction to it. I'd love to bring back some more balance to this article.Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not given a RfC for the tax issue at all, so I take it that you will drop that claim. Second, there have been ACCEPTED COMPROMISES here which said licensing was not to be in the lede. Care to try for a consensus on the tax inanity? And his name IS "Joe"? just like Woodrow Wilson's name is "Woodrow." Did you wish to elide that? As for deliberatey saying you would try to introduce stuff into the lede -- that is contrary to WP policy. You already got "has worked" into the lede -- now you wish to push POV as hard as you can? Sorry -- it will not work. Collect (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The tax lien information is in the article and has been there for quite a while - months I'd guess.. You need to read more closely. And please don't censor it now. As for changes to the lede - I was referring to clarifying that he's not a plumber - separate from the licensing issue. See RFC above. Also, what are you talking about regarding his name. I didn't mention that in my edit to the article. Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Most editors overall did not find the license issue germane to his occupation. As for his name, you raised the issue here, and your post to an admin stating your intent to keep adding material to the lede is suspicious. As for the lien -- it has been paid, and you should note in the lede that there was a "99% chance " he did not know about it (actually 100% since the notice was not sent to a current address). As for accusations of "censorship" I find that extraordinarily amusing! Collect (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unindent: So now lets get to the meat of this (if that's OK with you Collect):

• Joe's unpaid taxes are relevant in that they undermined McCain's use of him as metaphor. This is why Newsweek, ABC news, and other reliable sources mentioned it. I'll add that just because he didn't know about the lien doesn't mean he didn't know about owing taxes. And even if he didn't know he owed taxes, it still didn't help McCain's efforts. Per the quote from Andrew Sullivan of the The Atlantic that you removed (or is that censorship), "Why am I not surprised? No license and a lien for unpaid taxes. Like Sarah Palin, a great concept. But the McCain campaign needs to be able to vet its hood ornaments."
• Early discussions about his taxes focused on how wikipedia should not include something that can harm a private citizen. SJW has since proven himself to be a public person, and as you've allowed in the lede, a celebrity.
• Likewise, his status of a plumber was also relevant per McCain's use of Joe the Plumber metaphor.
• Multiple RFC and discussion on this talk page in the last month have shown that most editors accepts that Joe was not licensed and was not a real plumber. And the latest RFC shows that most also think that his occupation should not be "plumber"either.Mattnad (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He is nit a plombier, ni sans license sans capacite pour plumbing. C'est indisputable. LaidOff (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Seulement un homme qui a pris un parti croyait qu'il est un plombier.

1. Notice of the debt was sent to the wrong address. ESP is not rquired of people, last I heard, and JtP paid his debt when he was told of it. 2. I would prefer NOT to have everyone sift every jot and tille of anyone's life in the Ohio state databases. You apparently see nothing wrong with it. 3. Opinions must be citesd as opiniond per WP:BLP. 4. We had an agreement on use of "plumber" in lede and infobox, remember? 5. Posting that you intend to keep adding to the lede and infobox is strange. 6. I would remove "celebrity" from the lede, but consider it a relatively minor cavil. Collect (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see that both WP:CON and WP:BLP are still being misunderstood/abused on the JtP page. Not real clear how WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV are being missed (whether intentionally or unintentionally), nor how the interrelationship with WP:BLP and WP:CON is being mangled. BTW, WP:CON does not override/overrule/trump WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP is still held to the standards of that triad of policies. WP:BLP does not mean "no 'negative' or 'controversial' facts allowed": so long as these facts, such as the fact that Joe is unlicensed, meet WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV they can indeed be included. It really is that simple. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand the above gobbledegook, but Sam is still not a plombier. LaidOff (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Just because a fanatic wants to make hime one does not force Sammy from actually completing his apprenticeship. LaidOff (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected for a long time due to chronic edit warring. It seems when one group is forced out (through final edit war warning), another group of edit warriors move in with fresh reverts and no consideration of months of talk page discussion. Tan | 39 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, you new here? :) j/k --Tom 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Former plumber

