Jump to content

Talk:Joe the Plumber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ikip (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 24 October 2008 (::::User:JoshuaZ, there is no point. They will argue what the definiton of "is" is.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel

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;).

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

Full Quote?

full 6 min on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is the full transcript available online? I was looking for it but couldn't find it. betsythedevine (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, I created one myself and posted it here. betsythedevine (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher Jokestress (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will update the banner above to reflect this. CIreland (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher seems to suggest otherwise. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Visitor Numbers also suggest otherwise. --Falcorian (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't the (poorly decided) AfD be linked from the top of this page? Шизомби (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind, I see you have to click to see it. Шизомби (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything after the intro and the quote of the encounter is Not Significant. His license--or lack thereof--is not significant. The worth of his hoped business is Not Relevant. Those portions should be deleted. His intro and the quote has become American political history. His business, apprenticeship, license, etc. have not. As such, they are Not Significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.147.55 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not exactly MSM: [1] Lampman (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[7]"

The citation is to one individual's interpretation of candidate statement published in editorial weblog. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
:: 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".",[2] The Los Angeles Times: "McCain cited that "spread the wealth" exchange",[3] CNN: “he quoted Obama as saying he wants to "spread the wealth around.""[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

article name

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is original research. Merely sharing a surname with someone does not entail any relationship. --Amwestover (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [1]A conservative strategist also pointed out that a Wurzelbacher family member close to Charles Keating donated $10,000 to the McCain campaign. [2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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. (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK. I'm suggesting this. Since one of the perpetrators of the Keating Five scandal was a Wurzelbacher, and McCain is one of the Keating Five, the fact that Joe Wurzelbacher isn't related to the Keating Five is pertinent. It deserves a sentence along the lines of: "Coincidentally, Wurzelbacher is the surname of Robert Wurzelbacher of the Keating Five Scandal. Although John McCain was one of the Keating Five, Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are not related." I don't currently have the documentation for this, but I am very certain that this should be pretty easy to properly reference if it's posted. It's been a pertinent news item. --VictorC (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there has been ZERO RS sourcing for the name being more than a coincidence, your proposed insertion is absloutely contrary to WP policies. Having a name in common is about as irrelevant a reason for making a comment as one can find. Collect (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that people familar with the Keating Five story will assume that Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are related. By including the information that they are not related, their names are coincidental, we can improve the article (with appropriate references). --VictorC (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can definitively be said they're not related. Odds are that they are, it may just not be closely related. Шизомби (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relevant bits from WP:BLP: People who are relatively unknown WP:NPF
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Include, relevance. Bstone (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Question: so the Toledo Blade saying [5] "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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]
  • Reply:If we only cite sources to make statements of fact, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 [McCain's] 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" [6]? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may help. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Meant to say Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
JP, a registered Republican, is wearing his victimhood fairly lightly.[7] 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)[reply]
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 [8]. So victimization does not apply. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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[9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment It already has, but that doesn't justify adding it. --Amwestover (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
also if anyone want a primary source for the tax lien, here it is: link--RS57 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 T/C 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong include if Wikipedia is going to be the news, we should report what major media outlets are reporting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comments.
    His being legally considered a "public figure" is irrelevant, except as to "our" BLP issues, as the AP article would be an invasion of privacy absent his being considered a public figure.
    There seems a clear consensus to include. However, the BLP issue needs to be dealt with separately at WP:BLPN. It appears the previous discussion there lea to a keep finding, but it may not have dealt with this specific piece of information.
  • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a non-legalistic definition of not being a public figure at WP:NPF - People who are relatively unknown. He is unknown apart from his questioning Obama's policies in a way that was escalated in the 3rd canddiate debate and there being significant follow-up media reporting. The BLP issues relevant to him are contained at WP:NPF which is a subsection of WP:BLP - In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. ... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. The material is tangential to his notability which was questioning tax thresholds and their policy impacts. There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is WP:OR. --Matilda talk 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@ jdhunt. Interesting how conspiracy theories start. The question could be asked why the following statement needed to be issued -- "He's a guy who asked a question that needed to be asked," McDonald said. "He's not a campaign staffer, he's not a surrogate. He's not someone who was vetted, and this wasn't something orchestrated by the campaign." The McDonald mentioned is McCain senior adviser Matt McDonald. This comes from a Seattle Times report sourced to a compilation "from The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Associated Press". 222.152.178.238 (talk)
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)[reply]
Also spamming the page -- see supra for the same claim. Collect (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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(C) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely full. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well it's not at full right now... ~Eliz81(C) 03:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Except those issues are already part of the public discourse about Sam the (non)plumber. csloat (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
Actually, I didn't see that on Olbermann but it seemed an obvious joke based on the fact that his name is actually Sam and he turned out to have no plumbing license. Besides, who gives a crap what I watch on TV? Did you have something constructive to add? csloat (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dtaw2001, Ever heard of a business Loan? J. D. Hunt (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with you. Those deleting well referenced facts appear to have partisan bias. Dtaw2001 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contribute to the consensus discussion or find something better to do with your time. --Amwestover (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 T/C 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Would you kindly point out a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, you recently edited this article under this description: (his opinions on taxes are WP:UNDUE weight without his sourced tax info, deleting section). I believe WP:UNDUE is intended to relate to Wikipedia articles containing opinions on general facts, such as the shape of the earth, which is, by most expert opinion, approximately spherical, and under WP:UNDUE, minority views ascribing a flat shape to the earth do not appear in the Earth article. I don't believe WP:UNDUE is intended to relate to Wikipedia articles containing opinions about personal taste or the way things ought to be. The minority opinion that Antonio Salieri was a better composer than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would not be appropriate in most articles, but if there were a notable music critic named, say, Joe Musiccritic, and Joe Musiccritic had publicly stated this viewpoint, WP:UNDUE would not bar putting this fact about Joe Musiccritic's views in the Joe Musiccritic article. Consequently, I am going to restore JtP's views on taxation, which I believe are germane. If you can find some policy other than WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP under which these views don't belong in this article, please tell. Anomalocaris (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is all that is needed. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of WP:BLP. If he is notable it is because of his question to Obama, Obama's subsequent poor choice of words, and McCain jump on Obama's response and numerous mentions during the debate. This focus on his taxes is nothing more than an attempt to deflect what this issue is really about, and to attack this man because of it is really sickening. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with WP. Arzel (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that the request for arbitration specifically states that both his tax issues and his quote on taxation are being discussed. Until the request is completed, material on neither matter should be contributed to the article. --Amwestover (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule that by filing for arbitration someone gains ownership of an article, and becomes the arbiter of what can and cannot be included in it? I am unable to find such a policy or guideline. Edison (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about misreading the article, but in most jurisdictions, only property tax liens are filed automatically against that property. All other liens require an explicit decision by the taxing agency that there is a risk of non-payment. The Florida examples above probably fall into that category. And I concur with Edison; I don't see how an RfAr request blocks the relevant information from being in the article. In fact, normally, an RfAr acceptance doesn't prevent editing the article without an injunction. Still, it seems to me that his personal tax status is clearly relevant to his opinions on tax policy, and we have a reliable source for the tax lien. I personally think his opinions on tax policy are as relevant as he is, but I'm willing to defer that decision for a few days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the fact that he has a tax lien against him is important and is relevant to the question he asked Obama. Show how this is not just an Ad Hominem attack against Joe to make the question he asked invalid. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he's aware of the tax lien (for which we don't have evidence for or against), or if the tax dispute is on a tax protester basis (for which we also don't have strong evidence), it's relevant to his views on taxes. Even if neither is the case, it's probably relevant. And it's certainly not a BLP violation, as it's in the AP article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant to the question he asked Obama. It's relevant to other assertions he made about taxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPF - Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability - there is no consensus that this tax lien information is sufficiently relevant to his notability for it to be included in the article and breaching his privacy. --Matilda talk 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying it was relevant to his questions to Obama. I was and am saying that it's relevant to his assertions on taxes, not to his questions. You, among others, seem to be insisting that his comparisons of the present situation to the Boston Tea Party and other examples of "taxation withour representation" are relevant; the fact that he owes income taxes is relevant to his opposition to such taxes. On the other hand "Joe the plumber" is generally well-known, at least among people who watch national or world news covering the US elections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this discussion should be at WP:BLPN, although Newyorkbrad may weigh in at the RfAr as to his opinion on that, which I'd almost certainly be willing to defer to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arthur Rubin has suggested above that I "seem to be insisting that his comparisons of the present situation to the Boston Tea Party and other examples of "taxation withour[sic] representation" are relevant". I would just like to clarify I do not think this. --Matilda talk 22:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You seem to be the one reinserting it. I'm neutral on whether that quote belongs in the article, but believe that the lien must "attach" to it. (Sorry. Legal joke. The liens are "attached" to property.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion?

Keep - Many I think are confused about this "Joe the plumber" and that's why I came here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be Deleted!

Is this a joke???!! There's an article about a guy who has no significance whatsoever except for being mentioned in a presidential debate. This article has to be deleted because this is absurd. Grango242 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a debate about deleting it or not, if you want to participate: here. betsythedevine (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much more than a "mention." There has been nonstop coverage by McCain and rebuttals by Obama. See Willie Horton discussion above. A "failed campaign meme" is highly encyclopedic. This is not a one-off flurry of coverage of some unfortunate plumber whose Plumber butt was mentioned on the Evening News. He inserted himself in the presidential campaign, he was discussed over 20 times in the final presidential debate, and he has been discussed by both candidates every day since, as he himself has appeared in national news shows since and been discussed in reliable sources worldwide. Edison (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? Ok, I'm not a contributor, just a regular reader of Wikipedia. Lately, often when I come to look for a particular article about a topic, I'm seeing lots of proposals for deletion. What the hell for? Why so intent upon deleting articles that people are clearly looking to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.217.220 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete this in 2 months when no one remembers who the hell this guy is 71.214.145.88 (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We remember the "Daisy" commercial from the 1964 campaign [10], which was only broadcast once by the Johnson campaign. We remember the Willie Horton commercials by the Bush, Sr. campaign of 1988 [11]. Why should we quickly forget "Joe the Plumber," the chosen meme of the McCain campaign of 2008, intended "to put a human face on tax policy" per a commentator on CNN 18 October? Edison (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Liens: 1 or 2

On the main page, the sentence states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A second lien has been filed in the courhouse against Wurzelbacher for $1,261 that he apparently owes St. Charles Mercy Hospital. That lien was filed in March 2007.

Inclusionist (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources say the tax lien is for non-payment of "personal property taxes". I tend to doubt it, as, in most states, those are managed by the county the property is located in, so it wouldn't be "Ohio Department of Revenue", as reported by almost all other sources. I think Barb may be mistaken. (That quote doesn't make it clear whether she's a Deputy Clerk of the Court or a deputy clerk who works at the courthouse. If it's the latter, she doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and we should not consider this article reliable.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone call by McCain

{{Coatrack}}

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

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

State officials and mainstream news media have found major inaccuracies in the claims that he is a plumber, that he is likely to buy the business, that the business makes over $250,000 a years, and that Obama's tax proposals would cost him money. McCain has continued to discuss "Joe the Plumber" as the face of tax policies at campaign appearances every day. "Joe" has done interviews with numerous national news programs. This is not at all a one-off news story about something that happened to a plumber. The article should not be censored or deleted to make it easier for one party in a U.S. election to use this individual as a campaign meme. The essay "Coatrack" is not policy and does not apply in any event. Edison (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, CIreland, and I think that's why this article has been nominated for deletion, twice. This article is more like WikiPaparazziism than journalism. Along with that, there's been numerous attempts to insert original research into the article: drawing conclusions from a quote on taxation to his tax liens, linking his qualification as a plumber to the validity of his question, six degrees of Charles Keating, unsupported claims of Joe the Plumber being a character rather than a real person, and there's probably several others I've missed. Of course, often the original research carries a non-neutral point of view.
And all the guy did was ask a perfectly reasonable question. Heaven forbid! --Amwestover (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coatrack is an essay. Let's move along, please. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E

Per WP:BLP1E, I'd very strongly suggest that this topic be moved to something like Joe the Plumber controversy and focused on the controversy instead of the individual. He obviously has no inherent notability beyond the debate mentions and subsequent investigations by media outlets. Since his notability is completely dependent on one event, we should cover the event and not the person. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go over to the deletion review page and suggest it if you haven't already. And anybody else who wants to weigh in on deleting or redirecting the article should also express their opinion on that page, not here, since an actual decision will get made based on what's there not on what's here. betsythedevine (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear betsy, it's a complete accident that I am reading this page where you have contributed! ;-) As an impartial observer, I think that Joe the Plumber is not just about one event. He is the very symbol of the people who create something and who are threatened by socialist plans of left-wing U.S. presidential candidates. It is an eternal problem that transgress all epochs. If the page about Joe the Plumber should focus on one event, then the same thing holds for other people covered by this encyclopedia such as Barack Obama, a community organizer who is also famous because of one event only (a speech in 2004; plus the lore that was glued around it, just like in the case of Joe the Plumber). Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that this article fails WP:BLP1E is fundamentally flawed as BLP1E clearly states that its subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual" however with Mr. Wurzelbacher's numerous interviews with the news media (including CNN, Fox News, Good Morning America, CNBC, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, and the BBC according to the Toledo Blade article), he is hardly a low-profile person. Examples of this include how Senator McCain invited Mr. Wurzelbacher to join him on the campaign trail (McCain calls 'Joe the Plumber,' invites him on the trail), and how Mr. Wurzelbacher was invited to attend Sunday's McCain rally in Toledo, but cannot because he is flying to New York City for television interviews on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday [15].

