Talk:Joe the Plumber

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)

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

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

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)

Regardless of how and why, the particulars of this guy's life are not news and are not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. He is noteworthy for the question he asked and the answer he received. All the information dug up about the guy after the fact is totally irrelevant. His tax liens, licensing status, etc. have nothing to do with it. All that stuff should be deleted, and considering our living person policies, should be deleted immediately. 71.156.32.143 (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that a person concerned about higher tax rates isn't paying their taxes to begin with. 203.31.44.2 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

But we have to make sure this article does not turn into character assassination, he is getting enough of that in the general media. Scapler (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Information about unpaid taxes would be relevant if there was a direct connection between not paying them and his position on taxing. For example, not paid as a tax protest. Or not paid because he can't afford to pay them, and that's his reason for opposing Obama's taxing policies. However, we don't know why the taxes weren't paid. Maybe he didn't know, miscalculated, didn't get around to it, is engaged in a dispute about the amount, or whatever. Any supposed connection between his tax arrears/tax lien and his political positions at this time is just speculation, original research, or synthesis on our part without reliable sources to make the connections. — Becksguy (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

No scenario is relevant unless it is shown that he is a tax protester. Any other scenario is a synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

I dunno if it's designed to mislead, but it is the common soundbyte played. Regardless, I agree that the full quote should be included if it can be found. --Amwestover (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of signature on that last one. I have the full transcript, I just don't know enough about these kinds of pages as to whether such a full transcription is appropriate. Jasendorf (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Eventually, I created one myself and posted it here. betsythedevine (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a fuller version of the conversation here which includes more context leading up to the phrase "spread the wealth around". This could be referenced from the article (I presume betsythedevine's transcript cannot). Rsfinn (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

What he said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Zach (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The Man's name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, his 'nickname' isnt as relevant as his correct name. This article should be called Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and "joe the plumber" should redirec to "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think that the article should begin w/ Wurzelbacher, and then mention that he is colloquially known as JTP. -- GateKeeperX (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Been there. Unanimous approval of name change to JtP. Lots of prior discussion. Worms. Can. Collect (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Keating Five Relationship

Wurzelbacher is an unusual name. I have read the current US census reported less than 180 Wurzelbachers in the entire USA, (suggesting it's not a very large family). Charles Keating's former business associate and son-in-law is a Wurzelbacher, he was a major figure in the Savings & Loan scandel. Since John McCain was one of the Keating Five & the reason for Joe Wurzelbacher even having this page, the surname Wurzelbacher deserves at least one sentence, and additionally whether or not Joe "the plumber" Wurzelbacher is or isn't closely related to Charles Keating's Wurzelbacher son-in-law. Of course, with the proper references. --VictorC (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, maybe. But you need to take the question elsewhere. I have the same last name as Osama bin Laden's neice, but I had no part in the 9/11 conspiracy. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream media reports a connection, the article can include it. Articles can't include an editor's original research and speculation. betsythedevine (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is no connection, the fact that the surname is rare, he was made an example of by McCain, one of the Keating Five, during that debate makes it necessary to line out that he's not closely related to the Wurzelbacher of the savings and loan scandal, because that's pertinent information. If the converse is true of course it's also pertinent. Of course, as I said above, all information HAS to be referenced. I never suggested any original research should be included, and I didn't mean for you or anyone else to infer that. --VictorC (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is original research. Merely sharing a surname with someone does not entail any relationship. --Amwestover (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I added documented references to support this section, but they keep being deleted by a vandal. Deleted text follows Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well it might be a good idea to eliminate confusion with a sentence saying that our Wurzelbacher isn't associated with the Keating Five Wurzelbacher. --VictorC (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All that would do is enter doubt. Putting in a negative statement just plain would be improoper IMHO. Frinstance, poist a mass murderer named "Alois Coutin" (fake name, no one sue! zero Google hits) would you want it in your bio that "Victor Coutin is not believed to be closely related to the mass murderer, Alois Coutin"? I would trust not! Collect (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

His views on taxation

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

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)

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

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

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

Include, "only material relevant to their notability" -- clearly his own tax status is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Question: so the Toledo Blade saying [1] "In January, 2007, the Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid, but there has been no action in the case since it was filed." does not count as being a reliable source? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response However, the source article is from the Associated Press. It's this. Nonetheless, it's not original research because it's *some* source. But you can claim it's not a reliable source. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response:Thanks for the warning; I've got my quota filled for today. First, I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article (see Erxnmedia's comment below). Second, as myself and others (including Admins) have pointed out: putting in these kinds of details about someone's personal life may violate WP:BLP policies, regardless of them being well sourced. Thirdly, none of the sources about these details have used them to draw any conclusions, so currently they are just statements of fact. Including them (and especially commenting on them, depending on how they are written) trends towards WP:OR and may skew the POV of the article. $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Response Regarding "Exclude, until a reliable source reports on it and draws a conclusion.": I don't see that a sourced article needs to draw a conclusion about a fact. I've searched WP:BLP for "conclusion" and couldn't find what you're referring to. I do understand that 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: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)

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" [2]? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Include, because this may indicate that he is a tax protestor and more right wing than the average blue collar voter that McCain is representing him as. Also, all major news sources, including conservative sources such as Wall Street Journal and New York Post, have chosen to report the tax liens.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response: See, this is exactly my point "may indicate he is a ..." is original research. Dp76764 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: Even without the inference, you are preventing a statement of fact that all major news outlets have reported. JP is about taxation, it's about finances, and it's about politics. So JP's financial conduct is highly relevant to the discussion -- if it were not, all major news outlets would not have chosen to report the item. This is a perfect case where Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may help. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have yet to see you point out a policy that supports your addition of this material. You may want to review WP:NOT and WP:EVERYTHING; just because these things are reported on doesn't mean they belong in this article (and absolutely not in the main debate article). Dp76764 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the clear consensus here, Dp76764 has been constantly reverting this section. I've warned him appropriately for being in an edit war. I would hope he would honor consensus and reliable sources. Bstone (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I concur, this profile and the version at United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber have been aggressively whitewashed both for JP's tax liens and his views on taxation without representation. I think a 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)

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

Meant to say Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclude Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. It is in violation of Undue Weight issues and also violates BLP by marginalizing him personally. Per WP:BLP 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)

JP, a registered Republican, is wearing his victimhood fairly lightly.[3] Also, how would this concept of victimhood play if it turns out that he sought out the attention he is receiving?Erxnmedia (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Regarding "... irrelevant to his Bio.": This article is not Joe Wurzelbacher's biography. Instead, it's an article about a character created by a politician. And this character is a current event. Regarding "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects": whereas, adding a relevant tax debt is disparaging Mr. Wurzelbacher's character, the tax debt debunks an important claim by him that he's conscientious about taxes. Regarding "participating in or prolonging the victimization": he's scheduled to be interviewed by Mike Huckabee. See [4]. So victimization does not apply. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong include Joe has made himself a national figure, enjoying the media attention, and reputable, main stream news organizations have reported on this. Upwards of 625 news organizations reported on this lien[5] and the only justification the editors here can come up with is it makes the article "snarky"Inclusionist (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclude Nearly ever vote for "include" has original research or a non-neutral point of view, what more really needs to be said? --Amwestover (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Include: By this point so many people know about it that if it doesn't go in it'll just provoke edit wars. --Howrealisreal (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It already has, but that doesn't justify adding it. --Amwestover (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Joe the Plumber is certainly a public figure (go read the article, specifically on limited purpose public figure: plenty of stories specifically mentioning his liens in reliable sources, going on the tv show circuit, isn't he going to GOP rallies??) and there is no outright defamation, no malice here (maybe irony). Rather, we are trying to publish facts, not repeat lies with flimsy substantiation. I think the WP:NPF is a nice safeguard but doesn't really apply here. --Howrealisreal (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber is not a public figure, he is a private citizen. In addition, he hasn't been a guest or attended any GOP rallies, unless you have sources to prove otherwise. The issue isn't defamation or malice, but notability. When it comes to biographies of living people who are not well known, according to 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)

• Strong Include The information is not defamatory and its in the public record and it has been reported by several (625 outlets did someone say?) reliable sources. Joe gave up his right to privacy when he let Fox News tape the whole discussion. You can defend him all you want but facts are facts and encyclopedias are by definition a collection of facts. Let's not let our political bias blind our ability to report the facts like all of the newsmedia outlets clearly do.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please refer to the BLP reference at the top of the thread. For biographies of living people that are not well known, contributions not relevant to their notability should be omitted. 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)

