Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Deletion Support

At the moment, this at best should be little more than a section in the 2008 campaign articles. Plus, there is very little confirmed information other than his appearance in Ohio asking Obama about his potential tax burden and his frequent mentioning during the October 15 debate. --Amwestover (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well and FoxNews and a few other places. This person needs to be here at least till Nov. 5 or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.251.203 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

JOE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF GEORGE W. BUSH CORPORATION.... PLEASE REMOVE.

-  One example of tons of defacement going on in this page. every time I refresh it something weird is snuck in there.
- And now its gone

Too Early to consider Deletion

With Joseph Wurzelbacher’s interview on Good Morning America and his possible connections to Robert Wurzelbacher, son-in-law to Charles Keating, means possible manipulation by McCain campaign. It is too soon to talk of deletion of this entry. Tinakori Road (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If either of you would like to be heard on the potential deletion of this article, you should do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite that being unsubstantiated hogwash, it doesn't make this any more or less significant. This is rampant recentism and trying to filter our the unverifiable blog sources is going to become tiring really quickly. Thanks for the direction, Oren0, I'll be including my two cents on the deletion discussion. --Amwestover (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Willie Horton has a page and was likewise brought up in a debate. I have included the GMA link where he admits he was contacted by the mcCain campaign. Whether those who seek to hide truths or wish to disable facts from being documented admit it or not, the video shows clear evidence that he was contacted by the McCain campaign. It would be illogical for him to have been referring to the Obama campaign in that instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthemillionth (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Madville times did research on possible Republican connections. I googled "plant" and his name.

Excellent, more non-notable recentism. People are invited to go to rallies all the time by politicians, especially in battleground states. I know this has some liberals running scared, such as yourself, but none of this warrants giving an article to a guy who asked Obama a single question. --Amwestover (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is clear Joe's politics differ from Obama's, it is unlikely that Obama's campaign would have invited Joe to be on camera at an Obama rally. Who's running scared and for what reason would anyone? It seems like people like yourself, whatever politics you prescribe to, want to evade facts as indicated by your edits on the article. You don't even know that Yahoo is an aggregator and cite Yahoo when the actual link/reference is ABC news. McCain elevated him to more than a guy who asked Obama a single question by referring him in the debate multiple times as well as the debate afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthemillionth (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Joe the plumber" has come to the forefront of the political debate, keeping him on Wikipedia is helpful for those who hear him mentioned but have no idea who he is or in what context he came into prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.45.53 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The context he become "prominent" under was a presidential debate and a question after a rally. That's not notable and it's recentism. Article should either be deleted or redirected to debate and/or campaign pages where it can be probably be put into context with appropriate notability. --Amwestover (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notability has been established (he's been covered in plenty of news stories). The argument by amwestover about recentism is true, but recentism is an essay, not doctorine. Context can be added in this article. I suspect we'll hear more about him even post-election, perhaps similar to Spencer Elden. Tedder (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is notable enough to have an article, at least for now. Perhaps in can be merged into another article after the election is over. Bloodbath 87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

KeepThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This Is Crazy

Whoa, this is crazy! I go to the Toledo area all the time for art classes at the Toledo Museum of Art. I don't know if he likes all this publicity or not, but he has his own Wikipedia page now--I'd be shocked! And plus-- I want this page to be kept, like dude, he was mentioned 23 times! I think that's pretty significant enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.1 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Judgement leins

I see this contribution as non-notable and also in error.

There are two judgement liens against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of income taxes. In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "You know a lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."

• This has nothing to do with Joe the Plumber's current notoriety, which isn't very notable or significant to begin with.
• The source itself says that no judges or attorneys have been assigned, therefore no summons. The only way he'd know about this is a recent credit report.
• The contribution is incorrect in claiming that both liens are for income taxes. The second lien is for hospital payments.
• The attach quote is largely irrelevant. Good find, though.