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

I think you are taking that a little to far. There is no evidence that he has changed the election. Unless you mean by change, that asking a presidential candidate a question that they answer poorly will result in getting their life trashed by that party and the MSM. If this continues, no one will ever want to ask another question of a political candidate. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it goes far beyond "asking a Presidential candidate a question." Thousands of people have done that in the present campaign, but only Joe was mentioned over 20 times in the last presidential debate, in McCain's commercials, and every day since the debate in McCain's speeches. "Joe the Plumber" is a highly notable campaign theme. Edison (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are focusing on the wrong cause and effect relationship. Joe's question is not what caused this event, it was the response by Obama and the subsequent use of both the question and the response by the McCain campaign. Arzel (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driving violation info does not belong in this bio

Even more than the tax lien stuff, putting his driving license problems into this article violates WP:NPF. It has no bearing on his tax opinions, his talk with Obama, his being or not being a plumber, his planning or not planning to buy a business whose annual profit just happens to be the exact cutoff where the Obama tax plan changes the tax rate to a higher percent.

Before people start accusing me of trying to whitewash this bio for political reasons, let me point out that I am a liberal Democrat editing Wikipedia under my own real identity. I also really care about making Wikipedia the best source of information that it can be. Putting snarky garbage like this into an encyclopedia article makes us all look bad. For the sake of the credibility of the actual relevant information that's in here, please don't try to turn this article into a "Wall of Shame" for its subject. Thanks. Betsy Devine. betsythedevine (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As simple facts, they don't belong in the article, agreed. But to the extent that news articles talk about how "going public", as Wurzelbacher did, results in publicity about a whole lot of things (his income, his tax liens, his driving license problems, etc.) that he hadn't expected, then that is worth including (I'd argue), particularly if there is a more generic Joe the plumber article that this morphs into. In other words, if someone says "Do you want a 'Joe the plumber' experience?", they're probably asking (to some extent) "Do you want your whole life exposed?", and this article, by omitting the exposures, doesn't help the reader understand such a question.
To be clear - I'm arguing for including "meta" stuff here - analyses of how Joe's life got exposed; I'm not arguing for simply listing the exposed facts. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we should trash this guy's life so that there is a Joe the plumber experience? That doesn't sound very logical. Seriously, what did this guy do to piss so many people off that they feel it is their obligation for everyone to know every piece of dirt about him? Arzel (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no provision in Wikipedia policy for using the biography of a living person to shame and abuse that person, no matter how horribly evil you might consider him. betsythedevine (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Betsythedevine for trying to put standards of quality before political tripe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.90.152 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the driver's violations out. I agree that driver's license violations are irrelevant. While I don't see how it violates privacy (if it's public record, then how can it be private), there isn't any basis for including it. It'd be different if Joe's topic was automobile regulations or fuel taxes - then I'd say it's relevant and should be included. But Joe's topic is taxation, not driving, so driver's records have nothing to do with the focus of this article. --VictorC (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave out driving violations. For that matter if we picked any random notable individual I doubt we'd list their minor driving violations. And this really isn't germane. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Imitates Art

Added an internal link to the 1920's cartoon, "Mr. Block" Pustelnik (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the logical connection....unless you are trying to say that he is an idiot for supporting the republican party when all rationale says that he should support the democratic party. Seems an awful lot like original research to make that connection, and not really appropriate for his bio. Let's please stop attacking this person. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, the parallels are obvious. Pustelnik (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pustelnik, just beautiful. LOL. Inclusionist (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

starting a life on its own

Women's self help website, ivillage.com, has a front page article about Jane the Plumber. This suggests that the Joe the Plumber idea may be somewhat long lasting. The article is not political in nature. Bob Barr, running for Libertarian Party's presidential candidate and a likely contender for a distant 3rd place in the election (or 4th after Ralph Nader) now uses the term "Bob the Builder" http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/bob_the_builder.html

All this suggests a valid reason to have a Joe the Plumber article. If this develops more, then the shift of the article could be toward Joe the Plumber and less toward Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. Chergles (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal (relevant) information re: Joe The Plumber

as only established users can add to this entry, I'd like to point out that there's some new information regarding "Joe the Plumber's" licensure at: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/17/best-response-to-the-joe-the-plumber-license-frenzy/ Pageman (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a conservative blog so I don't think that contribution would last long in the article. --Amwestover (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are only very rarely reliable sources, and Malkin's isn't a reliable source. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad really. It is an amusing remark. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new low for wikipedia...

...Regarding this edit [16]. The reference cited is not from the "Indiana Express" but from the Indian Express ie from India not Indiana, which is halfway around the planet. Please correct or there will be a amply justified article on The Register lampooning this absurd error.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An honest mistake is a new low? Relax, it is not the end of the world. A reasonable person would assume that the article is from a source in Indiana which is geographically next door to Ohio. The real low on WP is the attempt to trash Joe because of his question, why not show some outrage about that? Arzel (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which question? He asked more than one. I'm more disappointed that McCain and others took this and ran with it as personal income tax and business taxes (partnership, S-Corp, Corporation, whatever) are handled differently hence muddying the water in hopes of confusing the issue. Or were you refering to a flat tax? Obama's answer was dead-on accurate and matches estimates by economists and the Dept of the Treasury.
Anyway, how was he being trashed? •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone delete this article?

Come on, people who want this article deleted know NOTHING of Wikipedia. This fits in along with the rest of the politics articles. Don't ever delete this article. Kashakak (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

BLP does not apply to DOB when a person is notable. This article still exists as a biography. QuackGuru 17:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not in himself notable - he has not for example run for public office. Accordingly information about him should not be published on wikipedia unless relevant to the scope of the article. His date of birth, unlike that say of John McCain, is not relevant to the article scope. --Matilda talk 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Joe continues to make public appearances he will become even more notable. The date of birth is routine in theses situations when a person seeks out the media and engage in interviews. Of course, we are going to need a refernece to include any information on this since a reference has been requested. QuackGuru 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matilda is correct. Only material related directly to the events and issues of JtP are relevant. JW's age does not fall into that category as it appears irrelevant to the issues at hand. Collect (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JtP is not a one time event. If he makes even more appearances then we must include his DOB. QuackGuru 16:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if JtP was below voting age - and therefore not able to vote - THAT would be relevant. Of course his age is relevant. And a non-controversial fact to include. His tax bracket is also relevant - the fact that he has a son - and therefore a dependent that affects his tax bracket is relevant. The fact that he is divorced and a single father - these are all facts that pertain to his tax status. The very topic that he is engaging in dialogue with the media about. All of these details - presented carefully to ensure NPOV - are relevant. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As part of 2008 election, it certainly is "one time" as opposed to "ongoing" which would have him being a personna of note past the election. At this point, that is far from certain, so we ought to use a conservative (in WP terms) sense of "one time." A person noted in a "one time event" does not become "ongoing" vide Richard Jewell who was basically killed by folks who did not respect privacy and law. I would not wish those suits on WP. Collect (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a one time short event. This guy is the most famous plumber in the world. This is relevant per Davidpatrick's comments too. QuackGuru 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Warhol. 15 minutes. Then should we try copying Richard Jewell? Collect (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were correct this article would have been deleted. This is way past 15 minutes. The big event along with the public appearances meets the criteria for notability. QuackGuru 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move this article to Joe the Plumber

 Done per clear consensus here. Oren0 (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles should be located at the most commonly used name. "Joe the Plumber" gets 10,037 hits at Google News [17], but "Joe Wurzelbacher" only gets 7,164 Google News hits [18]. McCain and Palin are daily referring to this campaign meme as "Joe the Plumber," so I propose a move to that title, as was called for by many contributors to the AFD and the DRV. Please indicate "Support" or "Oppose" with a policy based rationale. Edison (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as per nom - Wikipedia:Naming conventions states Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. - the debate and newspaper reporting refer to Joe the Plumber. Moreover the rename would allow focus on the issues for which this meme is notable and not issues related to the individual per WP:NPF: Wikipedia 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. --Matilda talk 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a much more common search term, and it puts us on firmer footing to focus the article more on the prominent political meme, and less on the biographical details of one individual. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although it is about a real person, most of the people who know his name are probably here. However, I disagree with Matilda's comment, in part; if his views on taxes are relevant, then the public record of his tax problems is relevant, and appears adequately sourced with good secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With purely biographical material deled. Collect (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is really more about a concept than a person. However, a bit of a background bio would be appropriate. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He's notable as "Joe the Plumber", an election cultural icon, not in his own name. Rename per WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME. This would also remove any lingering WP:BLP1E issues. Remove/edit any content (such as his tax problems) that is a BLP violation in normal editing. — Becksguy (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with the strong caveat that this does not make his tax issues less relevant. Joe the Plumber's validity as a symbol would still be an issue and thus his tax issues are still relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems obvious to me; that's what people would be looking for. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's obvious. He's not notable for being Joe Wurzelbacher, he's notable for being "Joe the Plumber". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With strong attention being given to the point made by both Arthur Rubin and JoshuaZ that properly sourced and cited content that relates to the topic that made the individual prominent enough to be the subject of a Wiki article i the first place - namely his publicly available records (as extensively cited by respected media sources) about tax - are not air-brushed out under spurious assertions of BLP. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and again tax lien and other personal facts should be omitted. Include his opinions on taxation, include his media actions subsequent to meeting Obama, include how he was used in the debate by the McCain campaign. Also include his ability or the lack thereof to buy the business, the actual profitability of the business, and the actual impact of the Obama tax proposal on the taxes owed by the owner of the business.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talk • contribs)
  • Support I was going to say the exact same thing on the talk page only to find that someone had already done so. :)--Parthian Scribe (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Those who want to delete the tax lien information have used the word "consensus" quite a lot, as those who have wanted to keep this tax lien.[3] The stark difference is that the majority want to keep the tax lien information. I find a lot of hilarious contradictions in what is being said by those who want to delete:

Arzel

Inclusionist, you don't get to decide concensus. Furthermore this is a BLP issue to which concensus does not even apply --Arzel 05:24, 18 October 2008 [19]

The WP:BLP page:

If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article...
New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

Matilda

WP:NPF - Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability - there is no consensus that this tax lien information is sufficiently relevant to his notability for it to be included in the article and breaching his privacy. --Matilda talk 21:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


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

Amwestover

Undid revision 246305434 by JoshuaZ (talk) Refer to WP:CONS, there is certainly not consensus on this matter. --Amwestover 16:02, 19 October 2008 [21]

Undid revision 246304368 by JoshuaZ (talk) a.) consensus isn't a popular vote and b.) the matter is under review for arbitration --Amwestover 15:55, 19 October 2008 [22]

Undid revision 246195172 by Anomalocaris (talk) - Consensus has not been reached on this matter and there is an arbitration request. This is your LAST warning. --Amwestover (tax quote) [23]

22:38, 17 October 2008 Undid revision 245989021 by Erxnmedia (talk) PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached. --Amwestover [24]

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

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

Tax Issues: Partial revert of revision 245979287 by Anomalocaris - Consensus HAS NOT been reached on tax issues. Refer to the talk page. --Amwestover 21:50, 17 October 2008 [25]

