Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Query

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

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

How is this Significant?

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

Actually, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher seems to suggest otherwise. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Visitor Numbers also suggest otherwise. --Falcorian (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be deleted! It's a very notable subject at this time and there is no real debating that fact now.
It made Wikipedia look rather silly when this article was shown in a feature story on a national news show about how famous Joe the Plumber has become and the very top of the article that was shown as an example of just how significant he has become had that inappropriate nominated for deletion box on it.
As for the question does most of America really care who this person is, that may or may not be true. But that is not the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Notability is the criteria and there is a long list of sources in the article proving that.
76.241.69.132 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Controversies

The talk page is supposed to discuss ways to improve the article, not people's opinions pro or con the subject of the article. Right now, "Joe the Plumber" is the focus of indignation from all sides of the political spectrum. Some angrily feel he misrepresented himself. Others angrily feel that he is being unfairly attacked. THIS TALK PAGE IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THAT DEBATE. This is the place for comments like "Should the article have a controversies section?" or "Somebody keeps reverting my edit." betsythedevine (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As suggested by an earlier editor, I moved inappropriate editorializing about Joe himself to the archive in accord with WP:BLP. Discuss the article, not the person. If you want to register an opinion on the political controversy, this is not the place to do so. Many newspapers online let people comment on their news stories. You will get more readership if you post your thoughts there. betsythedevine (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for standing up for that. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallel

May be we should write about the parallel with Sgt. William Schumann of the Wag the Dog movie? It's a similar political game. 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
What would that be, astroturfing? Probably true but original research at this point. --Howrealisreal (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's called a Meme , but I have not seen reliable sources comparing the meme of "Good Ol' Shoe" in Wag the Dog to Joe the Plumber in the 2008 presidential campaign, however similar the cynical intended manipulation of public opinion may appear. Wait for the main stream media to discuss the analogy. Edison (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly MSM: [1] Lampman (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Wurzelbacher on GMA on ABC

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

Actually diane asked him if he had been contacted before the debate and before his meeting with obama by the mccain campaign. Unsigned is leaving out info from the interview that would make you think the contributer of that part of the article was being untruthful and making you think the interview asked one question when it really asked another. And, the contributor of that part of the article is trying to make you think that Joe was a Mccain plant.
I am going to post the whole exchange involving the being contacted:
Sawyer: "And the McCain camp, some people have said did they contact you and tell you that you were going to be a major part of this, and had they contacted you before that encounter with Senator Obama."
Joe "Oh no, no, no ones contacted me as far as if I was going to be on the debate or as far as my name being used. No. I have been contacted by them and asked to show up at a rally. But, other than that No. I just happened to be here and Barak Obama just happened to show up."
Joe never qualified in his answer if he had been contacted before or after his meeting Obama. It seems like he was saying nobody contacted me before the debate, but I "have been" contacted (present tense not past, which would imply contacted since the debate) The he says, " other than that No. I just happened to be here and Barak Obama just happened to show up." ( That seems to be saying other than after the debate no other contact before and he just happened to meet him. But its hard to tell. Only Joe can truely Clarify this statement. J. D. Hunt (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please limit opinion on this article

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

For example, the following statement from the article is pure opinion: "Obama's choice of words were suggested to have evoked the populist "Share Our Wealth" movement of Huey Long.[7]"

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

-- This is a very good point. I noticed the passage as well and I think that it is detrimental to the article to include this type of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.76.51 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I found the link to 'Share Our Wealth' informative, and as I didn't see why the clamor over the "share the wealth" phrase was occurring, the inclusion in this article helped me to line that factor out for me. Simply drawing a parallel isn't an opinion. I don't find the link to be an interpretation or bias, in fact I feel kind of sympathetic to the 'Share Our Wealth' intent, while I get the feeling that your complaint is that the 'Share Our Wealth' reference is denigrating. I don't find it denigrating nor admiring of Obama, I find it informative in showing why there is a clamor over Obama's "share the wealth" remark. I feel it illuminates the topic and the article. Perhaps it could be reworded, however I say leave it in. --VictorC (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
:: I checked the sentence with its source, an opinion piece which it more or less reflects accurately. But somebody's vague guess about Barack Obama's motives hardly belongs in Wikipedia and certainly doesn't belong in an article about somebody else. So I took the sentence out. betsythedevine (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Again i disagree. It's not presenting an opinion. It's only drawing a historic parallel that illuminates why a remark by Obama has drawn attention and clamor from observers. It's not interpreting Obama's statement., or guessing any motives on Obama's part. It's a link to an event in history that has some parallel relation and it allows the reader to draw an individual conclusion. It illuminates the article.--VictorC (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, someone need to read up on the difference between stating opinion and quoting reliable sources. I was the one who put this in, and I have to say the idea of myself as some kind of anti-Obama POV-pusher amused me a bit! This is not about POV, it’s an attempt to provide context. "Spreading the wealth" was the specific phrase that was highlighted by McCain in the debate, and has been used repeatedly since. Just look at The Daily Telegraph: "McCain taunted his opponent for wanting to "spread the wealth around".",[2] The Los Angeles Times: "McCain cited that "spread the wealth" exchange",[3] CNN: “he quoted Obama as saying he wants to "spread the wealth around.""[4] etc. etc. I’ll remove the Huey Long-comparison, if that’s what causes offence, but it needs to be pointed out that "spreading the wealth around" was the controversial part of the exchange. Anything else is not NPOV, it’s just bland and meaningless. Lampman (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