I have changed the lead to read, former plumber rather than the "he was called a plumber...". Pretty straight forward it seems. Anyways, --Tom 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My one question is do the sources agree that he ever was an actual plumber? From what I have seen there seems to be dispute over that. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That had been addressed ad nasium in here it seems. Yes, sources say that he was/is a plumber. --Tom 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is seriously disputed among reliable sources that he was a plumber. See here. We can't assert he was a plumber or former plumber. See WP:ASF. Violating ASF is a serious matter. Over time it seems things are rewritten and facts change. I thought we can't rewrite history on Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The link says he didn't have a license? So what, he did "plumbing" for a company or something, this is still just silly semantic agenda pushing, nothing else. Anyways, no biggie--Tom 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources say flat out that he's not a plumber. Other sources say he is. The only safe way to go is to use something that sources agree on, and "he was called/described as a plumber" fits the bill. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What sources say he isn't a plumber? I don't think that is the same thing as saying he wasn't licensed. Anyways, --Tom 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to what source an unlicensed person is a real plumber? Tom has acknowledged "The link says he didn't have a license". We can comply with WP:ASF in this situation. Asserting that he was a plumber is a violation of ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One source, ironically enough one that has been used to try and insist he IS one even though the article says otherwise in the opening sentence. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like how Minderbinder seems to be completely ignorant of three months of discussion, arguing, vituperation, increasingly long sysop page protection, edit warring, and an RfC. Tan | 39 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving my opinion on the article. Do you have a point to make or could you just not resist the chance to call me ignorant? --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone "ignorant" is not necessarily an insult. My mother is ignorant that Wikipidia exists; this does not make her a bad person. However, you are right that I was trying to make a point - that was either you are willfully ignoring hundreds of kilobytes of previous discussion, or you just plain didn't notice it. Either way is remarkable. Tan | 39 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just jumping back into the fray - Joe's was absolutely a plumber in the conventional sense (he did plumbing), but not from a legal or professional sense (he's not a licensed plumber, apprentice, or journeyman). These fruitless binary arguments would have been rendered moot if the article had been allowed to simply include a qualifier, like "unlicensed plumber", from the outset. The recent RFCs all point to this tension.Mattnad (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted many times, infoboxes do not generally say "former" or have any qualifiers at all. Pushing such is a POV exercise. Collect (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted many times, since this guy is famous because he became part of a political campaign and not because of his job, why is it even necessary to include "plumber" (whether he is or not) in the infobox? What is the big objection to just leaving it out of the infobox if there's no agreement about wording/qualifiers? --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The way around" or "How to make him a plumber even if he isn't one by law".

What we can do to kinda make him a plumber in the main body of the article, (not the info box) is to leave "unlicensed" out (since it has a negative "touch") and go with something similar to this:"Wurzelbacher stated/acknowledged (at the time) that he was working as a plumber under anothers contractor's license." Readers who want to know details (and don't know them yet???) can find them in the sources (we provide) and can paint their own picture in whatever color they want so we don't have to bend or worry about WP rules.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. He says he's a plumber. All sources agree on that. Since sources don't agree that he is a plumber (and we have no way of knowing which sources are right in this particular case), just say what the sources say, which can include mentioning the disagreement if editors feel it's relevant. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant to bring editors together by leaving the disagreement out of the article.

PS: Thanks for the "spell check" ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a former plumber because that would mean he was a plumber. But he was called a plumber. Hammer of the year (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - updated final paragraph for the section "Ohio government database searches"

The "Joe the Plumber" bill was signed into law by the Governor of Ohio on January 6, 2009. This subject has recieved substantial and ongoing media attention. Please see; House passes “Joe the Plumber” legislation, Senate Approves “Joe the Plumber” bill 'Joe the Plumber' bill OK'd by Strickland, Wagoner secures bill to safeguard personal information, State moves to change privacy laws, and “Joe the Plumber” legislation protects Ohioans' privacy.Below is the information with citations;

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information". On December 10, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 69 to 26. On December 17, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio Senate by a vote of 30 to 2. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed House Bill 648, creating civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable content, but do we need the details of all of the votes? Seems like a lot for such a peripheral point. How about:

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones, sponsored House Bill 648 which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information". On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation.