→Tax Issues: Consensus iss not achieved in mere hours. Please stop re-adding this until consesus is reached. --Amwestover 21:42, 17 October 2008 [26]

Undid revision 245751809 by 89.159.146.135 (talk) Please refer to discussion page to reach consensus --Amwestover 21:16, 16 October 2008 [27]

Dp76764

Undid revision 245948202 by Bstone (talk) you can't call consensus after only 1 hour, give people time to reply --Dp76764 18:56, 17 October 2008 [28]

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

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

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

  • The matter has been escalated to WP:BLP/N. Consensus does not equal a majority view prevails. I have no difficulty with a 3rd party mediator being brought in. Note that the issue has been rejected by Arbcom as it is a content disupute. I owuld have thought WP:BLPN was an appropriate 3rd party forum for the time being but ...
    I object to the language being used in this subsection heading - I find it offensive.
    --Matilda talk 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I am not surprised, why do the biggest edit warriors always have the thinnest skins? It reminds me of those World soccer players who get lightly grazed in soccer and fall down as if they are about to die.Inclusionist (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little to do with a thin skin - rather a dislike of an unnecessarily misogynous term which fails to help the debate in any way. --Matilda talk 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionist, you seem to have been an editor on Wikipedia for some time. I believe you should review the guidelines on WP:CONS, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Amwestover (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There exists no consensus on including the tax liens. I count the "vote" as: Include: 4; Exclude: 6; Include only if views on taxation are also included: 2. Here are the comments I found (limit one per Wikipedian) and note that none of these arguments appeal to consensus:
Include
Timhowardriley: 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.
Inclusionist: Strong include: Upwards of 625 news organizations reported on this lien
RS57: Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there.
LisaSmall: 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.
Miguel Chavez: - This is clearly an uncomfortable fact for "Joe the plumber" fans, surely, but it has been a relevant issue in the debate regarding Joe's iconography as the average American, and his credibility as a critic of Barack Obama's tax plan. There is no reason to censor this fact other than to protect his image. One might as well delete the Lewinsky scandal from the Clinton article, or the Iran-Contra affair from Regan's. Furthermore this fact has been verified and widely published by a number of media outlets, and the $1,200 tax lien has been admitted by Joseph Wurzelbacher on several media programs. If it can be explained, then explain it. Don't hide it.
Exclude
betsythedevine: 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.
Dp76764: I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article ... may violate WP:BLP policies
Arzel: Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of WP:BLP.
Amwestover: Liens are not pertinent to his notability so they should be omitted.
Anomalocaris: I recommend restoring the taxation without representation item but not the tax lien item.
Matilda: There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is WP:OR.
Include only if views on taxation are also included
Arthur Rubin: If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant.
JoshuaZ: If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant.
In conclusion, no consensus exists. I believe the WP:BLP argument is persuasive against including and the tax lien should be excluded on that basis. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (re-edited to add Matilda) Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and utter nonsense failure to properly count the !voters. There is a clear supermajority for the assertions that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is appropriate, even considering BLP (on which I am neutral), and a clear supermajority, given that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is included, for the then the tax lien must be included. Whether he is a public figure for Wikipedia purposes seems open; the fact that he is now seeking interviews seems to lead in favor of him being considered a public figure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With this at another board for attention, I don't think it matters here, but after reading through this I'm in favor of including his tax lien information. It's relevant. Dayewalker (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin, you have repeatedly asserted on this talk page that if views on taxation are included, the tax lien must be included also. Only JoshuaZ has endorsed that view, and I have yet to read a compelling argument to support that view, which continues to be shared just by you and JoshuaZ. The tax lien could exist for any number of reasons, including an error in the taxing agency. We shouldn't infer that he is a deadbeat or a tax protestor, and the fact of the tax lien is simply not encyclopedic. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you add those who agree to the conditional, and those who think the tax lien is relevant and should be included independent of the the inclusion of the quote, you get significantly more people than those who think the tax lien should be excluded. Perhaps not a supermajority, but a clear majority. Now, looking back at it, I have doubts about the deputy clerk's statement being relevant, even though quoted by a reliable source, but we haven't looked closely at that question. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If one were to count !votes , one gets 10 include, 2 conditional include, 6 exclude. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article in now on the personna known as "Joe the Plumber." As such, it is no longer a "person" unde r BLP and, I submit, personal infromation does not belong in it at all. An article on "The Cowardly Lion" would not rationally have Bert Lahr's tax troubles in it, so this also should not. All claims that a lien is relevant are out the window with the change in focus of this article, as nearly unanimously supported. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A misinterpretation of what is at hand. The move was agreed to if you look at the move discussion to a large extent not because of some vague notion of a "persona" but because this is the name he is known under. Multiple editors explicitly supported the move with the caveat that it would not be used as not as an excuse to remove the tax information. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is what most of this entire talk page discussion has been about for some time. Is a person who is known primarily for a single event a "notable person"? Answer: no. That is why the article is now properly about the event and the issues engendered by a chance encounter with a candidate, and not about the biography of that person. Just as an article on "The Cowardly Lion" would deal with Bert Lahr as he portrayed the character, and not be a biographical article on Bert Lahr. If Bert Lahr is a "notable person" then he would have his own BLP. We have now decided Joe Wurzelbacher is not a "notable person" in his own right, ergo under WP guidelines, he should not have a BLP on him. "Joe the Plumber" as a single "character" as it were gets an article -- parallel to what a Cowardly Lion article would have. Wurz's biography which would not meet WP standards in any case thus does not belong in the Joe article. If you feel his full biograohy is propery in WP, then an article under his full name would have to be there. Collect (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go reread the discussion to move it. What someone is called isn't the same as whether or not they are a "character". The Cowardly Lion is a fictional character played by Bert Lahr. Joe the Plumber is not a fictional character. It is a term people are using to call Joe Wurzelbacher. Oh, and by the way we do have a an article on Bert Lahr anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that -- which is one reason why I gave it as an example. JtP is really about an event and issue -- and that is all. JW would be about the person, and the place for all the biographical stuff. JW would only be valid for a "notable person" and by the name change, we pretty much have agreed that JW is not a "notable person" under the BLP definition. Hence, under JtP, none of the personal stuff belongs. Under JW, if he were given an article, personal stuff might belong subject to BLP limits. Collect (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except see the move discussion section above. Moreover, this ignores the point about failing to distinguish between a character and a person with a name other than their given name. We're in the second case, not the first case. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been a concensus issue, is has always been a BLP issue, and all that is needed is WP:BLP to govern inclusion.

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

He asked a question, and has subsequently been attacked by the media and is a victim of such. The notion of his taxes only serve to invalidate his question and denegrate the individual. Unless it can be shown why it is important to state this without any context it is in direct violation of BLP and thus concensus is irrelevant. Arzel (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is a BLP issue is a consensus issue. That is, if there is a consensus that something isn't a BLP then there's no BLP issue. For example, if someone repeatedly tried to delete John Hinkley claiming BLP1E and the consensus was against it that would be fine. BLP is not an excuse to impose your personal view of what an article should look like. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joshua. BLP as a policy is not being subject to consensus, rather it's the interpretation, judgment, and application of what specifically is and isn't a BLP violation on a case by case basis. And that is appropriately subject to interpretation by consensus. No policy can be written in such a way as cover all possible cases and to not require any interpretation or judgment ever. I'm not saying that this specific content is, or isn't a BLP violation at this point, but that this issue is under active discussion here. Also, is it necessary to denigrate the press? — Becksguy (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously comparing him with John Hinkly? This is patently absurd. There can be no concensus whether something is a BLP violation, it either is or it is not. The fact that he has a tax lien against him serves NO PURPOSE other than to denegrate the individual. It is not relevant without WP:SYNTH to make the connection to his view on taxes, and no other link is even remotely relevant. Just because it has been reported does not neccessitate that it be included in his bio. This is a private citizen, and deserves a fair amout of respect for some basic dignity. All he did was ask a question, so those of you that are so upset with this guy just take a deep breath and step back and put yourself into his situation, or one of these days you will do something and the whole world will know that you stole gum from a candy store when you were twelve. Grow up. Arzel (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Joe isn't of the same degree of notability as Hinkly. And all you've done is repeat your argument. The bottom line is that people disagree all the time about what precisely constitutes a BLP violation. And we discuss it and get a consensus about them. If it didn't work that way we'd have no need to ever discuss BLP issues. Now, if you would listen to what people are saying we might actually have a productive discussion. You say that "Just because it has been reported does not neccessitate that it be included in his bio" most would agree to that in the general statement. Your next claim "This is a private citizen" is where people start disagreeing. And simply repeating that claim doesn't make it true. Finally, you demonstrate amazing levels of AGF by assuming that other editors are "upset with this guy" with frankly says more about where you are coming from in this article than anyone else. It doesn't take one to be "upset" with him to want to have a decent article that discusses relevant material. Grow up yourself and try to actually reply to the issues at hand rather than just repeat yourself. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

My strongest view in all of this discussion is that including both the tax liens information and the tax quotes is a deliberate attempt at original research, and this is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia and often used to push a non-neutral point of view. Several editors with this stance have tried to use the tax liens and his quote in combination to draw the conclusion that he's a tax protester. Putting the two contributions together without explicitly drawing the conclusion is in my opinion an attempt to hide the original research expecting the reader to draw the conclusion on their own and is just as bad, if not worse. --Amwestover (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the media, left and right leaning, has published these facts (see a couple sections below for Fox News link, and WaPo etc. are in the article). Claiming this is original research done by Wikipedians is downright hilarious. VG ☎ 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every little fact that is dug up by the media about someone doesn't make it appropriate for a biography of a living person, especially when they're only notable for one thing. Regardless, that has nothing to do with my original point so elaboration isn't necessary. However, claiming that including a quote with not context on taxation and tax liens that he doesn't even know about, and then drawing the conclusion that he's a tax protester without a source isn't original research is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on a talk page. --Amwestover (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that calling Joe a "tax protester" is totally inappropriate (unless multiple references do this, and I haven't seen them). But the his tax bracket and liens are relevant (see discussion further below, I won't repeat it here). VG ☎ 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that his tax bracket and tax liens are relevant. Joe the Plumber asked a question about taxes for small businesses. You don't need to be a small business owner to ask questions about taxes for small businesses, that's as ridiculous as saying that you need to be a woman to ask questions about abortion or black to ask questions about race. No matter who's asking the question, it still a valid question and Obama's response would be no different no matter who's asking the question. --Amwestover (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Quote

Here is the full quote I found at http://anklebitingpundits.com/abp_forum//viewtopic.php?t=11822 -

"I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year," Wurzelbacher said. "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama said, "First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you'd get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.”