RE: Privacy

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

watch the video. She asked two questions at once did the mccain campaign contact him befroe the debate to let him know he was going to be mentioned and did they contact him before he met Obama. He ansered, no they didn't tell me I would be mentioned then said I was asked to come to rally's. One) that did not seem to be an answer to the contacted before meeting obama part of the question and if it was. anybody registered as a republican (or democrat) are invited to attend ralleys for that party. your conspiracy is a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
@ jdhunt. Interesting how conspiracy theories start. The question could be asked why the following statement needed to be issued -- "He's a guy who asked a question that needed to be asked," McDonald said. "He's not a campaign staffer, he's not a surrogate. He's not someone who was vetted, and this wasn't something orchestrated by the campaign." The McDonald mentioned is McCain senior adviser Matt McDonald. This comes from a Seattle Times report sourced to a compilation "from The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Associated Press". 222.152.178.238 (talk)
Original research. Don't take it personally, but nobody cares about your speculations unless they're published in a reputable and/or peer reviewed media. --Amwestover (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Also spamming the page -- see supra for the same claim. Collect (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection level?

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

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

Why is it vandalism to report his tax problems?

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

What purpose does it serve other than to denegrate him? WP:BLP is very clear on these issues. If you want to attack him then go to the Daily Kos or some other blog and write about it. This is not the place for Enquirer types of reporting. Arzel (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Except those issues are already part of the public discourse about Sam the (non)plumber. csloat (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
csloat must watch the obama press organ, I mean 'Countdown with Kieth Olberman'. 'Sam the (non)plumber' is a direct quote of Olberman (the guy who only attacks McCain and not Obama and only has guests that support his highly biased view - That pisses me off and I'm not even for McCain, but Ron Paul, or now Bobb Barr.) Besides his name is Joe. Many people go by there middle name. So Joe
Actually, I didn't see that on Olbermann but it seemed an obvious joke based on the fact that his name is actually Sam and he turned out to have no plumbing license. Besides, who gives a crap what I watch on TV? Did you have something constructive to add? csloat (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe claims to want to buy a business valued at $500,000. Considering that he makes $40,000 and owes back taxes, this fact is very relevant because it call into question his motivation in making this statement and his credibility in general. Dtaw2001 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Dtaw2001, Ever heard of a business Loan? J. D. Hunt (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You think he's going to qualify for a loan for seven times his annual income when he can't even pay his back taxes or hospital bills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
TomCat4680, we don't believe that it is vandalism, but there is a consensus discussion going on about whether or not it violates WP:BLP. --Amwestover (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking him. I was posting facts. Thats what encylopedias are for. It's not from the Enquirer either. Its from Bloomberg.com, a well respected source.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Those deleting well referenced facts appear to have partisan bias. Dtaw2001 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Contribute to the consensus discussion or find something better to do with your time. --Amwestover (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether or not you were attacking him. Other editors contributed similar text earlier today and it has created a discussion about it's validity and relevance in a biographical article per WP:BLP. --Amwestover (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Its completely valid and relevant. They are facts and thats all there is to it. and Dtaw is right, people are letting their politics blind their ability to report the facts, just like every newsmedia outlet out there. Why does Joe even have a Wikipedia article? He's just a "plumber" in a small town in Ohio. Does that mean I should write an article about my plumber? Just because you got on TV doesn't make your life encyclopedic. Why don't we just delete this article and move on with our lives?TomCat4680 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
To Tomcat - The article is relevant because he is an part of an ongoing discussion between two presidential candidates and covered by every media outlet. Pretty notable J. D. Hunt (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Tomcat: Please contribute to the consensus discussion if you think it is valid, and also be sure to review WP:BLP to see why people have a grievance with the contribution. And I don't think an article is warranted for Joe the Plumber either, but a discussion was held and the consensus was to keep the article for now. --Amwestover (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
"Joe the Plumber" was selected by the McCain campaign as a meme for the 2008 presidential campaign, just as Willie Horton was a meme in the 1988 presidential campaign. It is bogus to demand the deletion of a factual, referenced and encyclopedic article about a theme chosen to try and win the presidency of the United States, when multiple reliable sources have had substantial coverage of it, and when both presidential candidates discuss it day after day. Joe himself chose to appear on multiple national news programs. Joe is in fact not a plumber, by virtue of his not having a plumber's license and he hasn't even completed an apprenticeship, but he chose to present himself as a plumber. If a presidential campaign chose to present as a major campaign theme the plight of a disabled war veteran, and it turned out that multiple reliable sources presented substantial coverage of how he was not disabled and he was not a veteran, that would be encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, public figure. The phrase "Joe the Plumber" is encyclopedic, and so are the details of the man behind the meme, particularly when they contrast with the iconic image initially presented. Facts in the public record, such as his income, occupational licensing, and tax delinquency, are directly relevant to his role in illustrating the two candidates' tax policies. He has chosen to give multiple interviews to many media outlets, and is presently scheduled to appear on the Sunday political talk shows about 36 hours from now. He is a willing public figure and entitled to the protection for living persons, but not for more than that. — LisaSmall T/C 03:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
He is not a "public figure" as defined by SCOTUS. Collect (talk)