Include JW's tax issues are a national topic of discussion and this controversy adds to his notability. Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there. The alternative is googling it and getting info from blogs and other rumor mills, which doesn't help anybody.--RS57 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

also if anyone want a primary source for the tax lien, here it is: link--RS57 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong include - this is an individual who has become famous for his views on taxes and tax policy. His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it. As noted, JW has voluntarily spoke to a candidate on camera, and voluntarily become a celebrity afterwards, granting many interviews before and after the debate, and presently scheduled to appear on the Sunday political talk shows about 36 hours from now. He is entitled to all the "living persons" protection that WP:BLP policy provides, but not to some level of protection greater than that. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: thus far I count a majority of people wanting to include the tax information, yet editors continue to remove this section. Inclusionist (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong include, if adequate sources for the lien can be found. If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant. We don't need a secondary source for that. WP:BLP suggests we need reliable secondary sources for the lien, or his statement about the liens (either confirming or denying) and a primary source. (This comment is without reading the article or article history.) Without checking the AP source pointed to above; if it's a real AP article, it's adequate. I've brought up the question of third party press releases published on AP before, but this doesn't seem to be one of those. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I checked the AP article. It says what it is quoted as saying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• include Has been explicitly commented on by major news sources and explicitly linked to his notability (which is connected to taxation issues). As Arthur said above. If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Exclude And not a "vote." The man is not a "public figure" under SCOTUS definitions, and including personal matters when he is only notable for an issue he raised is against WP policies. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm " fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345." The person being discussed does not meet those criteria. Collect (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Exclude - per WP:NPF and tangential information to the article which is about the meme and the person who gave rise to the meme. The info thus should not be included as violating BLP. --Matilda ^talk 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.

  His being legally considered a "public figure" is irrelevant, except as to "our" BLP issues, as the AP article would be an invasion of privacy absent his being considered a public figure.

  There seems a clear consensus to include. However, the BLP issue needs to be dealt with separately at 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)

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)

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)

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

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

Must be Deleted!

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

There is a debate about deleting it or not, if you want to participate: here. betsythedevine (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been much more than a "mention." There has been nonstop coverage by McCain and rebuttals by Obama. See 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)

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)

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)

We remember the "Daisy" commercial from the 1964 campaign [6], which was only broadcast once by the Johnson campaign. We remember the Willie Horton commercials by the Bush, Sr. campaign of 1988 [7]. 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)

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

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

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

"Consensus, wikipedia’s holy cow, is in crisis ... every kind of outrage is being committed in the name of Consensus. It has become little more than a hollow word, a pretty shell, emptied of all content or meaning...Consensus is 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. 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 [8] 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 [9] 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 [10] 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 [11] 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) [12] 22:38, 17 October 2008 Undid revision 245989021 by Erxnmedia (talk) PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached. --Amwestover [13] 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 [14] →Tax Issues: Consensus iss not achieved in mere hours. Please stop re-adding this until consesus is reached. --Amwestover 21:42, 17 October 2008 [15] Undid revision 245751809 by 89.159.146.135 (talk) Please refer to discussion page to reach consensus --Amwestover 21:16, 16 October 2008 [16] 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 [17]

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If one were to count !votes , one gets 10 include, 2 conditional include, 6 exclude. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article in now on the personna known as "Joe the Plumber." As such, it is no longer a "person" unde r BLP and, I submit, personal infromation does not belong in it at all. An article on "The Cowardly Lion" would not rationally have Bert Lahr's tax troubles in it, so this also should not. All claims that a lien is relevant are out the window with the change in focus of this article, as nearly unanimously supported. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A misinterpretation of what is at hand. The move was agreed to if you look at the move discussion to a large extent not because of some vague notion of a "persona" but because this is the name he is known under. Multiple editors explicitly supported the move with the caveat that it would not be used as not as an excuse to remove the tax information. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WE NEED A PICTURE

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

Your opinion is noted. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

That is unusual for a business that SJW claimed was worth $250k. What business is worth $250k but has no office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would be based on your knowledge of small businesses then eh? Also, the picture policy on wikipedia is a joke, Any data is better then having nonexistent free data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.153.163 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, well ... while I enjoy contributing photos to Wikipedia, I am not going to take a photo (paparazzi-style) of a man's house! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Tax lien redux

Including information about the tax lien while sourced does appear to be in contradction to our 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)

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)

Agreed -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't believe that his Boston Tea party quote is a BLP violation, I don't see that it adds much to the article either. I've no objections to its removal. Dman727 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've thought all along so I definitely have no objections to the tax lien information being removed and his quote on taxation. --Amwestover (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the tax issue is relevant because Joe the Plumber has become synonomous with tax issues in the 2008 election. It is a documented fact that he not paid his taxes. Many people do not know about his unpaid taxes because it has not been covered much by the media. The reader can take that to mean whatever they want about his feelings about taxes in general.--~M 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Rainme —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)

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

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

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

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:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

...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)

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)

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)

And I reverted you back because you obviously haven't understood the points above. VG ☎ 11:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have understood and completely disagree. His notatiblity resides solely in being used as an example of how tax policy would affect small business owners. His personal tax liens have no relavance to the fact that others have been using his hypothetical purchase of a buisness. While the basis for his notability and the tax lien both have the word "tax" in them, to say they are related is comeplete WP:SYN-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

← 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)

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)

(removed) Inclusionist (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I trust I misread your post. Collect (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is the tax lein material relevant? I don't see consensus for inclusion. --Tom 14:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

RFC on Joe the Plumber tax lien on house

• 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)
• Strong Include A half dozen vocal editors say that the tax lien information does not meet BLP, which is blatantly contradictory to what BLP actually says:

The tax information exceeds BLP, which any casual reader can see.

Introduction of WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. 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: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research Wikipedia:Blp#Writing_style: The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject... Wikipedia:Blp#External_links: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links. Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically...If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources: Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

BLP has specific rules on when material should be deleted.
Guidelines when an editor should remove material: Remove any contentious material about living persons that is: unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)...Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Does any of the tax lien information fail these three guidelines?

Several hundred journalists in the most prestigious news organizations in the world have felt it was relevant enough to include this tax information, versus a half dozen Wikiepdians. As BLP says: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." These editors who remove this material have absolutely no basis in wikipolicy to do so. They are wasting the communities time, and they have no place in this article.

In addition, major news outlets are now reporting that Joe may run for Congress in 2010, Google News; CNN hardly making him a private figure any longer as many of these authors have redundantly argued. Inclusionist (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008

• • WP has a higher standard for inclusion that a newspaper. For one, this is a non-profit organization, unlike a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Please Arzel, just like how you said there is no consensus necessary for BLP? Why not quote an acronym for this: wait there isn't one. Inclusionist (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Your remarks in a section below that you added the huge number of refs as some sort of a game, and that you oppose some editors, is pretty much enough to invalidate your claims supra. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:52, 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• Include. If it was unsourced it would be a BLP violation. It isn't. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  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)

  Well, it also has to be relevant. And it is. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

Oh and no offense, 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)

How do I, when several hundred journalists in the most prestigious news organizations in the world mention your name and your tax lien, like Joe the Plumber, you can have your own page too. Inclusionist (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Wikipedia:IT links to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags LOL. 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. 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) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Delete - How is this relevant and in what context? Because the talking heads are telling us so? --Tom 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

"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)

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)

• 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. Wikipedia owes Joe the respect enough to mention that he's gone to the trouble of not paying his taxes to the point at which there's a lien against him. (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)

• 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)

• Strong Include - Also include his comment about "taxation without representation" and his actual income vs. his pretend level of $250K. All goes to meme vs reality. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you think this is a continuation of the general talk page discussion. It isn't. Collect (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong remove Wikipedia is not a place to engage in blatant attacks on private persons under the guise of political rebuttal. RayAYang (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong include This is an individual who has become famous for his views on taxes and tax policy. His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it. As noted, the subject has voluntarily spoke to a candidate on camera, and voluntarily become a celebrity afterwards, granting many interviews before and after the debate. He is entitled to all the "living persons" protection that WP:BLP policy provides, but not to some level of protection greater than that. To the extent that he has become a meme in addition to being a real person, readers are entitled to information that helps distinguish the person from the meme. Whether his tax lien or other legal troubles make him more of an Everyman or less isn't up to us, it's up to the reader. — LisaSmall ^T/C 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 55 hours

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

We've already tried this, but there are multiple editors who are not exercising good faith and/or are unfamiliar with the consensus processes or even what consensus is. --Amwestover (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes they protected the wrong version. VG ☎ 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Boy, I bet it would have been nice.... for you. Tan | 39 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cuz you wouldn't want to exercise discretion when using Admin tools or anything... --Amwestover (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As an admin also I'd like to support Tan here. He did what I would have done in the situation. Come along and protect the page as is. Using discretion leads to accusations of favoritism, corruption, you name it we get called it. Far better to simply protect the page as you find it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a cop-out. If an admin's only role is to flip the switch with no regard for the situation, then whoever whines to the admin first wins. If discretion is explicitly not required then bots could do your guys' job. --Amwestover (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will take it the wrong way; we'll take it exactly in the spirit that you meant it. Tan | 39 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, SmarterChild, but no thanks. My last comment was intended for someone with a pulse. --Amwestover (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole reason there's this discussion is because we can't decide if it violates BLP or not. It's hardly fair to make one admin decide. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To me it is obvious (it should be to everyone), the page HAD to be frozen. Reviewing the history, some of the same items had been added, deleted, reverted and restored numerous times all within several hours. That's a disaster. What is worse, it was being done all by folks who were involved in the discussion on THIS TALK PAGE. You all should know better than that. This discussion isn't closed, and once the page is unfrozen, it STILL won't be closed.