Not too exciting. I like the abbreviated form, but if someone wants to inster it, here you go! ModestMouse2 (Talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a much longer version appears in that reference. Unfortunately, the source is a blog, and blogs are not considered "reliable" enough for Wikipedia to cite in the body of the article. Also, for some reason, Obama is quoted at length but remarks by Joe the Plumber, who is the topic of this article, are often paraphrased. betsythedevine (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went over that transcript, found some mistakes, put in the full comments by Joe the Plumber. Most striking change I made was that they left out a paragraph or so of Obama's statement on small business capital gains tax. I stuck it into an archive of my talk page, if anybody else wants to take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betsythedevine/JoeThePlumberTranscript betsythedevine (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transcripts are iffy at times -- it especially annoys me when a typo in a transcript is picked on as an error by the person speaking! Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance on Huckabee

Why isn't Joe's appearance on "Huckabee" mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.101.106 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

The change in article title implies that this is no longer a biographical article, but an article about a political phenomenon. I therefore suggest that the style be changed accordingly, which would also deal with the WP:BLP1E issue. Instead of "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (born 1973), also known as Joe the Plumber," the article should start something like "Joe the Plumber was a term introduced by John McCain at the third and final presidential debate of the 2008 United States presidential election." Then a later section could go into biographical details: "Joe the Plumber is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (born 1973), an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating..." Lampman (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Timhowardriley (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Yep -- except the term "Joe the plumber" predates the debate and was not coined by McCain. Apparantly it was used right after Obama's choice of him as someone to talk with by some commentators. The entire issue is taxes on small business, and not a story about a man randomly chosen by Obama for a sound bite which did not exactly turn out as Obama wished. Collect (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"made famous by"? Lampman (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree It seems more accurate and more informative. Avoiding the uproar among Wikipedians over BLP issues is definitely in everyone's interest. This may quell lots of arguments and concerns for many contributors. --VictorC (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as someone who feels this article would suffice as a redirect to it's current section within the United States presidential election debates, 2008 article, because of WP:BLP1E, I would be satisfied with this suggestion as a good step in the right direction. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Editors could not delete the article and now this seems like an attempt at a back door AFD. The title change was made because editors wanted to use the most commonly used phrase attached to this ongoing event of a person who has made public media appearances. QuackGuru 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is no "attempt at a back door AFD", I don't know where you get that from. There is no suggestion made here to delete information, only to move it around a bit. As you point out yourself, this is an article about an "event", not a person. Lampman (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree For now. Joe the Plumber is giving many interviews and is continuing to do so. This is about as much about him as it is him as a symbol. The earlier move had consensus to move only with many editors making clear that they wanted it moved because it was the name he was more commonly known under and would not accept a move if it was used as an excuse to remove content. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Many"? As I check the notes supra, it appears only 3 wanted to include liens etc. in the new article, and 5 opposed biographical information. The rest did not express any strong opinions on this matter, or spoke of limiting biographical information. Collect (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people don't give any opinion one way or another about the tax lien. However, of those who commented, Arthur, Jim, I and David is 4. In order to get a total of 5 you need to assume that everyone who wanted "purely biographical" information removed wanted the information on the lien removed whereas the argument has been made about its direct notability. So you are making two claims both of which need backing 1) that this information is inherently biographical and 2) that basic biographical data should not be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing statements does not get you to "many." Your "many" is 4 out of 16 ... Collect (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you assume that all 12 agree with you based on what evidence? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I simply stated that 4 out of 16 is a strange concept of "many." If you want their individual opinions other than what was stated supra, try asking them. All I did was make the count. Collect (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were 12 who said include, although many didn't say what they wanted to include. Similarly, there were 6 and are now 7 who said exclude, again, mostly without making it clear what they wanted to exclude. For those who specifically mention the lien, it seems to be 5 out of 8. I don't see how anyone could get 4 out of 16. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intersting count which does not agree with the count of 4 supra given by Joshua. Who is your "number 5"? Is it important to you to deny that more people specifically opposed the "tax lien" than support it being included? Would you even include, say, parking tickets? Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found 8, already, who specifically said "include the lien" or "include the lien if his tax opinions are included". I don't see how you can reduce that to 4. And parking tickets are irrelevant unless his opinions on parking tickets or parking regulations are included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see we're talking about different polls. The issue of whether his tax liens should be included in the article are relevant to the first poll (showing a clear supermajority in favor), but not in the second (rename) poll. It's about a real person who has opinions and problems; if the problems are relevant to his opinions, and the opinions are included, then the problems should be included. If you want another poll on the issue of the tax lien, then perhaps you should go ahead, provided you invite everyone who participated in the first poll. It seems clear that BLP is not an issue on the tax liens, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now an editwarrior is adding material for which consensus, AFAICT, has not been reached, and threatening someone with a 3RR violation. I think such edits are very counterproductive to reaching accord to be sure. Collect (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - a useful way forward - quite enough information without too much personal details being republished --Matilda talk 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree This would be original research, concluding that Joe the Plumber is a term (i.e. Joe Six-pack) instead of an actual person. Although occasionally used as a pseudonym for Joe Six-pack, all major verifiable media outlets have used "Joe the Plumber" to refer to Joe Wurzelbacher the private citizen, at least once but probably numerous times. The reason the article title was change is because he is most well known as "Joe the Plumber" rather than by his actual name (BTW, I'm not sure I agree with that since Obama Girl redirects to the girl's real name). I don't believe that any of the editors on this Wikipedia article and talk page are qualified to conclude whether or not "Joe the Plumber" has become a generic term, and styling the article as you suggest would inherently draw that conclusion.
However, I do believe that an article about "the Joe the Plumber phenomenon" is a good idea, and would be a more appropriate place to include conservative and liberal views on the issue Joe the Plumber raise with his encounter with Obama and subsequent interviews since it would not be a biographical article. I believe this approach would also make it easier to focus the controversy the question and quote instead of on Joe the Plumber himself.
So in short - keep Joe the Plumber as a biographical article, but endorse the idea of a Joe the Plumber Phenomenon article. --Amwestover (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security bit

"Social Security is a joke," Wurzelbacher told CNN. "I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[29] Should we include this in the article. Let the debate begin. QuackGuru 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a section on his politics. His politics are germane; major media care about his politics. Should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit

It seems to me that Joe the Plumber was relevant a few days ago, but the media seems to be tiring of this entire subject. I don't really think this article still needs to be so large. Comments?205.155.5.107 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reference would help. QuackGuru 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not how it works. Notability is not temporary and Wikipedia is not a news source. Notability is like being a king or queen of Narnia. Once a king in Narnia, always a king in Narnia. Once the individual is notable we don't reduce the article size simply because the media isn't paying as much attention. Moreover, I'm not at all convinced that the media is paying less attention. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive coverage continues today, with Google News search for the past 24 hours showing 11,953 hits for "Joe the Plumber[30]," on news channels like CNN and in campaign speeches by McCain and Palin. Fox News [31] calls him (Oct. 20) "the newest political star" and "a household name." The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 20) has extensive coverage of efforts to help him pay his back taxes [32]. CNN (Oct. 20) says "Joe the Plumber" will compete with Gen. Colin Powell for media attention over the next several days," and that Joe "is representative of the millions of hardworking Americans who get up every day and go to work" and that Joe is McCain's best strategy going forward. The LA Times (Oct 21) says [33] "the Joe the Plumber phenomenon is real" and continues to be prominent at McCain rallies, and that "Wurzelbacher symbolizes an optimistic, individualistic vision of America sorely lacking- until recently- in McCain's rhetoric." Market Watch (Oct 20)[34] calls Joe the Plumber "an American icon." William Kristol at The Weekly Standard (Oct. 20) says [35] "Joe the Plumber has helped give the McCain campaign its closing economic message." On Oct 20, the McCain campaign launched an internet competition [36] for supporters to explain how they are like Joe the Plumber in a TV campaign ad. Edison (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Powell bit

This view has been deleted. Comments? QuackGuru 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a synthesis if no one has connected the Powell remark to Joe the Plumbers remark. So should be left out. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried inserting it again. Deled -- but I suspect this was not an accidental insertion. Collect (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous plumber bit

The most famous plumber bit has been deleted. My oh my! QuackGuru 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that should be deleted. Its clearly reliably sourced and is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made this change that restored the relevant sentence. QuackGuru 05:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why it was deleted again but I restored it. QuackGuru 18:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellany about a subject does not belong in the lede. WP:LEAD The sentence is a miscellaneous comment not related directly to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

I would strongly suggest everyone stop edit warring on the article page, otherwise it will wind up fully protected. And of course, one side or the other will be unhappy with the frozen version. — Becksguy (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting the editwarrior comments on the article history ... seems pretty clear cut. Collect (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin has joined the edit war. Sigh. (also changed sp to "warring") Collect (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the original ones who said that the lien should be present if the tax quote is, and that it's WP:UNDUE and possibly even a WP:BLP violation not to have the lien there if the tax quote is. (Assuming the quote is a voluntary statement, rather than a reply to a question. If that's not the case, more context is needed to determine relevance of any sort.) The one removing the lien reference has already been blocked for doing so 4 times within 24 hours previously. He could be blocked even if he doesn't technically violate 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editwar was declared -- and you seemed to willingly step into it. And "the other guy did it" is not quite an excuse, is it? At least not for anyone editing on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page fully protected for 48 hours due to edit war. If the issue can be solved here before that time is up, please ping me so that I can remove the protection. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been satisfied if both his views on taxes (outside of the specific questions to Obama) and the lien were gone. But the lien is clearly relevant to his views; whether or not he's aware of the lien, if he wasn't aware that he owed the taxes, and normal procedures were followed, he's a tax protester. Awareness of owing taxes is relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Professor Arthur Rubin. Whether actively or ignortantly ignoring taxes is relevant. If not knowing taxes are due, then it affects his credibility. Tanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMT-08:00 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, well, there you go again. You again baldly assert that the lien must go in if the views of taxation goes in, but your provided reason makes no sense at all. There is no basis for your bald assertion "he's a tax protester." In five minutes I could name a dozen scenarios to explain why the tax lien exists, none of which involve his being a tax protester. He could have mailed the tax check to the wrong address. He could have transposed digits on the check. His tax check may have been erroneously credited to another taxpayer's account. Do you think I'm joking? These scenarios have all happened to people I know. There are many other possible scenarios. This is something that he will resolve with the tax authority, and it's nobody else's business, even if it was reported in the media, and it is not an encyclopedic fact. Anomalocaris (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, didn't you address 'awareness of owing taxes is relevent'? Taxes due, of which failure to pay would result in foreclosure or forfeiture of his present house, are something that he should have known. Doesn't the legal standard, 'knew or should have known', apply to him? If he didn't know, doesn't that make him an ignorant citizen and voter? Tanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMT-08:00 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, again you bring up the theory of WP:UNDUE. I challenged the applicability of that theory above under #Request for arbitration on tax issues in my discussion about a hypothetical Joe Musiccritic who believes that Salieri was a better composer than Mozart. You never responded to my challenge. Again, WP:UNDUE does not apply here.

An additional point: I believe many readers will realize that JtP's comment on taxation without representation was bizarre, because in fact Ohio voters are fully represented in the United States House and Senate. (If JtP were a resident of the District of Columbia, which actually does have taxation without representation, his comment would have been apropos.) His comment on taxation without representation sheds light on JtP's understanding on the very issue he has become famous for discussing. That is why it belongs in this article. On the other hand, the lien is a personal, non-encyclopedic matter, like a jaywalking ticket or a parking ticket or some other minor infraction. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tax lien or judgement lien?

Though the deputy clerk called it a "judgement lien", the actual lien appears to be a "tax lien" -- the distinction is whether a judge issued the order. For clarity, I suspect "tax lien" should meet with no objections? Collect (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearence on Hannity & Colmes

On 20 Octember 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMT-08:00 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other relevant topics:

Requisition to unproject the page

Can somebody request unprotection? Tanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMT-08:00 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WE NEED A PICTURE

NOOWWWW!!!!111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.111.14 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia's reason for lagging in pictures is our commitment to free licensed content, that can be used, reproduced, and modified.
I had wanted to take a picture of the plumbing business in question, but unfortunately all of the addresses listed in the phonebook for Newell Plumbing & Heating are in residential neighbourhoods. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not unusual for a small business which does not need fancy offices. It is one of the types of businesses which is pretty much zoning-exempt. Collect (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working the content dispute out on the talk page

The basic situation is that "Joe the Plumber" is a living person who has been turned into a hot political meme.

The political meme "Joe the Plumber" as put forward by John McCain is a successful small businessman whose American dream was threatened by Barack Obama's plan to take his hard-earned money with higher taxes so Democrats can "spread the wealth" to undeserving people who don't work as hard as Joe does. There was no need for McCain to tie this complaint to an actual plumber living in Ohio, but the link has been made.

The problem for us is how to accommodate several issues in one article. On the one hand, there is an actual living person Mr. Wurzelbacher who asked Obama a question with TV cameras rolling, and who has later given a lot of interviews to the press. On the other hand, there is a Republican political meme of "Joe the Plumber."