--Amwestover (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"In December, 2007, the Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid, but there has been no action in the case since it was filed." http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/10/the_flyover_vie_7.html

Fuzzywolfenburger (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

January 2007 for $1,182 from a non-blog source. --Amwestover (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that JP didn't pay taxes combined with his "taxation without representation" comment clearly put him in the tax protestor camp. McCain is representing him as a typical blue collar voter. The tax protestors are far right wing, not typical. So either JP is misunderstood by McCain or McCain is trying to appeal to voters in the tax protestor segment. This is why the liens and his comments on taxation are relevant and should be included. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Erx. Not sure if he's a "tax protester" but for now the sources reporting on this (ie: USA's ABCNews) are quite reliable and notable. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources aren't the issue. The issue is with the notability of the contribution and it's inconsistencies with the cites sources. I should also bring to your attention that sources aren't notable, events are. Sources instead are verifiable. --Amwestover (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A judgment lien doesn't mean he "didn't" pay taxes, his second lien isn't even for taxes, and there's no proof that he even knows about these liens yet. In addition, "taxation without representation" has nothing to do with tax protesting. I originally typed a longer reply, but your contribution is blatantly non-neutral and loaded with original research so that's all that really has to be pointed out. --Amwestover (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Plumber? Plumber business owner? or Potential plumber business owner? Hmmm

Articles on the BBC, THe Guardian and New York Times suggest Wurzelbacher might be a political plant, possibly in coordination with the Republican National Committee or McCain campaign. What we know is that Wurzelbacher is not a registered plumber, does not possess a license. Reports in USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune are in conflict as to whether he owns a business, or is claiming to be considering the purchase of a plumbing business. Curious. CApitol3 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe has been straightforward from the beginning in saying that he WANTS to purchase the plumbing company that he works for, his question directed to Obama is about the potential taxes he'd face as a result. The plumbing license questions are a non-issue, they've already been explored and it's been discovered that he doesn't need a plumbers license. And claims that he's a "political" plant from what I've seen have been unsourced, ridiculous, and irrelevant. --Amwestover (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NYT also states “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” he told Mr. Obama. [1] . I have reverted somebody who wanted to describe him as a tax dodger rather than a plumber but I ma happy to describe him as a "potential small-business owner" since that complies with the sources. --Matilda ^talk 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete re-write proposed

I would like to completely re-write this article. Rename it "Joe the Plumber" and focus on that topic, not Joseph W. Chergles (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is probably best drafted in user space or on a temp page.--Matilda ^talk 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

this can't be deleted!!!!!!!!!!

Joe the Plumber was a major part of last nights debate, so know he is a less signifigant part of American history now, this page is imporatant! But, if you don't agree, maybe we should make another page about the debate and mention him in it.

Blue Laser (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it. it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.142.163 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about one man who has an opinion. If that qualifies a person to have a wikipedia article on them, then there should be an article about every adult on earth. Please delete this waste of bytes.

This is a must keep till at least after the election. - And then keep if Obama loses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.251.203 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

this gotta be deleted or else i will put a page about me showing my concerns about the election and stuff. maybe a page about my family and how they like to annoy me too. Dioxholster (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a Keeper for Joe "the Plumber" Keating

Even if the guy wasn't about to be exposed as a relative of Charles Keating, by any objective standard he is notable.

I understand that the DailyKos isn't a viable source, bur its been a few other sources too. Let me round those up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so if he isnt a republican plant, how is this notable? Just being a momentary media sensation shouldnt qualify, as in a few days this person 15 minutes will be up --then what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.164.230 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a fan of the guys politics either, but he was referenced a bunch of times in the debate, and I can't think of anything more memorable about the debate than the candidates duet-monolog with Joe 'The Plumber'FuriousJorge (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm on the subject, I know that blogs aren't usually endorsed as sources unless they have a particular expertise in the matter. Well what about this one: [ http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops/]. If you are wondering about the source, this is from their 'Bio' page:

Political strategist and conservative analyst Martin Eisenstadt is a senior fellow at the The Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy and Founder and President of the influential Eisenstadt Group. An expert on Near Eastern military and political affairs, Mr. Eisenstadt works alongside Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, offering advice and liaising with the Jewish community in particular. Prior to that, he consulted on the Rudolph Giuliani campaign, as well as numerous corporate and multinational organizations on issues of security and policy development. Mr. Eisenstadt has been an influential voice in Near Eastern policy debate for over a decade.