The idea is to focus on "what is it" and when did it go into law.Mattnad (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers noted that it was nearly veto-proof in support. Earlier discussion had the Governor and key Democrats questioning the costs of such a bill. Would you like that added info to make the reasons for the votes clear? Total length of this is far less than devoted to material which is likely of less long-term significance at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then the relevant material is something along the lines of "The bill passed the house and senate with veto proof majorities" with an appropriate citation. The idea is to be concise and encyclopedic. Mattnad (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nearly" in one, actually in the other --- also make sure the "civil and criminal penalties" does not get elided. I have now edited down (I think) more than 250,000 characters from the "largest articles" list on WP, so you know I like conciseness. Collect (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll teach someone who tries to challenge a public figure's self-promotional stories. Baseball Bugs 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about:

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones, sponsored House Bill 648 which mandates civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases. The bill passed the house and senate with nearly veto proof majorities. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation.

Instead of the slightly awkward "for violations of rules concerning ..." why not "improper access of personal information on state databases"? I think that might be a tad clearer? Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure.Mattnad (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the majorities cites -- just use the newspaper cites in the first draft above. I think that should cover it. Collect (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Below is a proposed text.

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases. The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate in December of 2008. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation which will become effective after 90 days.

• Strong support I support adding the above text, as it is, as the final paragraph in the section "Ohio government database searches". Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - Wurzelbacher has a new Job as "War Correspondent/Reporter"

Joe Wurzelbacher has taken on an additional job as a war correspondent. CBS News reports that Wurzelbacher will spend 10 days in Israel covering the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas.

Additional reporting from "Joe the Plumber" becomes "Joe the Reporter", Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, and other exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is too much. Good for him.... but why would they hire him? Life is stranger than fiction. Mattnad (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This event, of Wurzelbacher becoming a War Correspondent, has been widely reported on my mainstream media. In addition the the multiple sources listed above, CNN and The Guardian have also reported on this event; Joe the War Correspondent and Joe the plumber headed to Middle East. As there is substantial media coverage on this event, and given that there are multiple sources from mainstream media, this information should be added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Below is a proposed text;

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher took on the job of a war correspondent. From Israel, Wurzelbacher's reports on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas. Wurzelbacher works for Pajamas Media. Wurzelbacher's focus in on the Israeli experience of the conflict.