The point I'm trying to make is that, once the page is UNFROZEN, we will still all be trying very hard to come to an agreement on the issue of the tax lien information and its pertinence. That means we are expected not to mess with the page until such a time that there IS an agreement. Even a non-participant in this discussion should be able to see that this discussion has been going, and isn't resolved. In any case, consider this a request to, once the page has been UNFROZEN, bite your collective tongues, refrain from editing the page, and civilly continue this discussion to its resolution. Then AND ONLY THEN, should the item on the tax lien be altered.

If things don't go according to my suggestion, I'm afraid what just happened a day ago will only be repeated, and we will only have ANOTHER freeze on our hands. No one truly wants that.

'Nuff said. --VictorC (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

Indeed. VG ☎ 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe is not a NPF anymore but a limited public figure, i.e. someone who thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and he's doing his best to become less limited — he doesn't mind running for Congress, turns down no interview, etc. VG ☎ 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tax Lien: Omit I believe that the tax lien does not belong in this article because (1) it violates 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)

Where does it violate WP:BLP? There are three guidelines for removing information. #rules. Which one does the tax information violate? Inclusionist (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

absurd number of cites which were not independent in research

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

Which policy is it violating? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares! Collect is rightTheresa Knott | The otter sank 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

He may be, but I doubt there's a policy that determines how many citations are allowed. It looks ugly that's for sure. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that ridiculous amount of references for one statement is that the previous versions with (a lot) fewer references constantly got reverted. VG ☎ 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Repeatedly claiming that it is a violation doesn't make it one. See Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN. VG ☎ 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your civility, and I agree with everything else you said. Thanks! Scapler (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit of a neutral party when it comes to the Tax lien issue and I am not convinced it need to be included or not, but I am curious how those who claim it is a 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)

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)

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)

See [18]. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am claiming it is BLP because it is potentially harmful (as is much of the other stuff in the article) yet is irrelevant. As I already stated BLP instructs us "It is not 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)

Well, it is nice to see some honesty on wikipedia for a change.[19] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

One -- thank you for the personal insult. Two -- deeting when one is actively seeking consensus AS WE WERE is part of the process. Three -- juvenile behavior which you admit to is not part of rational WP consensus seeking. Fourth -- I am not the New York Times, but I know WP rules and procedures at this point, and deliberately putting gas on a fire is not going to work. Collect (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about news. We are an encyclopedia. So what papers decide to include isn't necessarily the same as what we include. Do you agree that the number of references is too large at the moment. Yes or no? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where one single ref from ABCNews covers the entirety of the tax lien section, having an additional 16, many of which add absolutely nothing, is absurd. Collect (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very juvenile and petty to have that many references, it is pratically screaming "Joe owes taxes!". Grow up. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of juvenile and petty, you are treading pretty close to incivility here. Tan | 39 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

He's trying to stop an edit war. Stop attacking him please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, TK, we've moved his attacks to my talk page now. Tan | 39 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Under a different set of circumstances - one where the issue with the tax lien was not well known or reported - I'd agree that this was a BLP/privacy issue. But that's not this particular set of circumstances. Here we are just encyclopedically documenting what's already out there. There's no privacy - as far as this issue is concerned - to be violated here. Furthermore, any arguments that the information is "irrelevant" are obviously specious as the notability and prominence of JtP has to do with tax issues.radek (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Every notice when a person's rational argument collapses, they start personal insults? Collect, Theresa knott, and Arzel have had the legs kicked right out from under them. WP:BLP doesn't support their deletions in fact it contradicts pretty much everything they say.

Some editors here are throwing out every acronym they can imagine to justify the deletion. Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues.

This is despite what the BLP clearly page says

Wikipedia:Blp#Restoring_deleted_content: "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." Wikipedia:Blp#Non-article_space: New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources.

...Even other deletion editors who support their views say consensus is needed.Inclusionist (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet more bad faith from Inclusionist, what a surprise. Do you think we don't know how to click on links or something? The FIRST paragraph in Restoring deleted content:

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

I mean how stupid could you be? You linked right to the part of the policy which states that the burden is on the restorer of content. The reason there are personal insults hurled your way is because you're a bane to the Wikipedia community. Seriously, go find something else to do with your time. --Amwestover (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, remain civil. The reason you are having personal insults thrown your way is...oh, wait, Wikipedia specifically forbids personal insults like "how stupid can you be". Make your points in a more appropriate manner, and respect other editors. Scapler (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not respect editors who blatantly admit their bad faith, as Inclusionist has. They are a bane to the Wikipedia community. Since he's admitted his bad faith I've stopped responding to any of his comments and remove any content he puts on my user page since the opinions of editors acting in bad faith are unimportant to me; but I just couldn't resist pointing out how he linked to policy which shatters his argument. It was just way too tempting. --Amwestover (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't rrespect other editors, then you should find a forum other than Wikipedia to post your thoughts. Civility is a requirement for participation here. There are many blogs on the internet where it is not required. Edison (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, be the better man, err...editor or whatever. Though I certainly do not doubt your intentions at all, you are only trying to improve the article. Scapler (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I striked the personal attack. I stand by everything else I said. --Amwestover (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

This article should be deleted

See headline. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Agree with Theresa. It would be bad to remove it completely, but seems quite notable to include on the election page. It really doesn't deserve its own article, and since its creation has caused nothing but trouble. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Already proposed for deletion, and kept quickly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think there was a DRV somewhere. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article was created as "Joseph Wurzelbacher" after the first AfD for "Joe the Plumber" closed as a redirect on October 16th. The article immediately went to 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)

Except this one has been contentious from the beginning, and is borderline notable. – How do you turn this on (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Given, I'll defer to the knowledge of more experienced Wikipedia editors, but this man has become internationally known (if not renowned). Secondly, the mere fact that this man has become a magnetic topic for quite a slew of editors who seem to be unable to resist editing topics (even before discussion has been resolved whether or not to even include or exclude them) on this page shows that the person has achieved an unignorable facet of notoriety at least among Wikipedia editors. Third, the page itself has gotten national media attention, and I'll wager is getting hits from websurfers from all walks of life on a continual basis. Perhaps the three foregoing observations are reasons enough to prevent the page from being deleted? --VictorC (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Being talked about extensively in every single post-debate speech by the Republican presidential candidate, his running mate, and frequently discussed by the Democratic candidate is an extremely high degree of notability, witnessed by tens of thousands of newspaper articles. Edison (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blog source :( --Amwestover (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Just because something is called a blog doesn't make it a blog for RS purposes. Note for example how The New York Times has "blogs" which are completely reliable sources. That's now what we mean by "blog" and you should know that by now. The Hill and its constituent parts even the parts they choose to label "blogs" are perfectly 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)

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)

User:JoshuaZ, there is no point. They will argue what the definiton of "is" is.

You have been here long enough on wikipedia to see this.

An even more reputible source will pick this up, and Amwestover will still be arguing.