Request for arbitration on tax issues

I have requested arbitration on tax issues here:

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

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

The page is not protected just because the matter is sent up for arbitration. Additionally, my $.02 is that the arbitrators will decline to hear this, both because it is primarily a content dispute and because no real dispute resolution was offered (a section on a talk page is not dispute resolution). Therefore, editors here should be working on a compromise rather than twiddling their thumbs waiting for arbitrators to act. Oren0 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The tax lien material is under arbitration. There was no dispute about quoting Joe's opinions on taxes. Would it be an acceptable compromise to put the opinions back in and leave the tax liens out until we hear from some actual admins? betsythedevine (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No. The tax lien is clearly relevant to his tax opinions. If the lien is adequately sourced (the AP source noted below seems adequate), then it should be in the article to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. And the ArbComm request (almost certain to be rejected) is not a reason not to include the information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I do not understand why the tax lien is clearly or unclearly relevant to JtP's tax opinions. Please explain. I tend to feel that Joe's views on taxation are relevant to this article, and that they are not in violation of WP:BLP. I think one or two sentences on this subject are appropriate. However, I tend to feel that tax liens on Joe's propery are not relevant to the article and are in violation of WP:BLP. I might feel differently if it could be established that Joe deliberately underpaid or failed to pay taxes as a protest, but without establishing that fact, I find the lien immaterial to the article and a violation of WP:BLP. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that the fact that he owes back taxes (as evidenced by the tax lien) is relevant to his opinion about what taxes should be, regardless of whether the non-payment was intentional. Do we need a psyschological treatise or specific comment from a reliable source to that effect? I wouldn't think so.
And the tax lien is clearly reported by AP, generally considered to be a "trusted" source (reliable both as to content and as to notability). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Tax liens are filed a lot, and do not always represent anything more than a dispute about taxes owed. Most are not filed on people who refuse to pay taxes (in which case, I am fairly sure the amount would be higher). Since we do not have his tax returns, and I am pretty sure that such are not public documents, leaping to conclusions usually has one sad result. Collect (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. A tax lien represents a dispute about the taxes owed combined with an IRS Ohio Department of Taxation opinion that it wouldn't be paid voluntarily, or a failure to respond to requests for payment. Filing a lien, although not requiring a court order, does require a significant amount of paperwork on the IRS side, and is not entered into without some concerns on the IRS side. But, in spite of the fact that I generally agree with his position on taxes, all the relevant, sourced, background must be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. The lien was not filed by the IRS according to the stories. And the IRS routinely has to release improperly filed liens. But the lien stated is with Ohio. In FL, "liens" are routinely filed on property taxes, and are very common now. Other states, I am sure, vary. But the IRS is not actually relevant here. Collect (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