Conflict arises about just how this bio should "compare and contrast" Joe Wurzelbacher's biography to the meme being promoted as "Joe the Plumber." In my opinion, it is legitimate for this biography to report evidence that Mr. Wurzelbacher was not, in fact, getting ready to buy a business with $250,000 annual profit. (The article has Joe's quote slightly wrong. He said, " I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250, 270, 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?") It is legitimate for this biography to report evidence that Mr. Wurzelbacher is not, in fact, an undecided voter. It is not legitimate for this biography to report random unflattering facts about Mr. Wurzelbacher, not only because this violates WP:NPF but also because it weakens the rest of the bio by making it sound like an unfair attack piece. betsythedevine (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point of view is that the supposedly "unflattering" facts are actually admirable traits of outlawry; see http://mises.org/story/3160 . In fact, I was just about to mention that in the article, but it's protected. He's a public figure now, and I see no problem with including that information. Simultaneous movement (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His wealth and tax status have been widely reported by mainstream media, and this information is germane to his sole claim of popularity — exponent of upper middle class that would be hurt by Obama's tax plan. His political leaning is also germane since it helps explain some contradictions between his declared business intentions and the feasibility thereof. Other aspects (like whether he is a licensed plumber or legally working under someone else's plumbing license) seem irrelevant. VG ☎ 17:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tax lien is not a "random unflattering fact". Any of the possible scenarios regarding the tax lien reflects badly on his personal credibility (or possibly, competence, or in a clearly implausible scenario, merely awareness) in regard tax matters. We're not allowed to speculate as to which of the scenarios is accurate, or report that analysis (although it's only a Wikipedia restriction, not a legal restriction), but it's clearly accurate. The drivers' license (note the location of the apostrophe, it is correct) or hospital lien are not obviously relevant, and shouldn't be mentioned unless a reliable source explains the connection.
This analysis would apply even if he were not a public figure. He is a public figure, as noted above.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of VasileGaburici's points. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the cat is already out of the bag; it's not like we dredged up the information ourselves. Simultaneous movement (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin, in the section #Edit Warring above, I pointed out that there are numerous possible explanations of the existence of the tax lien that do not reflect badly on his personal credibility or competence. For instance, what if he actually paid his taxes, on time, but due to a clerical error on the part of the tax authority, his check was credited to another taxpayer's account? This does happen, you know. I know someone whose tax check was credited to another taxpayer even though the correct social security number was on the check. This is just one of many possible explanations of the tax lien that have nothing to do with JtP's credibility or competence or status as a tax protestor. Unless we have JtP on the record saying that he deliberately underpaid or didn't pay taxes for a specific reason, this utterly non-encyclopedic fact, analogous to a parking ticket, should not be in Wikipedia. Anomalocaris (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the cat is out of the bag, then why are so many people ignorant about the cat? Joe has stated that he was unaware of the tax lien against him until this event. To be treated in his bio as a major event is very juvenile. Additionally, he was working towards his license, and is not required to have a license at this time as he can work under his employers’ license. The juvenile antics being displayed in furthering the attacks against a private citizen here are a disgrace to the WP project, but then mob mentality and mob rules are usually what work best here. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he was aware of the lien: If he was aware of the tax debt, it's relevant to his opinions on taxes. If he was not aware of the tax debt, it shows enough lack of knowledge of how taxes work that it's relevant to his opinions on taxes. There is still no scenario under which it's not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So he is supposed to omniscient for you to be satisfied. This is ridiculous, and your continued synthesis of the issue is disturbing. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin: Once again you are making unwarranted inferences about the tax lien. perhaps JtP is aware of the tax lien, but disputes it, believing rightly or wrongly that it was imposed erroneously, as some tax liens are. Or perhaps JtP is not aware of the tax lien because notice was never mailed at all, or notice was sent by certified mail but he was out of town at the time so couldn't sign for it, or it arrived in a big stack of mail he hasn't opened yet, or it was delivered slipped into a junk mail newspaper and was inadvertently discarded unopened and unread, or the USPS delivered it to the wrong address — I could come up with dozens of explanations of why he might not know about the tax lien that have nothing to do with "knowledge of how taxes work" or "opinions on taxes." Tell me, Arthur Rubin, have you never in your life received a piece of mail that should have been delivered to another address? Anomalocaris (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, all I can think of is the trial of the Jack of Hearts -- important, unimportant and so on. I now would support having neither the "no representation" quote nor the tax liens. Clean up the article finally. Collect (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just present the facts in a balanced and non-biased way. Keep the information, but put it in its proper context. If you scrutinize an average citizen's life, you can probably find a lot of petty infractions of the law. If he had a totally law-abiding life, then he would be exceptional and thus not be the archetypical "Joe the Plumber" (i.e. who represents an ordinary American.) Simultaneous movement (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand on the opinion of Betsythedevine - "Joe the Plumber" is a political meme loosely based on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. The lede should not be declaring that Mr. W is Joe the Plumber and the actual personal information about Mr. W. should reduced to a minimal amount in this article, and perhaps moved back into a Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher article if he himself is somehow shown to be notable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher redirects to Joe the Plumber. While the meme has gone beyond the individual in some uses, it's still largely about an individual and the context. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect does not mean that "Joe the Plumber" is a political meme loosely based on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. I agree that there should be minimal information on Wurzelbacher himself, he is not separately notable. --Matilda talk 00:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Matilda, I see this as two article topics, the concept of "Joe the Plumber" which has become a notable topic in the current US presidential election, and the real Mr. W, who is NOT "Joe the Plumber" as used within the campaigns and media - he is only the guy that this current political football was based on. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minimizing coverage would simplify things, but it's not necessary or even desirable. I think the concept of Joe the Plumber and the man himself can coexist in the same article. A specific anecdote, involving a particular person's specific circumstances, gave rise to this "political football," and we may as well keep them together. Also, I have to call [citation needed] on your statement that the meme is only loosely based on this guy. Simultaneous movement (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think our policy on living people does not support your position: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
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. " We can cover the topic of "Joe the Plumber" without massive invasion into his personal life. This is a person who was thrown into the public spotlight and not a politician or actor who specifically chose to be a public figure. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think when one grills a Presidential candidate in the manner that he did, using aspects of one's personal situation to make a point, it leaves one open to that kind of scrutiny. Simultaneous movement (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A private individual attempting to understand a candidate's position = I open my entire life to public scrutiny ???? I am shocked and completely and completely and utterly disagree. (If on the other hand there is somehow substantial evidence that say showed the Mr. W was recruited and planted by the McCain/Republican campaign to ask this particular question, then the situation changes, but that is complete hypothetical.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plumbing licenses and tax liens are public information. That's why the press was able to obtain it. There's nothing wrong with scrutinizing public information. See 1.800.Vending and the associated talk page. That company didn't ask to have its dirty laundry aired either, but it happened and Jimbo ultimately allowed it to stand. Simultaneous movement (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your position that all "public information" belongs in WP? I demur. Collect (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the public information comprises a large portion of the publicity related to that person, I think it can be included. Should we take out the information about Bristol Palin being pregnant as well, since that's part of her private life? Simultaneous movement (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "public information" exists about a person does not mean that the person is a "public figure." This is a clear case of a person being "famous" for one event, and the event is the use of "Joe the Plumber" by the political candidates to illustrate their points during the debate and the news media frenzy thereafter and not Mr. W himself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even Fox News covered the tax lien [37], so those editors trying to censor that info in this article are trying to be holier than the Pope. VG ☎ 08:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 1975, Oliver Sipple saved the life of President Ford in San Francisco. The Secret Service and the press portrayed Sipple as a hero, but he was outed by members of the gay community, and that was reported in the press despite Sipple's plea that it be kept private. Sipple had no intention of seeking the spotlight and sued for invasion of privacy. Contrast that situation with Joe the Plumber who invited himself into the spotlight while the cameras were rolling, and them pumped it for all he could. — Becksguy (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my contacts has stated that there is no possible scenario in which Joe (1) didn't know (or wasn't explicitly told by the State) that he owed back taxes, (2) didn't inform the state of a correct, permanent mailing address, or (3) didn't open his mail. This isn't published, so it's not a WP:RS, but it is specific expertise. We're not allowed to speculate which is correct, absent reliable sources, but they are all relevant to his opinions on taxes. Hence, listing his public opinions on taxes, other than merely the specific questions asked in the debate, without including the fact of the lien (allowing the reader to put 2 and 2 together to get 22), is clearly WP:UNDUE weight. I'd say he's a public figure, even by Wikipedia standards, but I'm not totally convinced of that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One of my contacts" is a stronger source than the deputy clerk of court in Lucas County for what happens in Lucas County? As for tax authorities not having correct information on mailing addresses, that happens all the time, even where the lien is written as "any and all property" it does not need a correct mailing address. And so let's keep out the "Representation" quote and the liens, and just deal with "Joe the Meme." Collect (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "one of my contacts" (who happens to be an IRS collections manager) is stronger than a' deputy clerk at the courthouse. (The sources do not say she's "the deputy clerk of court".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You state that an IRS collections manager knows more about Lucas County Ohio than the deputy clerk of court for Lucas County Ohio? Interesting claim, but it fails. On October 16, 2008, Barb Loisie, deputy clerk at the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, told ABC News that "there is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien."[23]" is oin the main article here. As for the cite, it states "Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, told ABCNews.com." so I submit that the cite does indeed call the person quoted a "deputy clerk of (court)." Collect (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No possible scenario? A scenario that fulfills items (1) and (3) is that the state tax authority issued the letter informing JtP of the lien and mailed it to the correct address, but the USPS accidentally delivered it to a neighbor, who discarded it. Have you never had mail delivered to you that was addressed to a neighbor? If the letter was sent certified, a scenario is that on the delivery date, JtP was out of town and had a house guest who signed for the letter, but never gave it to JtP. In under five minutes, I could come up with more than a dozen plausible scenarios satisfying (1) and (3). Anomalocaris (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your alleged contact is published in a verifiable source, it's completely irrelevant. Read the second paragraph of WP:RS which you reference and you'll see that Wikipedia sources must be reliable, third party, and published. Some guy you know doesn't meet those requirements. And regardless of all that, it's still being used in original research. You're trying to draw a conclusion that is not sourced by a verifiable and neutral media outlet. --Amwestover (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, the article quoted said "deputy clerk at the ... Courthouse'", not "Deputy Clerk of the ... Court". My best guess is that she might be a Deputy (county) Clerk of Lucas County, but she might just be a clerk working for the county at the courthouse. (Liens are filed with the county, rather than with the court, but county offices are frequently in courthouses.) And lost mail is a possible scenario, but for Federal taxes or California taxes, at least 4 letters would have to be sent to "Joe" before the lien was filed. I doubt it would be less for Ohio. Furthermore, my statement that he had to have been aware of the taxes owed is not contradicted by Lucas's statements. I did not say he had to have been aware of the lien, but that he had to have been aware of the taxes owed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the article, or it's changed. Nonetheless, liens are filed with the County, rather than the Court, so she's not a relevant expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not changed. Liens are filed in Lucas County at the courthouse. Amazingly enough, many counties use the "county courthouse" for such purposes. Collect (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubin, your opinion is noted, and it is not relevant. What you claim he must have known is not sufficient for this article. He has stated he did not know. There is a RS that states he is very unlikely to have known. I find it preposterous given your education background to make a finite statement about what he did or did not know. It is not relevant, it has not been relevant and it continues to be undue weight and a continued violation of BLP policies (which as an admin you should know much better than you claim to know about tax laws). Furthermore his taxes have apparently been paid (with help) now that he knows about them. Are you ready to stop dragging this guy through the mud yet? I think his life has been affected enough already. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, if she's a "deputy clerk of the ... Court ...", she's working for the court, and has no business working with liens, which are an administrative function of the county. Her expertise is questionable. However, my opinion and hers don't contradict, although I question the accuracy of her opinion and the relevance of statement to the relevance of the fact of the lien. A judge (or magistrate) might opine that, among liens that are brought to his/her attention, most were not known by the person against whom the lien was filed, but a clerk (or even the Clerk of the Court) has no specific expertise in the matter. However, since KABC-TV is the only major Los Angeles TV station to have lost a libel suit, we can't really expect the parent company to be good at fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might have actually looked at http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/recorder/History.asp . " The practice of recording land records was brought from England with the early colonist and came into use in Ohio during the 1790’s. In 1803 the Ohio General Assembly established the Recorder as a mandated county office. Initially the Recorder’s position was appointed by the associate judges of the Common Pleas Court, it then became an elective position in 1829. Originally the Recorder served a two-year term; in 1936 the Recorder’s term was extended to four years. " http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/default.asp?RequestedAlias=Clerk "One of the largest revenue sources for the State of Ohio is the 88 Clerks of the Court of Common Pleas. Annually, the fees and taxes disbursed to the State by the Clerk of Courts' legal and title offices near or exceed one billion dollars. " "The Administrative Lien allows enforcement of the arrearages without returning to court. The lien is considered active until it is executed/released. " It appears an administrative lien is filed with the Clerk of Court, and then filed with the Recorder, all in the same building. So much for blaming KABC. Collect (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect

I see no need for protection at this time; WP:BRD should suffice for resolving disputes, and those who violate WP:3RR can be brought to WP:AN/3RR. Simultaneous movement (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us do see a need for protection, and much more importantly, so does an uninvolved admin. It will expire in about 25 hours in any case. — Becksguy (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber the meme

There is a transcript of the third debate online at http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/debate/debate_transcript.pdf

Here's what John McCain said:

I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher.

Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.

You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream. Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.

And I will not have -- I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income taxes are paid by small businesses. That's 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.

I thought this information would be helpful to people working on the article. betsythedevine (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for new intro paragraph

Joe the Plumber, is a reference used by by Republican Senator John McCain, Democratic Senator Barack Obama and members of the media during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to compare the implications of the candidates' tax policies. Joe the Plumber was mentioned at least 23 times[4][5][6] during the third and final presidential debate on October 15, 2008.[7] The character is based on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [8]

Thank you, Red Pen of Doom, for this interesting suggestion. Your approach sounds like a good way to clarify some issues, although I am sure others would want to tweak the wording.
I notice Variety has a relevant story about media coverage: [38] They say that "The debate itself accounted for 18% of stories last week, according to study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. The economic crisis -- and the new proposals both candidates fielded to address the meltdown -- accounted for 9%, barely squeaking past the 8% of stories devoted to plumber Joe Wuzelbacher." betsythedevine (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This is POV, OR and outright misleading. Joe the Plumber is not a character. He's not an actor with a separate persona or anything like that. Joe the Plumber is Sam Wurzlebacher. Period. The fact that he is most commonly known as Joe the Plumber doesn't make Joe the Plumber a separate individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While he is, in fact, better known for being Joe the Plumber, he's not a different person than Joe Wurzlebacher. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only two other obvious choices I find are "persona" and "epithet". "Epithet" is technically correct to be sure. Thus possible coices are "The persona is based on SJW" or "JtP is an epithet applied to SJW." Votre choix. "Meme" is almost defintiely not the word to use. Collect (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theres lots of other ways to say it: The Joe the Plumber comparisons stemmed from a question posed by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher at an Obama rally in Ohio. would be one way. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe the Plumber is an individual, not a type like Essex Man or Soccer mom. Even if we don't want to get into personal details, that needs to be clear. 140.247.248.36 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about this?

Joe the Plumber is a nickname repeatedly used during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to to symbolize small business issues,[4][5] based on a tax-policy discussion between Barack Obama and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [8]

Sounds pretty much ok here. Collect (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that were the lead paragraph, maybe our section heads would be "Filmed encounter with Barack Obama", "Discussion in third Presidential debate", "Media discussion of Joseph Wurzelbacher", and "Candidates' discussion of Joe the Plumber." What do others think? betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the encounter was taped? And put any bio stuff in last section -- after cadidates' discussions. The article is really more about the tax discussion than about an individual. Collect (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is a more academic term for the use of the phrase than 'nickname'. MickMacNee (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It is not a nickname used to symbolize small business issues. It is a nickname used for a specific person in which context his concerns represented a microcosm of small business issues throughout the United States. Can someone find a less wordy way to say that? The point that the nickname was about a specific human being is important. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, hard to get all that into one sentence. How about one sentence that says it's X and another that says it's also Y, where X = a shortcut way of talking about small business taxes in the US and Y = the person who asked Obama a question about it? JoshuaZ, want to take a whack at those sentences? Oh, yes, and the encounter was taped, not filmed. I am just showing my age there. betsythedevine (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about this: "Joe the Plumber is a nickname repeatedly used during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to refer to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher whose nickname came to symbolize small business issues,[4][5] based on a tax-policy discussion between Barack Obama and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [8]" I think that gets it all in in one sentence and should make everyone happy? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't McCain the one who first referred to him (publicly) as "Joe the Plumber"? In that case the meme should be properly attributed in the lead section. My understanding is that McCain apologized to Joe because it was McCain who put the media spotlight on Joe, but I'm unsure if McCain was the first to use "Joe the Plumber". VG ☎ 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Indiana Express and VOA sources do not seem to be accurately placed/support the material where they are currently placed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a living person and should go by WP:MOSBIO. Full legal name, then nickname. --Maestro25 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ref

  1. ^ "'Joe the plumber' a Drain for McCain?". businessweek.com. 2008-10-16. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
  2. ^ "Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher related to Charles "the Crook" Keating. Oops". eisenstadtgroup.com. 2008-10-15. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
  3. ^ including myself
  4. ^ a b c Saine, Cindy (16 October 2008). "'Joe the Plumber' - Unexpected Star of US Presidential Debate". Voice of America: VoA News.
  5. ^ a b c ""Mentioned 26 times, 'Joe the Plumber' becomes a national fixture"". IndianExpress.com. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2008-10-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ 26 times according to the BBC, per "Doubts raised on US 'plumber Joe'", October 17, 2008
  7. ^ ""America's Overnight Sensation Joe the Plumber Owes $1,200 in Taxes"". ABC News. 2008-10-16. Retrieved 2008-10-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ a b c Vellequette, Larry (October 16, 2008). "'Joe the plumber' isn't licensed". Toledo Blade. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Notability

Please either delete this article or add it to the United States presidential election, 2008 article. Thanks. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe the Plumber" clearly meets our notability guidelines as a subject for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The question remains as to how we make the content of the article fit within our other guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, might be notable, but not enough for a stand alone article. In fact, Joe the plumber was a metaphorical expression more than a reference to an specific...dude.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments you raise have recently been debated through two separate AfDs for this article, with a review of the second AfD. The consensus was that this article belongs in Wikipedia. You can see the archive of the deletion review discussion here. betsythedevine (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even metaphors can be notable enough for standalone articles (lame duck, melting pot etc.) If you feel the content of the article should better reflect the metaphorical use of the phrase, please feel free to join the content discussions above, especially if you have sources that support your opinion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article underwent a prematurely ended deletion request concluding that it should be kept for now. Although I think that's a terrible policy since it admits that the subject of the article isn't notable yet and/or may only be briefly notable, it's nonetheless still a policy. A second discussion was held which appropriately lasted longer and ultimately the original decision was upheld. Since nearly anything can be reviewed again on Wikipedia, I'm sure a deletion request will be made again soon enough. --Amwestover (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable source and controversial material

I added a tag to a source that may be unreliable. The text seems controversial. We can discuss this here rather than revert over the inclusion or exclusion of this material. QuackGuru 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it "unreliable"? Are you questioning the authorship? Simultaneous movement (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCES. Can you provide me with any evidence that the source is reliable. QuackGuru 06:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this is necessary, reliable or not. This is one man's personal opinion on JtP. We wouldn't list quotes from sources attacking him, why should we list a quote from someone who ascribes motives to JtP's actions (or lack thereof). Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that he draws reasonable conclusions via praxeology. In any event, isn't every possible quote of commentary just "one person's personal opinion"? And Rockwell happens to be the head of a major organization. Why wouldn't we list quotes from sources attacking Joe? That's acceptable, especially if they are balanced by opposing points of view and presented in the proper context. In my opinion, the Wikipedians here simply disagree with Rockwell's point and are therefore trying to keep the content out.
If no information/commentary about the significance of Joe's lack of license/failure to pay taxes is going to be presented, then why present those facts at all? What is their importance (or indeed, Joe's) outside of what it says about society as a whole? Simultaneous movement (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)His conclusions aren't conclusions, they're just his opinion. Wikipedia isn't for commentary, whether positive or negative. I understand your opinion, but my opinion on the matter is that this quote is entirely opinion and doesn't belong. As for your other coments on taxes, that's a discussion taking place elsewhere on this page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Lew Rockwell quote. The quote could go in the Lew Rockwell article, but it doesn't belong here. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the Rockwell quote was correct. It was from an opinion piece and a blog, therefore not a reliable source here. — Becksguy (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://mises.org/ is not a blog. Also, opinion pieces are reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors. I think it's useful to cover the point of view that JtP's failure to pay taxes or get a plumber's license may not be a bad thing. But, it appears I'm simply outvoted here. Simultaneous movement (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct, it's not a blog. However, it's still an opinion piece, and as you stated, reliable as an expression of the opinion of it's authors. But not normally as a reliable source otherwise. However, the theory that JtP's failure to pay a small tax bill (or lien) somehow mirrors his political or economic position on taxes, especially as an outlaw, is original research. Same for the lack of a license, since apparently it's not required if he is supervised by a license holder. — Becksguy (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama quote

Hello, does the quote by Obama need to be clarified that he is talking about 250,000 dollars and not $250? After seeing the quote in print, I thought there was a chance that someone might be confused. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be appropriate to modify his quote with clarifications, replacing "$250" with [$250,000]. Although, from the previous paragraph it can be assumed that the context is 250 thousand dollars instead of just 250 dollars. What's the suggested styling on something like that? --Amwestover (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section "Political leanings and views on taxation"

I think it would be relevant to include at least a part of this incisive point, from comedian/commentator Bill Maher, about Joe the Plumber's hypothetical future wealth. See, particular, what he says starting at 1:33 (this is posted under HBO copyright by TULLYCAST2) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt9Yr_O9SO8
From HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," broadcast on October 17, 2008.
68.174.101.64 (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondrously irrelevant either to this article or any other article. Speculation by humorists, indeed. Collect (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher isn't a commentator in any shape, way, or form. He's a comedian and a completely unreliable source. --Amwestover (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money raised to help him pay back taxes

According to a CNN report, a media outlet raised money to help him pay taxes he owed. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkYwuzj-HiU&feature=related Wrad (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


size of business

Speculative claims about how much a plumbing business would make if JtP were to own it are rather outside the consept of germane. A person might well buy a business on the basis of how much he thinks he could earn from it, and not on how much is reported by the current owner to tax authorities. Ditto comments about him making "proper business deductions". Collect (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative claims aren't very encyclopedic, but supportable evidence about the profitability of the business, I believe, are germane. Joe the Plumber said he was getting ready to buy a business making $250K to $280K per year. If he was making sh*t up, it reflects on the exchange. Nobody forced him to frame his question this way. He could have talked about a hypothetical business-buyer, but he told the story in the first person. I believe that supportable evidence on the profitability of the business does have a place in this article. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quote for him saying the business was currently making $250K profit? As for stating the effect of tax increases if he makes "deductions" are not valid in a B:P for sure. If one makes the "right" deductions, one pays no taxes at all! In short -- SYNTH, OR and not BLP. Collect (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He could have talked about a hypothetical business-buyer, but he told the story in the first person." Oh please, he was asking a question of a candidate at a rally - he wasnt under oath. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it actually wasn't at a rally. That was my original impression as well. The exchange occurred on the guys front lawn when Obama was touring his neighborhood. Not sure if that makes a difference though. Dman727 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section on the debate itself?

How come we do not have a section on the debate itself where the term gained its notability? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:SOFIXIT I placed a bit of the article on the debate into this article. Could use more beefing up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've needed this for a while. It's a great start. --Amwestover (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax lien redux

Including information about the tax lien while sourced does appear to be in contradction to our WP:BLP policy: WP:NPF "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability," Joe the Plumber is notable only for one thing - being discussed in the context of how tax policy would affect his ownership of a small business. His personal tax lien is completely irrellevant to what the candidates have been saying about "Joe the Plumber". -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the (Boston) tea party quote is irrelevant, and also should be removed under WP:BLP. There is no question that the lien is relevant to his quoted position there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't believe that his Boston Tea party quote is a BLP violation, I don't see that it adds much to the article either. I've no objections to its removal. Dman727 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've thought all along so I definitely have no objections to the tax lien information being removed and his quote on taxation. --Amwestover (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the tax issue is relevant because Joe the Plumber has become synonomous with tax issues in the 2008 election. It is a documented fact that he not paid his taxes. Many people do not know about his unpaid taxes because it has not been covered much by the media. The reader can take that to mean whatever they want about his feelings about taxes in general.--~M 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Rainme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainme (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate store for facts. Contributions have to be relevant to the subject's notability, and tax liens or opinions on taxation are irrelevant to JtP's notability. --Amwestover (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

The huge banner above this page is Template:Blp, template:Blp states:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

WP:BLP page at the very top of the article:

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

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

Yet on the BLP noticeboard:

The point is that verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion of material.--CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the news. Not all information printed by the news is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Amwestover (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Again, BLP was created because of malicious lies against a public figure, to protect Wikipedia's reputation and from being sued. In this case there is no malicious lies at all. Joe is not going to sue wikipedia when we quote the New York Times, no one is going to fault wikipedia for quoting this material.