The blog is quoting the Laura Ingraham show, the clip can be found on the joewurzelbacher2010 page, here middle of the page. Any guess whether this will change anything? Inclusionist (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The story has hit the big league: Google News; CNN NBC. the skomorokh 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To the folks that have drawn a line between public figures and private citizens, does his stated intention to consider running for office suffice? If not, when?23:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, and when he actually runs. If he does that I will consider him a public figure and reverse my opinion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly a public figure, by his own choice and actions. Joe is seeking to extend and expand his present notability. The New York Times [20] says he "is fast becoming a brand" and that Wurzelbacher has "signed a management deal meant to keep him in the public eye." The article says he might seek to be an "inspirational speaker" or an endorser of commercial products . No shrinking violet here who seeks his privacy. Seems as much an intentional celebrity as, say Paris Hilton. Edison (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tax lien section

Might I ask that an administrator remove the section for the time being, or at least put the tax lien information into another relevant section, until there is a consensus on whether or not it is a BLP violation? Master&Expert (Talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Discuss here, come to a consensus and then remove it. It's sufficiently sourced until then. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we probably could come to an agreement on removing the excessive number of references. No one has argued for having so many. It's just a byproduct of the edit war. Would two be sufficient? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor who added them as part of a game admits such above. He is, however, claiming somehow that since the same research appears in "hundreds" of places, that he would have the right to add hundreds of cites, including those which, by consensus, were already deleted (Rockwell etc.). Also that this is somehow a "vote" with only a half dozen folks actually standing up for WP standards on our side. Collect (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite fair. "WP Standards" have been thrown around this debate like confetti. I've seen so many acronyms used here, some that were used incorrectly, to justify eliminating content that the editors didn't like for other reasons. This obvious overuse of citations was a protest against some editors shifting their arguments back and forth between BLP guidelines, WP is not the news, RS, Verifiability, NPOV, and many many others as it suited them. Can we please stop making this so personal, stop forum shopping, and be civil? This is supposed to be fun for goodness sake. Mattnad (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made in this section. And yes, people do read talk pages and are quite capable of determining facts. Collect (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

=

Removed views on government/taxation

I have no personal opinion on the back taxes thing. A more important deletion took place here recently before the article was protected, and that was the removal of Wurzelbacher's quotes about his own political views and affiliation. Given that the man is being used as an expression of an anti-"socialist" message by the McCain campaign, and continues to be invoked by Obama on the campaign trail as well (in dispute of McCain's claims about who benefits from his tax cuts), and in view of the fact that McCain is running a TV ad featuring numerous Americans facing the camera and saying "I'm Joe the Plumber" as a way of expressing their anti-tax philosophy, it seems important that if "Joe the Plumber" has given interviews about his general views on taxation and US government programs, that this be included, as it is a deep substantive context to the remarks by both candidates. Wurzelbacher is on record in major newspaper interviews in recent days as opposing not only tax increases in general, but in opposition to the existing US Social Security program and government programs in general. This sentence was removed from the article despite high profile source (L.A. Times). 70.21.85.195 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have provided arguments that "Joe the Plumber" != Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, but nothing that convinces me that Mr. W's views on social security have any place in this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 09:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The views on Social Security were part of a general statement Wurzelbacher made about what he feels is the role of the US government. This is very relevant to an article on "Joe the Plumber", since "Joe's" views on the role of government have become the center of McCain's campaign message, according to the McCain campaign as well as the media which covers the "Joe" meme. Including Wurzelbacher's views on government programs doesn't tilt the article to imply that McCain supports all those views, which he doesn't. It simply gives an accurate, concise picture of what "Joe the Plumber" stands for, in his own words. I would argue it violates NPOV to EXCLUDE Joe the Plumber's statement of his own political philosophies, if there is going to be an article on him. Stating he is a Republican is not even as relevant- after all, according to the man, it was not his party affiliation, but his ideas on the proper role of government that motivated him to ask the challenging question of Obama. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the excluded material:

In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "A lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation, and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out." Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.85.195 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hold the simple view that such quotes are out of place if this were a BLP, and, more importantly, since it is now an article on JtP that it has no place in an article on JtP. JtP was held up and discussed as an example of a person who would like to make $250K and would like the taxes in his way not to be increased. Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So then WHY do we have sections in the article discussing Joe the Plumber's supposed plans (according to random blogs) to run for office TWO YEARS FROM NOW, along with silly campaign slogans about "plunging the crap from Washington." As far as I know, he is not going to run for any office (if he runs AT ALL, far in the future) under the name "Joe the Plumber," correct?

"Joe the Plumber" has evolved past being just someone mentioned in one presidential debate. McCain mentions him in every speech and Obama has to deal with the issue as well. The man has been interviewed many times and appeared across the media. "Joe the Plumber" is a central issue in the presidential campaign, and this adds to the notability of Wurzelbacher's views re: the issues that "Joe the Plumber" is addressing for the campaign- i.e. taxation, role of government, "socialism." In this context, his views on Social Security could not be more relevant. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit: "JtP was held up and discussed as an example of a person who would like to make $250K and would like the taxes in his way not to be increased." Yes, but the sticky fact is he didn't make anywhere close to that amount of money, so his question was even more about his philosophy on what the US government should/shouldn't tax, and ideas on taxes in general, than it was about his personal situation at that time. His views against Social Security taxation fit right into that. Doesn't matter that that issue was not directly in the debate- he talked about it in the media, on which he appeared as "Joe the Plumber." 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your "Joe the Plumber has evolved past being just someone mentioned in one presidential debate" thesis - but not your analysis. The growth means that "Joe the Plumber" is no longer simply (or even mostly) Mr. W. Mr. W's personal relavence to the title "Joe the Plumber" and as subject of the "Joe the Plumber" article are getting smaller and smaller; as is the need to include much personal information about him at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but in that case, why is there anything about Wurzelbacher's future run for Congress? "Covering the meme but not the man," it's a good idea, but also a lot of risky distinctions to make in which is which. If the article only covers the aspects of "Joe the Plumber" that are pre-defined by either the McCain or the Obama campaign, that is not an NPOV article, but a summation of one or the other side's political rhetoric. Some people seem to want to go in that direction. To be encyclopedic, the article HAS TO take account of widely reported facts connected to the meme, even if they are not directly included in the rhetoric (or in the interest) of either campaign. Anyway I give up. Someone can add the material later if they want. I think it is at least more justified for inclusion than some of what's currently on the page. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress that works by consensus. In an article such as this with lots of new potential material being generated by reliable sources daily and with a large number of editors involved, that progress can sometimes be very slow. your question about certain materials being included or not is happening in several threads. Please feel free to join those conversations. You may wish to create an account that will help other editors in complex multi thread discussions such as this keep track of who said what where.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

government computers used to snoop JtP's motor vehicle records

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101 Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

Aside: Rogers is a Democrat, as are all her chief aides. Amazing. Collect (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a min, you think THIS is relevant to "Joe the Plumber," but you want to delete a brief quote of the man's deep convictions on taxation which inspired his confrontation with Obama (plus all mention of his owed back taxes)? Amazing! 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I did no more than mention an article. It is possible that some editors might consider this part which is directly campaign related to be of relevance. And a heck of a lot more relevant than the "lien" garbage as it directly impacts how such material was found. By the way, his "confrontation" with Obama, as you put it, seems rather to have been accidental, not a result of some plan for sure. Lastly, please AGF in all cases, it makes for pleasanter talk, and fewer personal attacks. Collect (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea what AGF is, it makes for pleasanter talk if you avoid insider-jargon or link to the page explaining it. Also, these talk pages are not at all intended for general discussion- especially not political discussions. So both what you said there, and the way you said it, were more like polemical spam on this page than something which contributes in a useful tone to the discussion of how to improve the article. As I said I have no opinion on the lien issue and would not try to add it, but as of RIGHT NOW, it has at least received more media coverage (dispatch.com??) than the issue you mention. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one other thing, I didn't mean anything had been staged when I said they had a confrontation. It seemed like a neutral word to describe what happened, according to Wurzelbacher's account. Sorry if you took it a different way. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith. A simple rule. When a page is protected, the only place for disucssion is, perforce, the Talk page. Thus it is the only place available to show people what is in the news. It is therefore NOT SPAM. In point of fact, I presented the story in a rather unpolemical way. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this material, if verifiable (I haven't read it), is suitable for the article. Joe The Plumber is both a person and a political meme. To try and make it one or the other makes no sense unless you have particular agenda. I'm in favor of both - which touches on Joe the person, and the clear political tactics around him.Mattnad (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question for those who want to delete the tax lien information

1. How does the tax lien information violate #BLP?
2. WP:BLP lists three criteria for inclusion #rules, which rules does the tax lien information violate?
3. Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues. But the BLP page contradicts this #consensus So do we determine BLP issues by consensus?
4. In response to a question "Which policy is [the citations] violating?" Theresa Knotts wrote "Who cares! Collect is right",[21] what did Theresa Knotts mean by this? Inclusionist (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

• http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/17/feeling-plumber-fatigue-media-turns-joe/
• http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200810170006?show=1
• http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct19/0,4670,JoethePlumberMedia,00.html
• http://www.knx1070.com/-Joe-the-Plumber--strikes-back-at-media/3163348

Bytebear (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bytebear, I warmly welcome your contributions when this article is unprotected, I agree "There should be a section criticising the media for its actions". I think what you have to say has merit, and I will support any inclusion from sources such as foxnews and other well established sources. I can help you find any sources for any of your inclusions. Inclusionist (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

2) Irrelevant, see my anser to #1

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

4)Collect claimed that having a ridiculous number of citations is against policy,How do you turn this on questioned which policy that was, My comment "Who cares? Collect is right meant 'I think collect is probably wrong about it being explicitly written down somewhere but who cares? We don't generally right down ridiculous examples in policy because that would be stupid. Collect is right about there being far too many references for one undisputed statement let's concentrate on that fact and not worry about it" But it's old hat now anyways because the excessive refs have been removed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

From BLP: "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability"

Regarding 1, again, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC, USA Today, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, and hundreds of journalists seemed to find the tax lien information very "relevant to their notability". BLP repeatedly mentions "references" when it talks about "relevance". In BLP, Relevance and references go hand in hand. Otherwise editors have no way to determine what is relevant and what is not. Then, as seen here, editors could delete anything they wanted to arguing "relevance". The way you interpret BLP, ignoring references, gives editors no guidance on how to gauge relevancy.