BLP is all that is needed. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of WP:BLP. If he is notable it is because of his question to Obama, Obama's subsequent poor choice of words, and McCain jump on Obama's response and numerous mentions during the debate. This focus on his taxes is nothing more than an attempt to deflect what this issue is really about, and to attack this man because of it is really sickening. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with WP. Arzel (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the request for arbitration specifically states that both his tax issues and his quote on taxation are being discussed. Until the request is completed, material on neither matter should be contributed to the article. --Amwestover (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule that by filing for arbitration someone gains ownership of an article, and becomes the arbiter of what can and cannot be included in it? I am unable to find such a policy or guideline. Edison (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about misreading the article, but in most jurisdictions, only property tax liens are filed automatically against that property. All other liens require an explicit decision by the taxing agency that there is a risk of non-payment. The Florida examples above probably fall into that category. And I concur with Edison; I don't see how an RfAr request blocks the relevant information from being in the article. In fact, normally, an RfAr acceptance doesn't prevent editing the article without an injunction. Still, it seems to me that his personal tax status is clearly relevant to his opinions on tax policy, and we have a reliable source for the tax lien. I personally think his opinions on tax policy are as relevant as he is, but I'm willing to defer that decision for a few days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why the fact that he has a tax lien against him is important and is relevant to the question he asked Obama. Show how this is not just an Ad Hominem attack against Joe to make the question he asked invalid. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If he's aware of the tax lien (for which we don't have evidence for or against), or if the tax dispute is on a tax protester basis (for which we also don't have strong evidence), it's relevant to his views on taxes. Even if neither is the case, it's probably relevant. And it's certainly not a BLP violation, as it's in the AP article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant to the question he asked Obama. It's relevant to other assertions he made about taxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
I wasn't saying it was relevant to his questions to Obama. I was and am saying that it's relevant to his assertions on taxes, not to his questions. You, among others, seem to be insisting that his comparisons of the present situation to the Boston Tea Party and other examples of "taxation withour representation" are relevant; the fact that he owes income taxes is relevant to his opposition to such taxes. On the other hand "Joe the plumber" is generally well-known, at least among people who watch national or world news covering the US elections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
But this discussion should be at WP:BLPN, although Newyorkbrad may weigh in at the RfAr as to his opinion on that, which I'd almost certainly be willing to defer to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Arthur Rubin has suggested above that I "seem to be insisting that his comparisons of the present situation to the Boston Tea Party and other examples of "taxation withour[sic] representation" are relevant". I would just like to clarify I do not think this. --Matilda talk 22:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. You seem to be the one reinserting it. I'm neutral on whether that quote belongs in the article, but believe that the lien must "attach" to it. (Sorry. Legal joke. The liens are "attached" to property.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Deletion?

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

Tax Liens: 1 or 2

On the main page, the sentence states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phone call by McCain

{{Coatrack}}

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

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

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

WP:BLP1E

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

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

The notion that this article fails WP:BLP1E is fundamentally flawed as BLP1E clearly states that its subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual" however with Mr. Wurzelbacher's numerous interviews with the news media (including CNN, Fox News, Good Morning America, CNBC, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, and the BBC according to the Toledo Blade article), he is hardly a low-profile person. Examples of this include how Senator McCain invited Mr. Wurzelbacher to join him on the campaign trail (McCain calls 'Joe the Plumber,' invites him on the trail), and how Mr. Wurzelbacher was invited to attend Sunday's McCain rally in Toledo, but cannot because he is flying to New York City for television interviews on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday [8].

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

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

Driving violation info does not belong in this bio

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

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

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

Life Imitates Art

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

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

starting a life on its own

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

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

Additonal (relevant) information re: Joe The Plumber

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

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

A new low for wikipedia...

...Regarding this edit [9]. The reference cited is not from the "Indiana Express" but from the Indian Express ie from India not Indiana, which is halfway around the planet. Please correct or there will be a amply justified article on The Register lampooning this absurd error.Goingoveredge (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Why would anyone delete this article?

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

Date of birth

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

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

Move this article to Joe the Plumber

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

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

Articles should be located at the most commonly used name. "Joe the Plumber" gets 10,037 hits at Google News [10], but "Joe Wurzelbacher" only gets 7,164 Google News hits [11]. McCain and Palin are daily referring to this campaign meme as "Joe the Plumber," so I propose a move to that title, as was called for by many contributors to the AFD and the DRV. Please indicate "Support" or "Oppose" with a policy based rationale. Edison (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - I think it's pretty obvious. "Joe The Plumber" is what people who access Wiki will be looking for.radek (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as per nom - Wikipedia:Naming conventions states Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. - the debate and newspaper reporting refer to Joe the Plumber. Moreover the rename would allow focus on the issues for which this meme is notable and not issues related to the individual per WP:NPF: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. --Matilda talk 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a much more common search term, and it puts us on firmer footing to focus the article more on the prominent political meme, and less on the biographical details of one individual. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Although it is about a real person, most of the people who know his name are probably here. However, I disagree with Matilda's comment, in part; if his views on taxes are relevant, then the public record of his tax problems is relevant, and appears adequately sourced with good secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support With purely biographical material deled. Collect (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This is really more about a concept than a person. However, a bit of a background bio would be appropriate. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support He's notable as "Joe the Plumber", an election cultural icon, not in his own name. Rename per WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME. This would also remove any lingering WP:BLP1E issues. Remove/edit any content (such as his tax problems) that is a BLP violation in normal editing. — Becksguy (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • support with the strong caveat that this does not make his tax issues less relevant. Joe the Plumber's validity as a symbol would still be an issue and thus his tax issues are still relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems obvious to me; that's what people would be looking for. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It's obvious. He's not notable for being Joe Wurzelbacher, he's notable for being "Joe the Plumber". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support With strong attention being given to the point made by both Arthur Rubin and JoshuaZ that properly sourced and cited content that relates to the topic that made the individual prominent enough to be the subject of a Wiki article i the first place - namely his publicly available records (as extensively cited by respected media sources) about tax - are not air-brushed out under spurious assertions of BLP. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and again tax lien and other personal facts should be omitted. Include his opinions on taxation, include his media actions subsequent to meeting Obama, include how he was used in the debate by the McCain campaign. Also include his ability or the lack thereof to buy the business, the actual profitability of the business, and the actual impact of the Obama tax proposal on the taxes owed by the owner of the business.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris (talk • contribs)
  • Support I was going to say the exact same thing on the talk page only to find that someone had already done so. :)--Parthian Scribe (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full Quote