• Support I support adding the above text, as it is, as the 5th subsection of the section titled "Career". Also, I am open to any suggestions. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support the mention - by the way, PJTV is a part of Pajamas Media if you need a wikilink. Kelly 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I added the wikilink to the proposed text. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• This comment was added above, in the first section of this talk page. "http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/joe-the-plumber-headed-to-middle-east/ This should def. be added."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmccann (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support and oppose. WP is not news so why not wait till he's "over there" and starts his coverage of the events?! "Widely reported" as Ism schism puts it is just plain wrong or I would have heard of this before (and not on WP). If the media keeps on reporting on this (and I think they will) we can include it without doubt. And if we do so we ought to make clear for who he is reporting. The proposed edit sounds like he was hired for this job by a major known network. Other than that, again, I would like to see it in the article as a job he was offered as a follow-up of his election notability and therefore notable.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• support No need to wait to put this in. He's been reported that he will go over. If this article weren't protected it would already be there. It has been reported in multiple news sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The Jerusalem Post reports that Wurzelbacher is spending "10 days covering the fighting and explaining why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas. He tells WNWO-TV in Toledo that he wants "go over there and let their 'Average Joes' share their story." Please see Joe the Plumber to become 'war correspondent in Israel' Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still not a former plumber That he may be a reporter now does not make him a legitimate plumber in the past. His occupation should not be listed as a plumber or former plumber. He has done plumbing work, but that did nit make him a plumber,. LaidOff (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I think the term "war correspondent" is being used almost a bit facetiously by the headlines; let's be clear that this is a 10-day stint, not (yet) a new career. I think the real career move here is Joe the celebrity, but whatever. I support mention of this going in the article but I think it should be clear what's going on. Cheers, csloat (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: where precisely do you want this to go? (FYI, it was on the BBC this morning... first time ever for me that "I saw it on WP first"). If there's no further objection and you tell me where to put it, I don't see any reason not to add it to the article. --SB_Johnny | 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply It should be added as the 5th subsection of the section titled "Career." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll need a section title then, please. --SB_Johnny | 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Try "journalist" as a catchall category for all news correspondents, perhaps? Collect (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, journalist is a catchall. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe the Journalist? You gotta be kidding me. Where did he go to J-school? When did he join SPJ? Let's just keep it clear the circumstances of his employment here. A 10-day celebrity stint with no background in the field hardly makes him a "journalist." csloat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please just give me a "nowikied" version of what you want (including the header!), and I'll put it in for you :-). --SB_Johnny | 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this one fascinating - you people argue until you're blue in the faces about whether or not a man who gets paid to plumb is actually a plumber, but you're more than happy to refer to him as a "war correspondent." Even Joe himself has said in interviews that "correspondent" is stretching the term, and the media that refer to him as such are just trying to be sensationalist about it. Joe's job will be more akin to a commentator, reporting from Israel where he will be interviewing "regular Joes" like himself about the effect the war is having on them. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree "commentator" is a much better description. "Journalist" is just insulting, and I seriously doubt Joe (or Sam or whoever) would even embrace the term himself. csloat (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Commentator" would work just as good. The important part is that the information be added to the article, and that this not become another word war. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put it in under "commentator". Next time an admin (who is, after all, just a volunteer wanting to help) asks a simple question, please just give a simple answer. --SB_Johnny | 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request - done, but copyediting needed

It's in there, but the current wording is pretty lame. Fix it please, so an admin can make the edit. --SB_Johnny | 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher began work as a war correspondent for Pajamas Media commenting, from Israel, on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas. Wurzelbacher's focus is on the Israeli experience of the conflict.

Is this better? I tried to make it more simple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the opening line of the entry still refers to him as a "war correspondent," which he is not. Perhaps "war correspondent/commentator" might work better - at least the slash would help make it clear he's not a correspondent in the way most would think of the term. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see; The Guardian Joe the War Correspondent, The Telegraph Joe the Plumber to head to Israel to become Joe the War Correspondent, Associated Press Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent, Baltimore Sun Joe the Plumber: war correspondent, etc... These reliable sources refer to Wurzelbacher as a war correspondent, that is why it was placed in the above proposed edit. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen them. In most reports, "war correspondent" is reserved for the headline (which are often written in a manner as to be attention-getting), but other language is used in the body of the story. Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, is supposed to be striving for accuracy, not attention. Is that not why this article spawned an edit war over whether or not the man qualifies to be called a plumber? He never went to journalism school, he's not reporting on the war itself. As someone who actually has worked on newspaper staffs, I find references to Joe being a "correspondent" or "journalist" to be offensive; he's never been to journalism school, never involved in any of the unions - he's less qualified to be called a correspondent than he is a plumber. Regardless of what wording other sources may use, it's still possible for Misplaced Pages to rise above it and strive to be truly accurate by using some other language that is just as technically accurate, but not quite as misleading. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have an alternative proposal, based on reliable sources, please share it. I am open to all suggestions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "commentator"? If we're going to use "war correspondent," let's at least keep the quotation marks around it to show that it is being used in a way that is different from the way you might describe, say, Edward R. Murrow. Otherwise this is just completely insulting in addition to inaccurate. csloat (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ?