Two is relevant, because it is the litmus test of what should be in the article. This information exceeds all requirements for WP:BLP

3: Thanks for clarifying.

I am not sure what you are saying in 4, after reading it over and over. It is really not important either way, compared to the other questions. Inclusionist (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

discuss content not contributor

(removed) In the spirit of focusing on the article, not the editors. Inclusionist (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss content not contributor. Your question number 1 has been answered numerable times. Mr. W is notable for one event: being used as an example in the debate and afterwards as an indicator of how income tax policy would affect small business owners. When people are notable for only one event, we concentrate solely on the event and not the person. Mr. W.'s previous non-income and non-small business tax liens are in no way related to the fact that he has been used as an example by the presidential candidates and therefore are not germaine to the event. 2) and 3) are aslo covered by that and number 4 is WP:NPOV - the excessive inclusion of sources is such that it carries the implication of guilt. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. W is notable for one event

Can you cite specific policy?

Mr. W.'s previous non-income and non-small business tax liens are in no way related to the fact that he has been used as an example by the presidential candidates and therefore are not germaine to the event.

Here is what WP:BLP mentions about relevance:

Wikipedia:BLP#Writing_and_editing: The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article. Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = 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, 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.)'

There is a common thread in all of these passages: Every passage about relevance talks about reliable sources on the subject. The entire WP:BLP article talks about reliable sources.

Nearly the entire Western journalistic world agrees that this is relevant, Hundreds of journalist in the most prestigious news organizations. Red, your views are in the small minority, both here on wikipedia, and in throughout the world.

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

number 4 is WP:NPOV I am quoting an editor. When an editor says the don't care about what policy, that is troubling. (removed as per above)

the excessive inclusion of sources is such that it carries the implication of guilt. This makes no sense.

Inclusionist (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is getting harder to assume good faith when you are apparently not even reviewing the wikilinks included, but since you asked:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Purpose of the above? Collect (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lets please focus on wikipolicy." Looking forward to your response to my four questions.Inclusionist (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your main accusation is against User:Theresa Knott? Have you posted on her talk page? Collect (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Often in edit wars taking the argument to an editors talk page makes tensions worse. Now that I have removed this section, lets focus on the article. I have a thick skin, and have been called, much much worse on wikipedia. Inclusionist (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec many) I'm afraid I agree with Inclusionist; perhaps because I'm an admin, people aren't accusing me of bad faith, but the arguments above are not accurate.

If he were notable for one event, then only statements related to that event should be included. This clearly excludes any statements he made to reporters, and the tax liens, the question of whether his license actually allows him to work or would allow him to buy the business, or, in fact, whether he possibly could buy the business, would be irrelevant. But I don't think that's the case, any more. The fact that he's seeking publicity seems to take him out of that mode. However, at the very least, facts about him which legitimately attack his credibility should be allowable, if his statements (as opposed to questions) are to be included. The tax lien, whether or not he's aware of it, discredits his basic knowledge of taxes (even if his statements on taxes didn't do so).

I quite agree that the multiplicity of sources is unnecessary, but I can't really blame Inclusionist for that mistake. The claim being made by the exclusionists here is that the content is not relevant, rather than the source not being a reliable secondary source, making it clearly allowable under WP:BLP, if not excluded under WP:BLP1E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And BLP does override consensus, in a sense; to include material clearly subject to BLP, there has to be a clear consensus that the material is not excluded by BLP for it to be included. That doesn't apply to the tax lien, as it's not clearly subject to BLP. It does apply to the other lien and his driving problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when is someone who questions a candidate about the effects of their tax policy on small businesses subject to a "credibility" check? Since when are we attempting to use Mr. W. as tax policy analyst whose "credibility" would be a concern? The problem is that this article is still structured as if "Joe the Plumber" is a specific individual. It is not. It is an event. True, the event was sparked by one individual's question, and true that the fact that the media have done massive investigations of Mr. W. are vital parts of the "Joe the Plumber" event. But that is how these concerns should be addressed, through a re-structuring of the article -not by laying out all the facts of Mr. W.'s life. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Red wrote: "getting harder to assume good faith" Enough with the good faith, bad faith okay? Please stop assuming I have or have not read a policy page.

Again, please, enough pointing fingers at my alleged NPA violations and ignoring those who support your POV.

Lets focus on the policy.

Red mentioned: WP:1E

As I wrote above, this entire section of WP:BLP is talking about an article about an individual. This article has gone through a 3 deletion requests and a deletion review, the community decided to keep. So this section irrelevant to tax lien information.

Red wrote: Since when is someone who questions a candidate about the effects of their tax policy on small businesses subject to a "credibility" check?

Why not write the journalists at New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC, USA Today, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, etc, etc. These hundreds of journalists seemed to find it very relevant.

Bytebear, above, had a great idea:

Why not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds.

This way Red, your concerns and views are reflected in this article too.

Again, does the tax line information meet the three BLP requirements for inclusion? #rules Inclusionist (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

When you ask for which policy supports the posistion when it has been linked to an summarized any number of times and you yourself have included the link to the policy in your request, it is indeed proper to ask if you are editing in good faith.

Wikipedia is not the news and the number of journalists writing on a topic does not validate that it is an encyclopedic topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Attempt to point out that Anomalocaris is wrong suppresed. He is wrong, but I don't want to go into detail as to why he's wrong, as that would necessarily comment on his personal beliefs, which is not subject to discussion here. Suffice it to say that tax preparers, IRS employees, and even a few different species of tax protesters on one of the boards I monitor agree that the tax lien is relevant to his statements on taxes. No one outside of Wikipedia has stated it's not relevant.) I've given my reasoning before. Absent extrordinary conduct by the Ohio Department of Taxation, Joe would have recieved at least 4 letters reminding him of the taxes due, before the lien was filed, probably including a mailing to his previous address, if he had a typo on the address he used filing his last tax return. (That the lien is placed on the property suggests a letter was also mailed to the property address, but that's not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.) The lien is strong evidence that those letters were sent; and that he owed income taxes, was aware of the fact, and had still not yet paid them. That is relevant to his stance on income taxes. It's a chain of reasoning, but each link is clear.

However, even under the most restrictive version of BLP, we don't need to demonstrate relevance; we only need demonstrate that the relevance is indicated by reliable sources.

As for Theresa's comment, if we could agree to keep relevant material in the article, there would be more of us able to remove irrelevant material without further argument. Personally, I don't see any way to include comments about how "the media has unfairly treated Joe", without going into details as to what that unfair treatment was, and without making WP:BLP-violating accusations against the mainstream reporters, but I'm willing to be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"No one" has stated it is irrelevant? Um -- how many cites outside WP do you want? As for your source on Ohio practice -- so far you have not provided one. I had friends in college who liked "proof by repeated assertion" but I did not accept it then either. When the deputy clerk of court says there is a 99% chance Joe did not know, that, to me, is indicative of how things are handled in Ohio. Unless, of course, you come up with a solid source? Collect (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reference outside of Wikipedia stating it's not relevant. The assertion by a deputy clerk of the courthouse (possibly of the Court, but the sources seem to differ) that he almost certainly didn't know about the lien is irrelevant, as the question would be whether he knew of the underlying tax dispute indicated by the lien. And you have not preovided a reason why it's not relevant. "Proof by repeated assertion", indeed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I did not read this whole page of discussion on Joe the Plumber, but the question of his tax lien caught my attention. He was aware of his tax lien, which was filed by the Ohio Dept of Taxation. I am sure he had ample time to make other arrangements before the state filed a suit against him. The court case was held in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on January 26 2007 case no. G-4801-LN -200701803-000. This information is available to anyone with access to the internet.(As is all public records on anyone, scary, but true. ) It is a reliable source and not a biased point of view. Whether to include or not is left up to all of you. Happy editing! Peace Eclectic hippie ^{talk to me} 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledge Here that We Need to Abstain From Editing

THE UNRESOLVED CONTROVERSIES UNTIL DISCUSSION

ON THESE MATTERS ARE CLOSED

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

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

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

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

I don't think you have though this through properly. Personally I'd be willing to state that I won't remove the tax lien from the page without consensus. But I'm not willing to state that i will not edit the article at all. If we all agreed to do that the page may as well be frozen. Editing, if done correctly, should consist of trying out alternative wordings, organising etc in the hope of getting to an acceptable compromise solution. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_limited_public_figures

would be of interest. I suggest that if we were to follow the law which actually currently applies to many in WP and around the world, that a great many such controversies would be averted. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be following this Wikipedia BLP policy since there is still disputed material in the article:

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

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

Exactly. The tax lien is relevant to his opinions on taxes, as determined by the first poll; sourced to secondary sources (some of which report the primary source); and hence should be included, if any of his opionons on taxes are. I have no objection to the actual wording of WP:BLP, but BLP does not support your proposed actions.