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

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

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

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

Appearance on Huckabee

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

Rewrite

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

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

Social Security bit

"Social Security is a joke," Wurzelbacher told CNN. "I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[12] Should we include this in the article. Let the debate begin. QuackGuru 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope. Not directly related to the main event -- his interview with Obama. Collect (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. It fits in "Political leanings and taxation" nicely. "Joe" is a major character in this campaign. Therefore, *all* of his views are important to provide context in the meaning of "Joe the Plumber". Timhowardriley (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a section on his politics. His politics are germane; major media care about his politics. Should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit

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

A reference would help. QuackGuru 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Not how it works. Notability is not temporary and Wikipedia is not a news source. Notability is like being a king or queen of Narnia. Once a king in Narnia, always a king in Narnia. Once the individual is notable we don't reduce the article size simply because the media isn't paying as much attention. Moreover, I'm not at all convinced that the media is paying less attention. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Extensive coverage continues today, with Google News search for the past 24 hours showing 11,953 hits for "Joe the Plumber[13]," on news channels like CNN and in campaign speeches by McCain and Palin. Fox News [14] calls him (Oct. 20) "the newest political star" and "a household name." The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 20) has extensive coverage of efforts to help him pay his back taxes [15]. CNN (Oct. 20) says "Joe the Plumber" will compete with Gen. Colin Powell for media attention over the next several days," and that Joe "is representative of the millions of hardworking Americans who get up every day and go to work" and that Joe is McCain's best strategy going forward. The LA Times (Oct 21) says [16] "the Joe the Plumber phenomenon is real" and continues to be prominent at McCain rallies, and that "Wurzelbacher symbolizes an optimistic, individualistic vision of America sorely lacking- until recently- in McCain's rhetoric." Market Watch (Oct 20)[17] calls Joe the Plumber "an American icon." William Kristol at The Weekly Standard (Oct. 20) says [18] "Joe the Plumber has helped give the McCain campaign its closing economic message." On Oct 20, the McCain campaign launched an internet competition [19] for supporters to explain how they are like Joe the Plumber in a TV campaign ad. Edison (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell bit

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

  • No problem. Other people's opinion are not germane. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Is a synthesis if no one has connected the Powell remark to Joe the Plumbers remark. So should be left out. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone tried inserting it again. Deled -- but I suspect this was not an accidental insertion. Collect (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

tax lien or judgement lien?

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

Appearence on Hannity & Colmes

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

Some other relevant topics:

Requisition to unproject the page

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


Joe the Plumber the meme

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

Here's what John McCain said:

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

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

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

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

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

Admin making edits

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


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

Protection template

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

You don't like the small one? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I only favor those for indefinitely semi-protected pages. I've never been able to easily figure out the time limit on short protections with the little one.... -- Kendrick7talk 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll go template searching. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
OMG Look at all the pretty coloured padlocks. How long has it been like that? (Shows how often i check that page!). (I'm still looking for the list of templates). Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It does make life easier on editors not involved in the current dispute to know when to come back around. -- Kendrick7talk 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

excess refs on lien placed as a "statement" =

{{editprotected}}

Per above discussions, onlyUser:Inclusiomist who placed the excessive refs on the tax lien section has any reasoning -- and it is an unacceptable one. He wrote " Some editors here are throwing out every acronym they can imagine to justify the deletion. Arzel has said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues, despite what the BLP clearly page says and those who support his view. Several hundred news editors have felt it was relevant enough to include in their news, versus a half dozen wikiepdians." and "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." as "reasons to include the tax lien section, and in a following section on the excess number of refs he wrote " "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." and "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. " That editor is the only one who has argued for these refs. Even when cites were refused by massive consensus. I do not think rewarding an abuse of the system is correct, and the first end would be to remove the game-playing massive repetivie and duplicative refs.