Inclusionist (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Inclusionist. I made the same argument at BLP/N, in response the duplicate discussion there. Note for the general audience: observe that "N" stands for "notice". That board is supposed to a place to leave notice to attract a wider participation in this discussion, not an alternate forum of debate for those that don't agree with the outcome on this talk page. That line of behavior is called forum shopping. VG ☎ 11:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted inclusion of this information. There is no evidence that consensus has been reached that this information is in any way related to Mr. W's claim to notability as "Joe the Plumber" -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted you back because you obviously haven't understood the points above. VG ☎ 11:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have understood and completely disagree. His notatiblity resides solely in being used as an example of how tax policy would affect small business owners. His personal tax liens have no relavance to the fact that others have been using his hypothetical purchase of a buisness. While the basis for his notability and the tax lien both have the word "tax" in them, to say they are related is comeplete WP:SYN-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. You seem to understand the concept of reliable sources when it comes to Christianity and homosexuality. In this case ABC, AP, WaPo and even Fox News seem to think that the tax lien is relevant to the topic "Joe the Plumber", so including this information is not original research on our behalf.
No Wikipedia article is limited to an enumeration of claims for notability. Notability has to exist for the article to be included in Wikipedia, but the article itself is not limited to such claims. See WP:NNC. VG ☎ 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this section started out, I refer you again to: "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." This section of our BLP policy clearly is appliable here.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at AfD and DRV was that he's notable for more than one even, otherwise the article would have been deleted per WP:BIO1E. Therefore, the above paragraph doesn't apply to this article. VG ☎ 13:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. JtP is now a symbol of how tax policies under debate would affect small business owners. Not a vlaid subject for a full biography. Collect (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. His notability is because he drew attention to Obama's proposed tax changes. If you asked Obama about saving gas by keeping tire pressure up, would you think all your parking tickets should be printed in the paper because they are "Related"? Or that if you asked about immigration policy, that your genealogy should be inspected for any foreign ancestry? Collect (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Given the broad media coverage, he has become a Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN public figure for his position on taxes, and the tax lien information is supported by multiple sources, so it belongs in the article. VG ☎ 12:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thre are several misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy here. If the tax lien were subject to WP:BLP, then it should not be included in the article without a consensus that it did not violate WP:BLP. However, it seems clear to me that it is not subject to WP:BLP
  1. We're not looking at reliable primary sources, as there are a number of reliable secondary sources that report the lien.
  2. A good argument could be made that he's a public figure, not subject to BLP1E, and any relevant fact can be included. The tax lien is certainly relevant to the tax questions.
  3. The lien is germane to his opinions on taxes, a number of which are still included in the article. The "toss the Brits out" quote is clearly WP:undue weight without a reference to his actual tax sitution to the extent reported by reliable sources, and hence may also be a WP:BLP violation.
And, the last time I checked WP:BLPN, there was a consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really comes down to this:
There are more editors who support the tax information inclusion.
Therefore more editors to revert to where the page includes the tax information, with 3RR violations reported.
Thus far I have seen extreme restrain on the part of those who want inclusion. Maybe that should change. Inclusionist (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust I misread your post. Collect (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the tax lein material relevant? I don't see consensus for inclusion. --Tom 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionist, that is blatant meat puppetry. People like you are the reason that this has gotten out of hand. --Amwestover (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

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

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

The press may be more restrained in France. VG ☎ 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber's funny Matt Damon comparison

This is possibly worth including, especially since Damon famously expressed his doubt over Palin's qualifications shortly after she emerged onto the national scene:
Yahoo News: "Damon 'honored' by Joe the Plumber's shout-out"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_en_ce/people_matt_damon
CBS copyrighted video on YouTube: "Matt Damon Rips Sarah Palin"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk
68.174.101.64 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on BLP noticeboard

Just so everyone is aware, I made this sugestion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Feel free to comment there. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede first words

There is no reason why the first words of the article should be anything other than the title of the article. I have reworded again to make that switch. I trust this is satisfactory. Collect (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asserts that the "real name" is required by practice to to be the first word in the lede, and not the title of the article. I can not find this to be the practice, so have placed JtP as start of article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Madonna (entertainer), Lev Chernyi, Prince (musician) etc. the skomorokh 15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha -- a name of a performer is your example? Not applicable to a person who is not a performer using a name, but who has the name "thrust upon him." That alone separates JtP from any of your examples. Collect (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also contrary to your list -- Charles the Bald amonfg a few dozen counterexamples I found. Collect (talk)

Bold in lead

Are redirects suppose to be bolded? --Tom 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear, per WP:LEDE#Format (2nd item in collapsebox) and the footnote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks Arthur. --Tom 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Joe the Plumber tax lien on house

Template:RFCpol

  • Strong include - The guy is famous for things he said about taxes. The lien information is fully sourced. I'm sorry, but I can't see any NPOV reason to exclude the information. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Some editors here are throwing out every acronym they can imagine to justify the deletion. Arzel has said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues, despite what the BLP clearly page says and those who support his view. Several hundred news editors have felt it was relevant enough to include in their news, versus a half dozen wikiepdians. Inclusionist (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC
  • BLP Violation the only connection is the absurd correlation that he is a tax protester of some sort. Any insinuation that he is a tax protester without iron clad proof is a clear violation of BLP policies. To make this insinuation is outright libel against him and has no purpose within his bio. Just because MSM have reported it does not mean it is relevant to his bio. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? - nowhere does the language say anything about "tax protestor" or anything like it. (I know tax protestors; he's no tax protestor, nor do we say he is!) The guy complains about taxes, but hasn't paid the ones he owes under current law. This is not relevant how? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not relevant because HE DID NOT KNOW about the tax lien. Please stop making this spurious allegations against him unless you can prove that he actively chose not to pay his taxes. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of the hundreds of articles which mention this tax lien, no one is claiming that he did not actively choose to pay his taxes. Please quit putting words in people's mouths, and please quit creating wikipolicy as it suits you. Inclusionist (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. If it was unsourced it would be a BLP violation. It isn't. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a terrible argument, should we go littering every bio with disparaging material simply because it is sourced? Arzel (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it also has to be relevant. And it is. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. This item and his income bracket are important towards establishing if he is a genuine exponent of those that would be hurt by Obama's tax plan (Joe's claim to fame), or whether he is a self-appointed political agitator motivated only by his political bias. For the same reason his political statements and associations are relevant. With all its faults, the media is not blind, which why this item is included in dozen of news reports form a variety of sources that span the political spectrum. OTOH, I fully support removing irrelevant material surrounding his driving license, details about his family etc. This tax-related issue is less inflammatory than the affair example given in the WP:WELLKNOWN section of the BLP policy, and has a multitude of sources to back it up, so no policy is violated by including it. VG ☎ 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP violation. It doesn't make any difference whether it is sourced or not IMO it is entirely irrelevant, personal ,nosiness, and none of anyones business except him and the tax office. The fact that others choose to engage in such sordid intrusions into this man's tax affairs is no reason that we should. People should read Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy to see why this should not be included in the article.Actually, reading through the article a second time there are other BLP violations, how is the fact that he doesn't have a plumber's license relevant?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, please take the time to read the title of this page before commenting on an RfC. The fact that he is called a plumber probably has something to do justifies brining up the fact he does not have a plumber's license.Inclusionist (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bollocks! Whether he is a licensed plumber or not is completely immaterial to this article and certainly likely to be personally damaging.I did read the title. Perhaps you should take time to read WP:BLP? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the invitation to read WP:BLP again. You mention Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, which I quote here:
          "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives."
          Theresa, how can wikipedia causes anymore harm when the entire Western World has written about his tax liens?
          And this:
          "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability." "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."

          Theresa, does this tax information meet no original research policy and Wikipedia:Verifiability?
          I guess many editors are just not used to people double checking their acronyms. Inclusionist (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It meets them for sure. So do I. Should I get an article, because my name shows up in Google? Just because a newpaper has written something doesn't mean we have to copy. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and no offence, but I'm not sure how seriously I can take your comments in this discussion with a username like "Inclusionist". I can see your intentions here without you even needing to say anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete IT is a BLP violation. It also has an absurd number of references, contrary to WP policy on cites. Also people backing this absurd number of cites issue warnings which are not relevant in any AGF situation. Also we have info on traffic tickets -- ought it go into every article we find? This is not even a close call. Collect (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. There's no possible BLP violation, as we've explained at WP:BLPN. The fact that he owes (back) taxes is relevant to his opinions on taxes. If you want the article to be only about his questions to Obama and McCain taking him on as a mascot, that's an alternative, but, if his opinions on taxes appear, then so must public information about his taxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I correct that since someone REMOVED the material about JtP's opinions on taxes, that your position would be to DELETE the lien section? Collect (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Its a BLP violation and ultimately irrelevant. Posting this information is of course part of an effort to smear a guy who dared speak ill of The Obama. "Joe the Plumber" is noteworthy as a political meme and a euphemism, far far less so than as an individual. Dman727 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not news: The only reason this material is included is to question his credibility to ask questions regarding taxes or to give opinions on taxation.
  1. Nobody needs to demonstrate any sort of qualifications or requirements to question or have concerns on any issue. The validity of the question and the answer are not affected by who is asking the question. It is simply an exchange of information. Is it relevant that I'm typing this on a Mac, which is being saved on a Linux box, which will be read on your PC? No.
  2. If you believe that someone is unqualified to give an opinion, then simply don't include the opinion. Joe the Plumber is entitled to his own opinions but that does not mean that they warrant mention on Wikipedia. You don't see all of this guy's opinion's on his Wikipedia article.
  3. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate storage of information. His tax liens, his divorce, his roommate in college, his favorite ice cream flavor, and anything else you can come up with are not relevant to his notability. --Amwestover (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed with your command of acronyms. Actually, Wikipedia is not news and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate storage of information are the same thing. The section you quote is irrelant, since it is talking about articles, "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". So A+ of your understanding of acronyms, but it doesn't seem like your arguments support the acronym you quote. Inclusionist (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not. NOT#NEWS and INDISCRIMINATE link to different things if you'd actually bothered to click on them. But you're not editing in good faith so I really don't care what your opinion is. --Amwestover (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How is this relevant and in what context? Because the talking heads are telling us so? --Tom 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The taxation opinions and issues are directly relevant to the notability of this individual, and said information is well-sourced. The fact that his opinion and lien have been repeatedly reported in major media outlets and is relevant to his notability satisifes WP:BLP guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the guy is famous because he questioned political candidate about income tax / small business tax policies and the candidates then decided to use him as a hypothetical model to illustrate the effects of their policies. His previous deficiencies in other forms of tax payment are non-germaine to the event that makes him notable and should not be included under our BLP guidelines "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. ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Joe the Plumber" is a lot more than "the guy", who asked the question. WP:BLP probably was not designed to handle the velocity of a presidential election campaign. I don't think it's the only set of guidelines that apply here. Just read up on current "Joe the Plumber Tour" if you think this article is only about the person and then explain why the overlaps between the person and politics don't matter.Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And guess who is going on the "Joe the Plumber Tour"? If you guessed "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" the supposed subject of this article, you would be wrong. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include a) The tax lien is of public record. Additionally it has been internationally broadcast in print, audio and video media. So Wikipedia here is simply setting out what is already well known. b) The tax lien is relevant. Joe is notable (in part) because of his words on taxation. c) The tax lien item is needed to show Joe the Plumber is an honorable person. (I may be out of line here, but I'm under the impression that this section is for the purpose of ending discussion (on inclusion or exclusion of the tax lien info). We are here to state our positions. We aren't posting here to dispute the positions of others, or to argue against the votes of others. If this assumption is correct, then consider this a request to bite your collective tongues, state your positions, then refrain from disputing the statements of others. The time for discussion (I believe) has just ended and we are here only to post briefly what our stance on this issue is, not to issue comments or to disparage the stance of other participants. Again, if I'm mistaken, please ignore this.)--VictorC (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - This is a making a mountain out of a molehill. Very publicly available and verifiable, arguably relevant to topic, arguably not harmful to "Joe" who has embraced his popularity/notoriety (depending on your POV) in the media. ... but could use some qualifying context. 'nuff said. Mattnad (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article fully protected for 55 hours