If the article were to exclude all of his comments except the actual question to Obama, then the tax lien might be irrelevant. Otherwise, it's relevant, and excluding it is an WP:UNDUE violation.

It seems the only particular version of the article which could get consensus is one on JtP the phenomenon, excluding all the information about the person. I could agree with that until the consensus for inclusion of the lien is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole section seems moot. We resolved the tax lien question above in the first !vote, where the only arguments against inclusion were challenged, and consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion. None of the following polls or arguments (mostly requiring tourchered interpretations of WP:BLP) seem to be about that issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a minute the !vote further up this page has 10 for including and 7 for removing it. That does not like resolved to me! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

That the lien has been widely covered in the media is not under dispute; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and its content should be encyclopedic. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

!Vote means "This is not a vote and you can't simply count numbers" It doesn;t mean a vote for no. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

protection

The article is protected from editing. Edits should be made through protection only if a consensus for them has first been reached here on the talk page and then only by an uninvolved admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages should not, in general , be protected. Did you mean the article or its talk page? The talk page is where anyone can discuss how the article can be improved. Unless there are exceptional reasons, such as recurrent WP:BLP violations, the protection should be lifted. Edison (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Samuel should not have an auto license

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/128323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Joe clearly make himself a public figure after the initial Obama question, the bar to BLP violations is somewhat lower than for a private person because of the available reliable sources. However, this new information violates even the somewhat less stringent WP:BLP requirements for a public figure. Defamatory or negative information about a person that has no reasonable direct connection with what he/she is notable for is inadmissible regardless. Even though he is a public figure, he still has the right to privacy and I very seriously doubt he gave informed consent to this level of scrutiny. If he actually runs for political office, that may be a different story as they know what they are buying into. This information cannot be added to the article. — Becksguy (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On the WP:BLP discussion page, I proposed that WP should follow the increasing body of international law on privacy. This article is a poster child for such a policy clarification. Collect (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Considering the ongoing consensus in this thread as well as the consensus achieved in the previous thread here, can we mark this issue as {{resolved}} and that it does not belong in the article based on clear consensus? In other words, isn't this a dead horse by now? — Becksguy (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the consensus above, there is no place for this information in the article. Inclusionist (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Shouldn't the article title be a real name?

I noticed this is discussed throughout the this talk page, but shouldn't Joe the Plumber be moved to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher? Yes, I know the man is known as "Joe the Plumber", but if someone types in "Joe the Plumber", it could just be redirected to "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher". That is the guy's real name. EPM (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; WP:NCCN. Broadly, Wikipedia uses the most commonly-used English name of the subject. the skomorokh 14:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And it was done by overwhelming consensus. Not even close. Collect (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has already been built to name this article "Joe the Plumber". See this section to see the relevant discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article about this subject has been named at various times:

1. Joe the Plumber
2. Joseph Wurzelbacher
3. Joe Wurzelbacher
4. Joe the Plumber (current name)

It was the event, not the person, that was notable and there were WP:BLP1E concerns originally. Now Joe the Plumber is notable per se. And in accordance with WP:NCCN as pointed out above. Currently the other three names redirect to JtP. So the current title is the correct one, I believe, and the one supported by an unanimous consensus at the time it was moved. — Becksguy (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Very good example, Edison. And don't forget McCain's "Joe the Plumber Tour" bus campaign tour in Florida[22] which even further strengthens the concept of JtP as a personification and cultural icon, rather than a bio about the person behind the JtP everyman archetype. — Becksguy (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I back this proposal/approach as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In today's McCain ads on TV [23], there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual. Edison (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Suggested breakthrough compromise

User:Bytebear proposed:

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

Reception:

• (undent) REWhy not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds. I think this may be approaching a place where we (or some of we) can agree. I am sorry I did not fully read this earlier. I would frame it more as a section that looks at how all the media approached Mr. W's private life which can include Fox's criticism of those approaches. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[24]
• Whilst I'm not entirely comfortable about this I would be willing to go along with it with respect to the tax lien in order to achieve some stability in the article. I suspect that many of our views are likley to change one the election is over, or he actualy decides to run for political office. However we would need to be extremely careful because if we have a section on press smeers then we should not repeat those smeers all over again. The tax lein is one thing, but there is whole host of other stuff that should not go in. And how would we stop people from doing that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [25]

Inc -- can you avoid shifting bits and pieces of the Talk page around? I find it disconcerting at best. Thanks. It does not make discussing anything easier at all. This is not a "breakthrough compromise" by the way Collect (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He didn't really shift it. Just copied various responses to this section. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Public record. All records that are public. Any public record. Public record is fair game for inclusion on any Wikipedia page. Any Wikipedia page. Any page on Wikipedia. All pages on Wikipedia consist of public information. Public knowledge. Public record. If it is public. --VictorC (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it's fine to include the media context. McCain turned the man into political message. As such, Wikipedia can and should cover it. Of course we can include plaintive bleats of Fox News and others who are trying to add fuel to the fire. We can also include other media voices, including those feel it's legitimate coverage. Attempts to draw a hard line between BLP and writing about the "meme" (as others have put it) have made it easy for one side to obstruct the other. Arzel, if you think Joe the Plumber is about a private citizen, with special treatment that neither he, nor his promoters have sought, your putting him into a class that hasn't existed for weeks.Mattnad (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The issue on the tax lein is not notable. There are tons of tax leins out there, and the only reason Joe's situation is magnified is to discredit him. If you are going to include something not noteworthy, and claim it is noteworthy, then you need to add the context of its noteworthiness. That is why you need to include media bias into this article. Hope that makese sense. Bytebear (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before. Take a look at the past efforts to delete this article, and when that didn't work, there was a whole lot of forum shopping with the same result (keep). There are many reasons differing groups have published the lien information, including some efforts to discredit him (and more specifically McCain's use of him). But that on it's own doesn't mean we should eliminate the fact. Keep in mind that McCain has developed a mythology around "Joe the Plumber" based on this guy and his opposition to paying more taxes and has continued to thrust Joe into the spotlight. McCain made him a political football, and his PUBLIC tax history is part of the political posturing. Fact finding on this topic is a natural, and relevant path which is why hundreds, if not thousands of news, information, and other outlets have reported on the lien.Mattnad (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Plumbing career

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

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

Seeing as this fact has been mentioned by both the associated press and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden(who said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno that he wanted to "stick up for Joe the real plumber), trying to misguidedly censor it is ridiculous.

Try getting a consensus for your opinion. Absent one, and absent an identity you will likely not get one, your opinion has little weight. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Don't be rude to IP editors. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the full career, but the fact that he's unlicensed is relevant. To my knowledge, he's allowed to work in his capacity because he's under the supervision of a licesnse plumber. That would not be the case if he bought the business, per the framing of his question to Obama.Mattnad (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes it relevant at all. His question is about the tax he would have to pay if he brought the business and if it made that much money. Since the question is hypothetical then so what if he would also require to register as a plumber? It's immaterial to his notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you see no relevance here. His overstatement of his potential to buy and manage the business has become a major discussion point and provides context. McCain has based his campaign on the harm that Obama's policies would inflict on the person and the symbol of Joe The Plumber. The real person is in conflict with the myth that McCain has woven which is why it's in the news. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his overstatement of his potential to buy is probably relevant. It's the fact that he is unlicensed that I take issue with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree I suppose, and I think it's relevant - so we can agree to disagree.