Therfore I assert that the consensus is to remove all excess cites from the dispouted "tax lien" section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to ask an independent admin to edit the page you should state which ones are needed so we can come to an agreement on that.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The only actual on-point cite is the abcnews one: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=6047360 which is the only one listed which includes the Losie quote (as it was said to ABCNews). In reflist as "Ibanga, Imaeyen (October 16 2008). "America's Overnight Sensation Joe the Plumber Owes $1,200 in Taxes". ABC News. " Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not just link to the case's docket on the Lucas County Clerk of Court's website: http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.227.151 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maonly because the statement about the Clerk is not in that other cite. It is only in the ABCNews cite as given. Secondly, the cite you give is a "primary source." When one cite works and is sufficient, that is what counts. And muddying this fix up is not going to help anyone. Collect (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through all the citations myself, so I don't know exactly which ones are worth keeping, but I have to agree with Collect above: the sheer number of citations given for this one sentence is absurd. (Nineteen at current count, including the same citation twice!) To me, this seems like a WP:NPOV issue: adding that many references to a statement looks like an attempt to 'hammer home' the message and draw excessive attention to it, while also discouraging others from removing it. I'm not arguing for the section to be removed, but I see absolutely no need for so many references: they're effectively just repeating the same point over and over again. We should only have enough references to prove the claim, and that probably means three or four, tops; the aim is simply to demonstrate to the reader that the claim is true, not beat them over the head with it. Terraxos (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is quite common in controversial articles to quote several references to justify the inclusion of particular controversial material.
THE ACTUAL REASON I ADDED THESE REFERENCES
User:Collect doesn't actually quote the reason I added these citations.
First, I added all those citations to show this section is relevant.
Second, I didn't add all of those citations to try to convince Collect, I added all those citations to show everyone else how relevant this material is, in an attempt to stop Collect's unjustifiable deletions of this section.
Collect please replace these comments as the reason for inclusion
User:Collect is clearly attempting to edit war even when the page is protected.
User:Collect not only wants the references deleted, he wants the entire section deleted. [20][21][22]
Collect says above that "One is sufficient". That is false. Collect's past behavior clearly shows that he just wants to delete the entire section.
Sorry Collect that the page was protected on an edit you didn't like. Guaranteed if someone were to ask to insert the tax information in the article when it was protected you would scream bloody murder.
Inclusionist (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Your attacks on me are against a host of WP principles. Using a page as a means of fighting is against a host of WP policies. My position is that using a page as a "game" is against WP policies. Your use of this section to make further attacks is against WP rules and policies. As for your claim that "several" equals "sixteen" -- that is sufficiently outre as to need no further comment. Congratulations. Collect (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Inclsionist, it looks to me like you are trolling here. No one has disputed the facts here so multiple references are simply stupid. You must know that yet you continue arguing for them. Since you are clearly editing in bad faith i ask any uninvolved admin to ignore your view in this matter and look at those of every other person on this talk page. No one, except yourself, no matter where they sit on the debate on whether the tax lein should or should not be on this page has argued for so many references. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done per the reasonable arguments made by those in favor of trimming the number of references (and per consensus). There is no need for nineteen sources when just one will suffice. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

We should definitely set up automatic archiving on this page. How long is a reasonable amount of time for inactive threads to stay before being archived? I would say three or four days seems reasonable. What do you guys think? J.delanoygabsadds 00:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

support. Inclusionist (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
support. Three days till things die down. --VictorC (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Faux archiving has been done on this page. Until the page is restored, any archiving is ill considered. Collect (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm, what I am suggesting is that threads with no posts for three days be archived. J.delanoygabsadds 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sections with posts within 3 hours were removed it appears. A factor of 24 is ok? Collect (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to have a robot copy threads older than three days to subpages of this page, and post a link to the subpages on the header on the top of this page. This has nothing to do with users randomly blanking threads. J.delanoygabsadds 01:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to editors blanking threads or changing names so that prior posts appear orphaned. If an editor thinks ill of his former commnets, the strikeout seems well suited to the need. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The bot only archives once a day, I don't think there will be any problems. This page has a lot of people watching it, and if someone tries to change someone's posts, the odds of the bot archiving the thread before someone re-adds the comments is practically nil. J.delanoygabsadds 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - Too much clutter. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Support providing threads stay up until they are done being discussed as shown by five inactive days. — Becksguy (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I added it. Threads with no activity for 5 days will be archived, with one archive being done in a day. J.delanoygabsadds 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your work. Inclusionist (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. So much better. — Becksguy (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of posts from the Talk page