Joe the Plumber is mentioned on various jewish websites , and now he is going to Israel. It is not a bad thing to inquire if he is jewish, since the names Samuel and Joseph are both hebrew. ADM (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Iffy at best. The majority of common names in the U.S. are "Jewish." Collect (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it really much matter? James is from Hebrew as well, and I'm not Jewish. But then, George is from Greek and Dubya's not Greek. Victor is from Latin, and I don't think Vic Snyder is Roman. Bottom line: does it really matter? Personally, I wish we coud all get past this ethic/religion stuff ... it serves to create prejudice. Alas, like MLK, I dream. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant without sourcing saying he's Jewish. Also, I'm not sure there's any context in which the JDL would be a reliable source anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seem like a "so what" fact (even if sourced). Until he or someone else makes his religion (whatever that might be) notable, I don't see a reason to include it. And right now it's pure speculation. In the US, supporting Israel seems to cross religions and political parties.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "so what" sentiment. Jewish or not Jewish, none of what Joe the Plumber has done yet makes his religion (or potential lack thereof) significant. The closest would be his new job, as a reporter/commentator in Israel, that *might* make it significant, but even that would be a stretch. But then I also have the same attitude in regards to the whole is-he-or-is-he-not-a-plumber argument - what the man does or did for a living, and whether or not it was he or someone else who held the license, is insignificant, it's not why he was ever in the spotlight. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to have to change the title to "Joe the Correspondent"? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:PRESERVE

Another editor just shared this gem with me: Misplaced Pages:PRESERVE:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

Misplaced Pages:PRESERVE is a POLICY, which trumps the notability guideline. The only Biographies of living persons excepetion is unsourced controversial claims about living persons.

This policy means that the removal of cited materials is not allowed. travb (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You "forgot" some.

Exceptions include: original research duplication or redundancy irrelevancy patent nonsense copyright violations inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) unsourced controversial claims about living persons

The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Nope: "The only Biographies of living persons excepetion is unsourced controversial claims about living persons." travb (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." and "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." Note the only requirement is that the material be "disputed." Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To be forthright, "preserve" is part of a policy, not necessarily meant to be taken out of context. For the definition of "neutral" see WP:NPOV and its related policies. BTW, the burden of proof is always upon he who asserts. Even IRL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." When editing a page, what does editing policy say? Are editors supposed to remove the material that they feel violates BLP? Only if the material is "unsourced controversial claims about living persons". With sourced, well cited claims, even controversial claims about living persons:

• rephrase
• correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
• move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced

Discuss proposed changes on the talk page, do not remove those changes.

WP:BLP When can editors remove material?

1. "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."
2. "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Misplaced Pages:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability."
3. "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." (twice)

The first two reasons are specific: Remove only material that:

1. unsourced or poorly sourced material
2. which violates Misplaced Pages:No original research
3. from a self-published sources
4. sources that fail Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

The sources provided here all meet these guidelines.

The third is simply reiterates the first and second. travb (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where material is in dispute, and there is no consensus for its retention, deletion of the material is acceptable for any editor. "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. " (stress added) Although it appears some regard following this explicit rule as "forum shopping", it is what is called for in WP:3RR and is not "forum shopping" at all. Collect (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:3RR. Please report your concerns to BLP, but please follow Misplaced Pages:PRESERVE before deleting well sourced material, this will avoid a lot of the contention. What I like the best about that policy is the invitation it gives to editors to "add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced".travb (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazing -- BLP, 3RR, RS, V all agree and you hang your hat in PRESERVE even where other rules specifically state something else <g>. "Editing Policy" is, in fact, lower in level than the others cited. Collect (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As User:DGG says: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience."

I am showing the audience here how to counter effectively the next mass deletion.