It is of interest that Newell is a corporation. The owner of a corporation does not need a plumbing license, and as long as the corporation has a licensed plumber supervising work, that is all that is required. Collect (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And in theory, Joe could buy Newell, and then float junk bonds to buy Roto Rooter in a leveraged buy out - then he'd really be subject to taxes on the wealthy. Joe's lack of licensing puts him in a very weak position to a) make enough money to buy the company, and then b) hire the plumber who'd supervise him (if he were to continue working). In that scenario, why would a licensed plumber who can legally contract out his services be subordinate to someone (in a 2-3 man organization) who cannot. Joe needs that other guy more than that guy needs Joe.Mattnad (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- MOST corporations hire people who, theoretically, could work for themselves. Many people prefer not to have to own trucks and the like, as they can make good money with much less paperwork. And the idea of being an owner means one does not have to do the grunt work. Your real question should be "does Joe expect to have sufficient assets to buy a company?" And that is something we do not know at all. Collect (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is right, and the licensing brouhaha is of remarkably little relevancy. Collect (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. I've changed my mind. The fact that this discussion is taking place proves AT LEAST some relevancy. In fact, to quell this discussion, I'm afraid that the answer may have to be that we include a sentence or two containing the two points that you've made previously: Joe the plumber isn't licensed independently as he's an employee of a plumbing corporation; The plumbing corporation isn't licensed but contracts a licensed plumber to supervise their work. --VictorC (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not absolutely -- the corporation is not a "licensed plumber" but has to be a "licensed (plumbing) contractor" which would be like any other license held by a corporation. The person actually supervising work would have to be a "licensed plumber" but I would hate to have anyone think the corporation itself is not licensed to do work. It, according to news reports, is definitely licensed as a corporation. Clearer? Collect (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Let's include a sentence about licensing, justifying Joe's status as an unlicensed individual. There seems to be a lot of clamor in favor of loudly proclaiming that Joe has no license, that he's operating as a pirate. If in fact he isn't a plumbing pirate, then why not add this fact in reflection to the news item that he isn't licensed? I'd rather you add this, but if you don't want to, I can do it (perhaps not as well as you). --VictorC (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's pirate if he's working under a licensed plumber. That's unfair to Joe. He's a plumbers assistant. It was McCain who overstated his title and invented the character for his own purposes.Mattnad (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Ohio tax records

The claim is made that "Ohio tax records" show Newell grossed under $100K. As he is clearly not poor, and he has at least two employees, the claim is suspect. As the Ohio tax records are not apparently public, I wonder just what real source exists for this claim. At this point, I really doubt its veracity. Collect (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further: http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_dp1mf9 states the "A. W. Newell Corporation" estimated annual sales at $510,000. A bit different from the unsourced $100,000 I should think. Collect (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If A. W. Newell is a corporation rather than a sole proprietorship or partnership, then wouldn't that affect how they're taxed? Don't they get bagged with corporate income taxes rather than personal income tax? So according to this source that's 39% for anything over $100K. (And oddly back down to 34% after $335K, who wrote this crap?) I'm hardly an expert when it comes to business taxes, but if we're going to scrutinize the actual business that Joe the Plumber was talking about, we should do it with the correct information. This could even make Obama's point moot since his response was not geared towards a corporation. --Amwestover (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

New lead paragraph

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

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

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

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

Tightening up a little per WP:LEAD Collect (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Then cite it, otherwise it is original research. From what I've seen, and from all the sources I've checked, Joe the Plumber refers to Joe Wurzelbacher. Being a popular member of a group of people and being a metaphor for that group are two different things. Joe the Plumber is not the new Joe Six-pack.

And if this is no longer a biography then all personal information about Joe Wurzelbacher should be stripped from the article since it would be irrelevant. --Amwestover (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually being a member of, and being a metaphor for, a group are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. There was a real person behind the Rosie the Riveter concept from WW2, as Edison pointed out, but it's the metaphor or icon that's remembered. Joe the Plumber as a symbol will most likely also be remembered long after Joe the person isn't. — Becksguy (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we as Wikipedia editors are not qualified to conclude whether or not Joe the Plumber refers more to the possible metaphor than the man himself, and nobody is really qualified at the moment to speculate whether Joe the Plumber will be remember as a person or a symbol. We need to have sources to cite these conclusions and nobody has been able to provide them. Until then, this article should remain structured as a biography. Having references to Joe the Plumber being an "idea" and then having the article be all about Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't make sense. --Amwestover (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida.[26] Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.

• "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)[27]
• "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC) [28]
• "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." and "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade [29]
• "Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." and "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times [30]
• "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post [31]

— Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was simply replying to your claim that Joe the symbol may be remembered long after Joe the man; it may be an innocuous conclusions but it's still a speculation that we are not qualified to make so it's best if we don't have that mindset without sufficient proof.

I've had a chance to skim through all of your sources. All of them discuss either how Joe the Plumber is an icon or being used as a symbol. However, they also all refer to Joe the Plumber specifically as Joe Wurzelbacher. I don't see any detachment of Joe the Plumber from Joe Wurzelbacher. Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate to structure this article as if Joe the Plumber is a symbol rather than a person. Joe the Plumber is still very attached to the man.

I by no means think this makes your research all for naught. In fact, I think we'd be derelict in our duty to not include contributions to the article about how Joe the Plumber has been used as a symbol or face for the middle class and small business. But I don't see evidence that would suggest that more often than not, when you say Joe the Plumber you're not referring specifically to Wurzelbacher. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the word "polemic" in the lede sound like it might not be proper? Collect (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fit. He's a symbolic figure (or metaphor, icon, etc.), not a polemical figure. Also, the word is not part of everyday common vocabulary. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Polemic does not belong in the lede/lead. I also don't like "and a representation of the middle class." I recently edited the first sentence to say:

Joe the Plumber is a common reference for Joe Wurzelbacher (full name Samuel Joesph Wurzelbacher), an American plumber who achieved fame in October 2008 after being mentioned in the third presidential debate of the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

The "who achieved fame" part was taken from an old version and had survived for quite awhile before the changes of 14:19, 27 October 2008 by Amwestover, where "and a popular figure of the middle class during" was inserted, improperly in my view. Unfortunately, my version didn't survive more than a few minutes, and I am not going to get into an edit war over it. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

PoliSci

If this is to be a useful article it needs to be about the concept, not about the person. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As it's structured right now, this article is a biography. Claiming that it is a concept without source is original research. --Amwestover (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. Sadly, I've not the time to do the research to prove my point, but I asssure you it's out there. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Once you find the time to do the research, then you may include it. Until then, it's original research which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, you made the decision to make it purely biographical and have not yet dealt with the symbolic and political application. I will add This was not a consensus approach and decisions have been made within a couple of hours. Not everyone checks this article in 10-15 minute intervals. Do you promise to allow other sections that allow for the inclusion of Joe the Plumber as more than person? There are many articles that discuss the JtP as more than the man and several were cited above. Are you still claiming there's no sources that do that, and it's all WP:OR? If so, please give us your threshold so we don't waste our time.Mattnad (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself, pal, I didn't decide squat. I simply spot original research which tends to be rampant in political articles. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not very polite. I'd welcome your apology now if you don't mind. Mattnad (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See the thread above at Talk:Joe the Plumber#New lead paragraph for my listing of sources for the concept of Joe the Plumber as a symbolic or iconic figure used in this campaign. He's the everyman for a particular demographic sought by McCain. As just a plumber, voter, or Ohio resident, Joe the person is not notable per se. The reliable sources used these specific terms and applied them to the subject: icon, symbolic hero, symbol, iconic Everyman, symbol, proxy, and political symbol. There are seven quotes in five articles. Next step is to restructure the article to be about the symbol, not the man, as that is the really notable aspect of this article, and a reason it survived an AfD and DRV as a keep. — Becksguy (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally. Agreed, fully and completely. Thanks for the persistence and follow through. Mattnad (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented in the aforementioned thread, but basically I don't think a restructuring is in order. I do, however, see an opportunity for valuable contributions to the article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplication in the lead

It is unnecessary to repeat twice the third presidential debate in the lead. QuackGuru 17:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polemic. I trust that settles it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notchdoctor (talk • contribs)

I'm assuming it won't... --Onorem♠Dil 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber is a public figure

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

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

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

Article Hierarchy

Right now the article is only divided into high level sections. I'm wondering whether we might want to do a little grouping, perhaps one section that deals with 1) His Introduction via the Obama exchange, followed by, 2) Joe the Man (and efforts to research the man), and 3) the McCain Campaign's exploitation of the "Joe the Plumber" mythology. I think most of the section are fine as is, but some might be subordinated to others. Thoughts? Mattnad (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly -- the bio stuff should be last at this point so it can be deleted if the consensus so chooses. I would also suggest "exploitation" is an inapt term for a campaign seizing upon an issue which was not foreseeable. Collect (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pick a word - I'm not fussy. You say "potatoe", I say "potato". I just don't want us to confuse the man and the myth as we edit things. I think we agree that they should be kept separate after we explain the evolution. I'll let this sit a day or two unless there are bolder editors out there than I. Mattnad (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is also a biography. Making general comments to change or delete sections of this article will not move the article forward. The bio stuff is appropriate for this article. QuackGuru 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd still suggest we keep the bio portion earlier to match how things evolved. It's a more logical narrative structure --> Joe the man begets Joe the Plumber.Mattnad (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We should keep the bio stuff intact. Do you or anyone else have any specific proposals on moving forward. QuackGuru 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Removing the bio would make for a more rational discussion of the JtP campaign issue -- taxation. Collect (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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