I request that posts removed wholesale from this page be restored. Removal in order to "improve" ones stands is intellectually dishonest. Renaming of sections in here is intellectually dishonest. Play by the rules. "Archiving" CURRENT discussions is contrary to any WP policies. Collect (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets please focus on wikipolicy, calling other editors "intellectually dishonest" and that other editors should be "ashamed" is not focusing on wikipolicy. Please remove or strike out those comments.
If there is a problem with an editors edits, link to those edits, don't restore those edits which will cause an edit war.
I replaced my own comments with "(removed)" because I wanted to focus on wikipolicy, I encourage all editors to do the same. I think your admin friend, who you went to for advice, said it best: "If you have a need to cite any of his talk page edits, do so with diffs." Thanks. Inclusionist (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. You removed again. Material less than 3 minutes old. You have made literally dozens of edits in a matter of hours, trying to find every single change is a pain. 29 edits in three hours on the Talk page. For deletions in an active discussion, try using "strike out" which is the preferred system. Thank you very much. Collect (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect here, and Inclusionist, for one to cite policies, you should try reading them yourself. Do not re-factor talk-page comments. I shall be issuing the level 3 warning on your talk page after making this post.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
As Daedalus wrote on my talk page:
"Well, I won't template you, but do not refactor talk page comments."
Daedalus, I appreciate your restraint. Inclusionist (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Shifting and renaming sections of Talk page and disrupting contents of prior discussions

I consider to be invidious. Anyone else think that ripping out pieces of threads, assigning a new name to the pieces, and leaving gaping holes in the earlier threads is wrong? Collect (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is old hat isn't it? Dealt with by warning.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like the others here to make it clear that this is not just me who is concerned. Besides I do not regard warnings as efficaceous remedies for this behavior. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I'd like to make it clear that I am not that concerned. He has not done it since the warning has he? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you -- it certainly does appear clamer now. Collect (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Clamer or clamor? Edison (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Calmer. I have a dyslexic keyboard. Collect (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to unfreeze editing the article

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) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The protection expires at 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)) anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Because some people take it upon themselves to edit war constantly, while ignoring any form of civilized discussion to accomplish something that everyone can agree upon. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. — Becksguy (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The protection may have expired, but the article is still tagged. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
So untag it then! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I removed the tag, but, considering the article is no longer protected, anyone could have done that.
Also, be prepared for waves of vandalism. If it gets out of hand, don't hesitate to file a request for semi-protection on WP:RFPP. J.delanoygabsadds 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If any individual editors get sufficiently out of hand, they can be reported for WP:3RR and other inappropriate behavior at WP:3RRN or WP:ANI, among others. There are many sets of eyes watching this article. — Becksguy (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Only applicable if there is a 3RR vio. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Although to clarify, 3RR does not necessarily mean exactly four reverts (or more) in a 24 hour period, nor does it entitle each editor to three reverts per day. It's a non-punitive policy designed to discourage edit warring and disruptive editing, and to encourage consensus building discussion. Edit warring is bad for the article, and bad for Wikipedia and it's readers. When there are groups of editors that edit war over an article, it's possible that each individual editor may not technically violate the letter of the 3RR policy and yet still violate the spirit of it. — Becksguy (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Working the content dispute out on the talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Fox News covered the tax lien [23], so those editors trying to censor that info in this article are trying to be holier than the Pope. VG ☎ 08:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Unprotect

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

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

The most famous plumber bit

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

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

Suggestion for new intro paragraph

Joe the Plumber, is a reference used by by Republican Senator John McCain, Democratic Senator Barack Obama and members of the media during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to compare the implications of the candidates' tax policies. Joe the Plumber was mentioned at least 23 times[1][2][3] during the third and final presidential debate on October 15, 2008.[4] The character is based on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [5]

Thank you, Red Pen of Doom, for this interesting suggestion. Your approach sounds like a good way to clarify some issues, although I am sure others would want to tweak the wording.
I notice Variety has a relevant story about media coverage: [24] They say that "The debate itself accounted for 18% of stories last week, according to study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. The economic crisis -- and the new proposals both candidates fielded to address the meltdown -- accounted for 9%, barely squeaking past the 8% of stories devoted to plumber Joe Wuzelbacher." betsythedevine (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is POV, OR and outright misleading. Joe the Plumber is not a character. He's not an actor with a separate persona or anything like that. Joe the Plumber is Sam Wurzlebacher. Period. The fact that he is most commonly known as Joe the Plumber doesn't make Joe the Plumber a separate individual. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. While he is, in fact, better known for being Joe the Plumber, he's not a different person than Joe Wurzlebacher. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The only two other obvious choices I find are "persona" and "epithet". "Epithet" is technically correct to be sure. Thus possible coices are "The persona is based on SJW" or "JtP is an epithet applied to SJW." Votre choix. "Meme" is almost defintiely not the word to use. Collect (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Theres lots of other ways to say it: The Joe the Plumber comparisons stemmed from a question posed by Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher at an Obama rally in Ohio. would be one way. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber is an individual, not a type like Essex Man or Soccer mom. Even if we don't want to get into personal details, that needs to be clear. 140.247.248.36 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about this?