Since i've nbeen watching this, if i'm the audience you're showing me wikilawyering at it's worst.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The indents might have gotten misplaced, my reply is to Inclusionist, not collect.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I do not recall being the one who is editing the pages he references as guidelines -- seems that is rather "wikilawyering" fer shure ... Collect (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I also found this post: "*Per both the wording and spirit of {{WP:BLP]] we should keep it out of the article till we have agreement on it's inclusion. Not the other way around, warring to include it because "there's no consensus to keep it out." Seems you agree. Collect (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you too, "add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced". Thanks Collect :) travb (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Other information needs to be updated in the article as well. The information below needs to be added as the final paragraph for the section "Ohio government database searches."

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates "the firing of any unclassified state employee who improperly accesses confidential personal information". On December 10, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 69 to 26. On December 17, 2008, the bill passed the Ohio Senate by a vote of 30 to 2. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed House Bill 648, creating civil and criminal penalties for violations of rules concerning access to personal information on state databases.

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we come up with a different version above. The last variation you wrote was:

In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases. The bill passed the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate in December of 2008. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation which will become effective after 90 days. Mattnad (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe’s Jobs

There’s a tremendous amount of discussion going on here about whether or not Joe the Plumber is really a plumber, and it seems most of it centers around the info box. Oddly, no one is challenging him being listed there as “author”, even though he’s written only one book, and really, I’d venture he just provided the facts but the co-writer he’s working with is the one who’s really writing the thing.

I’d venture removing reference to Joe’s career in the info box, be it plumber, author, correspondent or whatever. In my mind, the info box should be a brief snapshot of why I should care about the person who’s biography this is. In Joe’s case, he’s not famous for being a plumber (or someone who did plumbing work, whatever), he’s famous for asking Barack Obama one question. Therefore, his job(s) is irrelevant in a snapshot situation.

As for the opening paragraph, I think it’s clear enough as written. He was called “Joe the Plumber,” though background research says he wasn’t a licensed plumber, yadda yadda yadda. No need to go into it any deeper than that, at least in the intro, since, as I noted, plumbing isn’t why the man is famous.

As for “Joe the war correspondent,” he’s neither a correspondent or a journalist. He’s actually less qualified to carry either of those titles than he is plumber or author. Certainly that he will be reporting from Israel is worthy of including in his Wiki article, but the best term to refer to him as would be a “commentator”. Nolefan32 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence we return to the meme. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nolefan; there's no need for any occupation to be listed in the infobox at all. The article can make clear what he did and/or does and/or is described as doing. csloat (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is brillant; I had never thought of that. he is not notable because of his occupation, ergo no occupation sb listed on any infobox. The logic is sound. I cannot find any fault. I must agree that the info box should not list occupation. LaidOff (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ioici

IPOF, there is scarcely any valid reason to have an infobox at all since the real article is about the campaign, and not about SJW as a person. That would, of course, entail removal of the "stuff" which has been added to this article which aims at him as an individual, of course. Collect (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he made fun of Joe the Plombier tonight. Did we make him more important the other more deserving people? Or is he just too funny and we couldn't resist? LaidOff (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) In which case we would merely be giving in to popular interest LaidOff (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
2. ^ ""House passses "Joe the Plumber" legislation"". Dayton Daily News. 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2008-12-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "The dayton daily News" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ ""Senate Approves "Joe the Plumber" bill"". Dayton Daily News. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2008-12-18. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. ^ ""'Joe the Plumber' bill OK'd by Strickland"". The Western Star. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
6. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
7. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
8. ^ ""Legislative floor actions"". Associated Press. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
9. ^ ""Joe The War Correspondent?"". CBS News. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
10. ^ . The Guardian. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "the Guardian" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
11. ^ ""Joe the plumber headed to Middle East"". CNN. 2009-01-07. Retrieved 2009-01-07. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
12. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
13. Catherine Candisky (2008-12-05). "Worker says 'Joe the Plumber' cover-up was forced upon her". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 2008-12-05.

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ohio articles
• Low-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio 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
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press