In the section on Joe's opinions on taxation we're quoting a factually untrue statement. Since the statement "taxation without representation" links DIRECTLY to United States Revolution, we need to stipulate that the revolution was fought, AND WON. The US constitution and Ohio Constitution both ARE IN EFFECT. Joe HAS representation:

Holland Ohio Representation (zip code 43528)
Ohio State Government Barbara R. Sears, State Representative (R)
Peter S. Ujvagi, State Representative (D)
John A. Husted, Speaker of the House, Ohio House of Representatives, 127th General Assembly
Senator Mark Wagoner, (R) Ohio Senate
Senator Teresa Fedor, (D) Ohio Senate
Governor Ted Strickland
US Government:
Marcy Kaptur, Congresswoman (D) 9th District Ohio
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, US House of Representatives
George Voinovitch, (R) Senator Ohio
Sherrod Brown, (D) Senator Ohio
George Bush, (R) US President

Being from the USA, I hate thinking that international websurfers reading this might not realize that Joe is represented, CAN call or WRITE or TALK to his representatives, and he can VOTE. I am trying to enter a notation on this. The fact that there is a US Constitution isn't POV nor is it "original research." The fact that Joe isn't taxed without representation happens to be wrongly omitted from the article, and Joe's POV isn't reflecting REALITY. Wikipedia can quote someone saying "the earth is flat" but the article should reflect that this isn't a factual statement. Joe's statement isn't factual. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Let's figure out how to enter this into the article. --VictorC (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally unneeded. Not remotely relevant. And the quote is not being used here in a manner related to WP:SOAP. Collect (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just because Joe uses hyperbole and probably doesn't really understand the differences between now and 18th Century Colonial America is his problem (kinda sad though). So long as the quote's accurate, that's what we need.Mattnad (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Joe the Plumber vs Joe Wurzelbacher in lede

We have been edit warring over the first part of the lede. Some editors insist on Joe the Plumber as first and highlighted words, others on Joe Wurzelbacher (or his full name) as first and highlighted words. The article title is Joe the Plumber and style is that that the title be first in the lede. Also, there is sufficient consensus here that the lede should start with "Joe the Plumber". More generally, this article is more about Joe the Plumber as a symbol or metaphor than about Joe the person, although obviously he is one of the persons behind the metaphor, but not the only one. And as User:Edison also pointed out above: In today's McCain ads on TV [32], there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual. Also note that Joe the Plumber is an historical reference and clearly predates this campaign as researched by Edison in Talk:Joe the Plumber#Shouldn't the article title be a real name?. There are references from the 1940s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

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

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

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

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

No, there are no sources listed for JtP as a professional name, I haven't seen any, and I think it's inappropriate and needs to be removed ASAP if it pops up again.

And, yes, the article is obviously about both JtP as a metaphor and Joe W. as a person, since the current application of JtP is to him as a person. However, it's overly slanted toward the bio side, without sufficient context for JtP as a current metaphor and icon, and, to a small degree, the historical context. I'm not saying all current bio content about the person should be removed, just placed into context so it's clear that the term means both and doesn't look like it's almost exclusively a bio. — Becksguy (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We had reached a stable lede, and making it unstable seems unwise. JtP is specifically not a "professional name", and trying to insert that in the article goes against several WP precptes. Collect (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous stray edits fixed (I hope I got them all), long quote removed from lede, lede back to JtP as I have seen no consensus otherwise. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

tito munoz?

Does this article need a reference to "Tito Munoz" who (apparently) is one of a bunch of added figures for the campaign? Should all the names arising in the campaign be attached to this article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If referenced from a reliable source that addresses the comparison, such as Tito Munoz aka Tito the Builder, then yes, a mention would be appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

music contract

IMHO, such a reference is rather irrelevant to either the campaign tax issue or to his bio. Any other opinions? Collect (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think there should be space in the bio that he's signed on with a publicity company. I think titling the section "Music Career" is a bit premature...and only focuses on one aspect of what they mention in the reference as potential pursuits. --Onorem♠Dil 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Onorem, I have revised the section to be more in line with the actual broader focus of the source. And then moved it into the existing Media section.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dun & Bradstreet

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

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

D&B sends people out in the field. If they say "8" then it is 8. Joe probably works with another plumber, and so his statement is likely that 2 guys work for Newell on his truck, not that only two work for the entire company. At least Occam's Razor would suggest this is what happened. Collect (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

D&B does less than that. They call, ask for some facts, and then rarely update. The more likely answer is that they are smaller now than they used to be. Even the 2007 date refers to how recently they checked the file, which could have been simply making sure the business was still at the same address. I used to do M&A work and D&B was a starting point, but we were careful with their figures for private companies due to stale information. The smaller the business, the more likely the information was stale. How do I know this? A D&B sales representative told me! Mattnad (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting since a small business I was involved in got a visit from D&B about every two years. You really feel the business shrank by 75% in a year? Basis for that claim? $500K p.a. businesses are not all that small. Collect (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think D&B visited them at all in 2007? Updating a file could mean just that. Anyway, I cannot imagine Joe's is lying about the size of the business he's worked at for 6 years. Are you calling him a lier? Or perhaps you think he's plain wrong? How on earth might he know how big that business is, working there full time.Mattnad (talk)

Someone better fix their website? Why do they put the letters "EST" before the figures for number or employees and the annual income? I think that EST might be the abbreviation for "estimated?" Don't you? I cut and pasted something from the link in our references section:

Also Does Business As:Newell A W Plumbing & Heating

NAICS:N/A

SIC #Code: View Details

Est. Annual Sales: View Details

Est. Employees:8

Est. Employees at Location:8

Contact Name:Alan W Newell

Contact Title:President & Treasurer

--VictorC (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Qualifications

In the interests of improving the article, does anyone know what Joe's qualifications are for running for office? e.g. is there any record of him having foreign policy experience, financial sector experience, etc. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide or discuss his qualifications.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a US citizen, over the age of 25. That's all the qualification he needs. -- Zsero (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What about intelligence, education? Is this pertinent? Is this a trend? --VictorC (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia talk page is concerned? No, they are not at all relevant. The Talk Page is a means to discuss how to improve the content of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what your agenda is. --Tom 19:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still an issue as to his notability in the first place. I think trying to analyze his entire life is unwarranted. Collect (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No agenda; just trying to get things in perspective. With all of the talk about who is qualified in this election, I thought it was absolutely pertinent. As far as his notability - are you serious? He's as notable as one could want. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

just trying to get things in perspective, ahh, ok, i guess. Anyways, did you have specific "material" that you wanted to add to the article to help with getting things in perspective? --Tom 20:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The notability of "Joe the Plumber" as being mentioned ad nauseum during the debate and in the media thereafter as a representation for how proposed tax policies may affect certain individuals is not under question, as far as I can tell. However, Mr. W himself as a person notable for more than one event is indeed under dispute, and under the WP:1Event guidelines, discussion of Mr. W must be limited to specifically the event for which he is notable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is now notable for multiple events: being mentioned on the debates; seperate entities trying to get him elected; talk shows; videos; etc. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

His talk show appearances have all been in relation to the JtP call-out during the debate. At the point where he actually declares a candidacy or releases a record, then we have moved beyond 1 event. Talk, rumors and speculation about future notability does not equate to notability. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously, I am trying to determine if anyone knows such things and if so we may come to a consensus to be able to add such things, if they exist, to the article. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Try a news.google search. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I already did. I was hoping others had add'l info. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe's no more or less qualified than any other aspiring politician. Aside from legal requirements, there's no threshold. Even convicted felons can run for, and stay in office, as we've recently been reminded by Ted Stevens. Gotta love the high ethical standards of our US Senate!Mattnad (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how your preceding comment is intended to improve the article. Collect (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you're having difficulty with that one.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a plumber....

Shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to reflect that he is not acutally a plumber - i.e. he does not hold a liscense? He may be referred to as such, but technically he does not hold that position.

It's discussed under the Plumbing career section. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is a plumber. It's what he does. What difference does it make whether he has a license? A license doesn't make someone a plumber. Plumbing is a trade, not a "position", whatever that means. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy is one persistent sock, it's getting old. Tan | 39 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Helen Jones-Kelley merge proposal

• Comment There is a discussion on merging Helen Jones-Kelley with "Joe the Plumber." The discussion is located at, Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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