Joe the Plumber is a nickname repeatedly used during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to to symbolize small business issues,[1][2] based on a tax-policy discussion between Barack Obama and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [5]

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

Sounds good to me, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, if that were the lead paragraph, maybe our section heads would be "Filmed encounter with Barack Obama", "Discussion in third Presidential debate", "Media discussion of Joseph Wurzelbacher", and "Candidates' discussion of Joe the Plumber." What do others think? betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the encounter was taped? And put any bio stuff in last section -- after cadidates' discussions. The article is really more about the tax discussion than about an individual. Collect (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a more academic term for the use of the phrase than 'nickname'. MickMacNee (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. It is not a nickname used to symbolize small business issues. It is a nickname used for a specific person in which context his concerns represented a microcosm of small business issues throughout the United States. Can someone find a less wordy way to say that? The point that the nickname was about a specific human being is important. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, hard to get all that into one sentence. How about one sentence that says it's X and another that says it's also Y, where X = a shortcut way of talking about small business taxes in the US and Y = the person who asked Obama a question about it? JoshuaZ, want to take a whack at those sentences? Oh, yes, and the encounter was taped, not filmed. I am just showing my age there. betsythedevine (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about this: "Joe the Plumber is a nickname repeatedly used during the final weeks of the 2008 United States presidential election to refer to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher whose nickname came to symbolize small business issues,[1][2] based on a tax-policy discussion between Barack Obama and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, an employee of Newell Plumbing & Heating and a resident of Holland, Ohio, USA. [5]" I think that gets it all in in one sentence and should make everyone happy? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't McCain the one who first referred to him (publicly) as "Joe the Plumber"? In that case the meme should be properly attributed in the lead section. My understanding is that McCain apologized to Joe because it was McCain who put the media spotlight on Joe, but I'm unsure if McCain was the first to use "Joe the Plumber". VG ☎ 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The Indiana Express and VOA sources do not seem to be accurately placed/support the material where they are currently placed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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


ref

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

Notability

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

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

unreliable source and controversial material

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

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

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

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

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

Homophobia

That he does not allow homosexuals around his children does not imply that he has "is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals,[1][2][3] or individuals perceived as homosexual" - from the Homophobia WP article. Certainly he can have a religious or moral objection to something without being fearful (and certainly not necessarily irrationally so).

Even if even a mild fear or aversion were applicable, the Homophobia Category (unsure how to link to category pages) page precludes the category from being applied because "it is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances." To label this article under this category gives undue weight to his views on homosexuality, as he is not considered "widely known for (his) homophobic stance)." Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, there's a discussion of this subject here. Wikipedia:BLP/N#Joe_the_Plumber.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It's pretty clear so far that the RfC shows that consensus is for the category to NOT be included. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The charge should not be removed, but explained as such. Imagine he did not want black people close to his children, could be not be considered racist? Do you see why it is possible to interpret his action as such? and yes his fear is that his children will become gay, or that gay people would rape them. I submit any such fear is irrational and therefore homophobic.gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Good point. 174.21.14.222 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I had heard he was homophobic and came here to search on more information. As a member of the public who knows very little about this person and had heard of his homophobia, I'd say he's on the upwards trend of being "widely known for [his] homophobic stance." At the very least, there should be some mention and citation of it in the article, especially since it is referenced on another page, the Meghan McCain article and her comments of Joe the Plumber on the Colbert Show. --65.113.35.130 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, this article confirms his homophobia:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/joe-the-plumber-queer-mea_n_196116.html - Native94080 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does absolutely nothing. It shows he used the word "queer" which means everyone involved with "queer eye ..." is equally "homophobic." Abuse of such a term does not advance anything worthwhile at all. Collect (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There are many facts & opinion about Joe that are documented that don't necessarily mean they should be in the article. I would ask how does this single quote relate to an article about his role in the presidential election? It's a stretch at best and irrelevant at worst.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I am not a fan of Mr. Plumber, but it seems a lot of people want the article to be a repository of his most embarrassing quotes which have nothing to do with his role in the election. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. -Jordgette (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Controversial topics, such as this one, are relevant whenever persons like Joe The Plumber does anything that extends his/her 15 minutes of fame. Native94080 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about controversy. It's really about relevance to the topic. Joe W is ONLY relevant in the context of Joe the Plumber IMHO. So while we can find every utterance by Joe W., that does not mean it's needed. Now, if this quote had shaped how the McCain/Palin campaign positioned him, then I'd be much more open to inclusion.Mattnad (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_2&oldid=1142547421"