Hash it out here, guys. Tan | 39 15:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already tried this, but there are multiple editors who are not exercising good faith and/or are unfamiliar with the consensus processes or even what consensus is. --Amwestover (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The protected article is worst of all worlds -- it has the lien and not the tax quotes. Collect (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they protected the wrong version. VG ☎ 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure would've been nice if the protecting administrator abided by this policy instead of applying the protection with zero context. --Amwestover (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I bet it would have been nice.... for you. Tan | 39 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cuz you wouldn't want to exercise discretion when using Admin tools or anything... --Amwestover (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin also I'd like to support Tan here. He did what I would have done in the situation. Come along and protect the page as is. Using discretion leads to accusations of favoritism, corruption, you name it we get called it. Far better to simply protect the page as you find it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a cop-out. If an admin's only role is to flip the switch with no regard for the situation, then whoever whines to the admin first wins. If discretion is explicitly not required then bots could do your guys' job. --Amwestover (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone will take it the wrong way; we'll take it exactly in the spirit that you meant it. Tan | 39 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason there's this discussion is because we can't decide if it violates BLP or not. It's hardly fair to make one admin decide. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Theresa, but not everything is black or white on Wikipedia and discussion is often warranted to clarify certain things, such as why this is a violation of the BLP policy. Consensus is key in order to prevent edit warring. But editors such as Inclusionist have openly stated that the supposed majority should overpower the supposed minority by reverting their edits. Not only is this blatant meat puppetry and circumvention of the consensus process, but it demonstrates bad faith and I simply can't trust or respect anyone on Wikipedia who exercises bad faith. Wikipedia disputes can only be resolved when everybody is acting in good faith, and since this is definitely not the case here, I think the only solution is to remove the dispute material and put full protection on the article until November 5. By then, hopefully everybody will have cooled down. --Amwestover (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you?" Hello, this is the second editor to falsely say this:

WP:BLP
If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is proposed to be significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article; this should be considered case-by-case. In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV. In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.
New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

My big question Theresa knott and Arzel, if consensus doesn't decide BLP issues, who does? Well of course! Theresa knott and Arzel will decide consensus for us! Inclusionist (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the policy page will do it. I keep citing that page. It's there for a reason.I note that you quote part of it but fail to understand what it is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. VG ☎ 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Lien: Omit I believe that the tax lien does not belong in this article because (1) it violates WP:BLP (2) it sheds no light on JtP's truthfulness and law-abiding-ness (3) it is not an encyclopedic fact but more analogous to a parking ticket. I have offered numerous reasons on this page why the tax lien could have occurred without his knowledge and why the tax lien could have occurred without his intent to underpay tax. None of my reasons have been rebutted except by appeal to authorities who are either at a different level of government (federal vs. state) or represent another state (California vs. Ohio) or in other ways are not relevant authorities. Meanwhile, an authority who actually works in a relevant department in Ohio has been quoted in the media asserting that JtP almost certainly did not know about the lien. Also, it has been noted that, now that JtP is aware of the lien, he is making arrangements to pay the amount owed. Furthermore, I did a survey a few days ago of the comments on this topic and reported the results on this page, showing that a majority agreed that the tax lien does not belong in this article.

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

Lien unrelated to Taxation without Representation One commenter, Arthur Rubin, has repeatedly asserted that the tax lien must go in if JtP's views on taxation go in. I have repeatedly challenged whatever arguments have been proposed to support this theory, and I believe that the theory remains unsupported by anything but flimsy speculation at best. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

absurd number of cites which were not independent in research

The tax lien claim is follewed by a slew of cites -- almost all of which can be traced back to one or two cites. Usage of massive cites for one claim is contrary to WP policy. One is sufficient. A dozen is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is it violating? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares! Collect is rightTheresa Knott | The otter sank 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may be, but I doubt there's a policy that determines how many citations are allowed. It looks ugly that's for sure. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that ridiculous amount of references for one statement is that the previous versions with (a lot) fewer references constantly got reverted. VG ☎ 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The version with the fewer references was constantly reverted because it was a violation of WP:BLP and there still wasn't consensus on the matter. The newer over-referenced version still suffers from the same problem. --Amwestover (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly claiming that it is a violation doesn't make it one. See Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN. VG ☎ 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you meant to link to this policy: WP:ONEEVENT. And likewise, claiming that there's consensus when their isn't doesn't mean there's consensus. --Amwestover (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit of a neutral party when it comes to the Tax lien issue and I am not convinced it need to be included or not, but I am curious how those who claim it is a WP:BLP violation claim this. It seems to me that this tax lien claim is very well sourced, so it is not conjecture or fiction but rather well cited. So- how is it a BLP violation? Bstone (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is citable doesn't make it noteworthy. We should always be cautious with adding possibly contentious stuff on BLPs. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not answering the question. My question is, very clearly- how does including information on Joe's tax lien with many reliable sources violate WP:BLP?. Bstone (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See [39]. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am claiming it is BLP because it is potentially harmful (as is much of the other stuff in the article) yet is irrelevant. As I already stated BLP instructs us "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Bit this is a titillating claim as he is not some kind of tax lobbiest or political figure. He is an ordinary guy of the street, not a public figure and we should not be airing his dirty laundry. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is nice to see some honesty on wikipedia for a change.[40] Wikipolicy and all of those acronyms really don't matter unless it supports your own "right" POV. Inclusionist (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what i meant by that comment one little bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote WP:BLP:

"Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.
"Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability."
"Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."

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

You are quoting a section that explains what is and is not an acceptable source. I am argiung that even though the sources are good. The material should not be included because it violates this guy's right to privacy. So the above is meaningless to the debate at hand. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is a widely known fact, covered in the national media, and discussed ad nauseum on these talk pages, how exactly are we violating his privacy? Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the press is violating it, doesn't mean we have to. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The press is fleeting. Todays news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers. A Wikipedia article isn't. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Wikipedia is lot more dynamic than the press. Try to edit a NYT article after it's been published. If in a year (or 10) someone did a google search on "Joe the Plumber", they would get the mass of article that talk about the lien, with or without inclusion in Wikipedia. We are not the only source of information on the internet.Mattnad (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be saying that it's OK for us to include it now because we'll change it later? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what this looks like: "There is a judgement lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of income taxes. Barb Loisie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, explains that "there is a 99 percent chance he doesn't know about the lien."[30][31][32][7][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][41][42][43][44] [45][46]". "^ "Joe the Plumber Takes Center Stage at Final Presidential Debate", ABC News, October 16, 2008 ^ Abrams, Rhonda (October 24 2008). "Strategies: Going beyond 'Joe the Plumber'". USA Today. ^ Rockwell, Lew (October 23 2008). "Presidential Election 2008: Joe the outlaw". Small Government Times. " And yet taxes are also close to Joe’s heart because it also turns out that he is delinquent on his property taxes, which are similarly too high and similarly unjust. The Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid." ^ Seewer, John (October 16 2008). "Is 'Joe the Plumber' a plumber? That's debatable". Associated Press. " Wurzelbacher owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax, according to Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. In January 2007, Ohio's Department of Taxation filed a claim on his property until he pays the debt, according to the records. The lien remains active." ^ "Joe’s cup is running over — with scrutiny" (October 16 2008). Wall Street Journal. "Various news outlets are reporting that records indicate Wurzelbacher is not licensed as a plumber, and that he has a tax lien pending against him for $1,182.92. " ^ Guzman, Monica (October 16 2008). "The real 'Joe the Plumber'". tle Post Intelligencer. "Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't have a plumber's license and has a tax lien on his house. He probably wouldn't want that broadcast to his neighbors. Now, just because he asked Barack Obama about taxes, it's been broadcast to the whole world." ^ Donmoyer, Ryan J. (October 16 2008). "`Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic, Owes Taxes". Bloomberg. ^ Goodspeed, Peter (October 16 2008). "Spotlight gets old fast for 'Joe the Plumber'". National Post (Canada). ^ Tapper, Jake (October 16 2008). "McCain Planning to Spend Time With ‘Joe the Plumber’". ABC News. ^ Breitbart, Andrew (October 20 2008). "Plumber Joe vs. Brawler Josh". Washington Times. ^ Ibanga, Imaeyen (October 16 2008). "America's Overnight Sensation Joe the Plumber Owes $1,200 in Taxes". ABC News. ^ a b Cauchon, Dennis (October 16 2008). "Press vets 'Joe the Plumber' after last debate". USA Today. ^ Barnes, Robert (October 15 2008). "Joe the Plumber: Not a Licensed Plumber". Washington Post. ^ Barnes, Robert (October 17 2008). "After Debate, Glare Of Media Hits Joe". CBS News. ^ "Profile: Joe Wurzelbacher" (October 17 2008). BBC. ^ "'Joe the plumber' isn’t licensed" (October 16 2008). Toledo Blade. ^ "G-4801 -LN-200701803-000". Lucas County Court Of Common Pleas (January 26 2007). Retrieved on 2008-05-05. " Including OR from actual court records (a primary source) and quotes which, by consensus, were not deemed proper in the article (Rockwell). Including inferences about his neighbors. A mass of material which is not even argued for by those who want the lien in this article. All, IMHO, improper, not fit for BLP, OR, SYNTH and Ossa on Pelion. Collect (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect, since you will delete, delete, delete regardless of how many sites are there, the "One is sufficient" statement is dubious. I didn't add all of those citations to try to convince you, I added all those citations to show how ridiculous and marginalized your position is to everyone else.
As I wrote above to you:
The absurd number of references were added after an absurdly small handful of editors decided that they knew what news was better than the entire Western journalistic world, and continued to delete all references to the tax lien. User:Collect you were one of those choosen editors who know more what is news than the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC, USA Today, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, etc., etc., etc., etc. To name only a couple out of hundreds of news and television organizations.
Inclusionist (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very juvenile and petty to have that many references, it is pratically screaming "Joe owes taxes!". Grow up. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of juvenile and petty, you are treading pretty close to incivility here. Tan | 39 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am trying to uphold the basic tenents of WP:BLP, just exactly what are you trying to do? Arzel (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted

See headline. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or merged with the election one? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Theresa. It would be bad to remove it completely, but seems quite notable to include on the election page. It really doesn't deserve its own article, and since its creation has caused nothing but trouble. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already proposed for deletion, and kept quickly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears it was speedy redirected See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber. I wonder why that was undone? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a DRV somewhere. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher considering a run for congress

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

He was approached and asked to do it was he not? He's flattered, his foolish pride doesn't make him notable. Of course if he actually runs then that's a different matter, but let's not jump the gun just yet a while. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is not an excuse for paternalism. Just because we are Wikipedia editors it is not an excuse for us to assume that we have a better idea about what is good for Wurzelbacher than what he does. Calling it "foolish pride" is frankly condescending to Wurzelbacher and unjustified. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but my main argument remains. He isn't actually running for congress yet. So it's premature to treat him as a public figure. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, he probably isn't a public figure in the most general sense of the word but he's certainly at this point made it very clear that he isn't trying to be a private figure and he's definitely continuing to give interviews. At very minimum he's a limited public figure and we should keep that in mind for what information we put in the article and whether we have any sort of obligation out of BLP to merge this with anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blog source :( --Amwestover (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud. Just because something is called a blog doesn't make it a blog for RS purposes. Note for example how The New York Times has "blogs" which are completely reliable sources. That's now what we mean by "blog" and you should know that by now. The Hill and its constituent parts even the parts they choose to label "blogs" are perfectly reliable sources. Moreover, he said it on Laura Ingraham's show which is a reliable source. And if you really want to be stubborn about this see for example here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs should not be used as sources. Often blogs include links to their source material, and that's what should be cited. Many reputable media sources have blogs, but their main purpose is for user comment or editor opinion amongst other things, not necessarily news. If it is to include quick tidbits about the news, often there is a corresponding article which is usually linked as well. --Amwestover (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoshuaZ, there is no point. They will argue what the definiton of "is" is.
You have been here long enough on wikipedia to see this.
An even more reputible source will pick this up, and Amwestover will still be arguing. Inclusionist (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin making edits

Sorry to have to bring up another new thread, but Moncrief appears to be editing the article through protection, a clear violation of policy. While his/her 2nd edit was correcting an obviously incorrect date, the first edit was really dubious. Can an admin please revert back to the status quo? Thank you. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Done. Incidentally thanks to whichever developer implemented everything turning pink. It makes accidentally editing a protected page much more unlikely. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection template

Can someone please put the appropriate template on top of the article. -- Kendrick7talk 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the small one? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=247445807"