The Wall Street Journal has said of Mr. Eisenstadt that he is “one of the foremost commentators on issues of U.S. policy towards the Middle East and is one of the bright lights of the neoconservative movement.” National Journal’s The Hotline referred to Mr. Eisenstadt as “a rising GOP pundit” and “a clear-spoken advocate for Rudy Giuliani.” Most recently, he has been quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post and Wonkette. FuriousJorge (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we hold back on this per http://www.prwatch.org/node/7845 - absolutely reliable sources would need to be cited for this to be included per WP:Verifiability. --Matilda ^talk 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair enough. I suppose there's a real chance this is a different Wurzelbacher. Anyway, sounds like we agree that it's no more than one source away.FuriousJorge (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not here because he was just a guy with an opinion (For those saying "why don't I a wiki", his wiki is here because he is a guy with an opinion that the candidates for this campaign have been mentioning along with every major media outlet. He's become a known of person to most people now. Hell there are people known by even less people who have wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.156.238 (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Media mention

We were mentioned by Access Hollywood!!!! --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel like navel gazing over the mention of this article and Wikipedia on Access Hollywood. :-) 89.159.146.135 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel something too, it's called shame.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You got to admit though, it's quite inconceivable that by asking just one question to a presidential candidate at rally (and certainly not the first person to do so) will literally make you an overnight celebrity and earn you your own article on Wikipedia. Looks like the notability rules have definitely been redefined. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much what he did, as what McCain, Obama and the media have made of him. He's getting a lot of coverage, and likely already had more interviews then Sarah Palin. I would support this being more about "Joe the Plumber" event then the person. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfD

Ok everyone, this one has been closed as a keep for the time being, it's had some pretty major media attention and has been the topic of discussion for a while (that and who plays Joe on SNL) Please don't DR it for now, give it a few days and we can establish things with a better grasp with the passage of time. -- Tawker (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Undecided

The text of the Joseph_Wurzelbacher#Political_affiliation section is not consistent with what the source says. The source says that (1) he voted for McCain in the GOP primary and (2) he is a "fan of the military and McCain". He "wouldn't say who he was voting for". But the article makes it sound like he is a liar. In a state with party registration where you can't cross sides and vote in the other party's primary, just because he voted for McCain in the primary doesn't guarantee that he is a fully committed McCain voter and isn't giving serious consideration to both sides. Heck, I have two friends who enthusiastically voted for Obama in the Democrat primary, but are not voting for him in the general election - one is voting McCain and the other is voting for Bob Barr. Over the course of the last few months, they changed their minds as they learned more about the candidates. Our article should not claim that it is impossible for Wurzelbacher to have done the same. --B (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Annual income

Apparently Joe the plumber's annual income was $40,000 in 2006[2]. There are questions on whether his claim of making 250,000 a year are accurate or realistic. Shambalala (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Shambalala, you don't sound unbiased on this- how come you keep editing the page? Trying to punish any unbelievers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.191.171 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See response below under controversies - incluusion of details about income or debts violates WP:BLP. Speculation about realism of buying business is unencyclopaedic and inappropriate. he asked a quation about Obama's policies and what impact they might have on a business that makes $250k per year. That hypothetical ? is the issue - not his personal circumstances or how he will be impacted by those policies. --Matilda ^talk 05:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this page be at Joe Wurzelbacher? That's the most common name he's known by. Khoikhoi 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest changing the page to Samuel Joesph Wurzelbacher, his full name. --69.110.37.54 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the title should be at Joe Wurzelbacher since that's his most well known proper name. Joe the Plumber and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher should probably redirect here, but I wouldn't bother putting much effort into it since I don't see how this insignificant article lasts the weekend. I mean are we going to make an article for everyone that calls attention to Obama's Socialist ideals? --Amwestover (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article should be titled by the name by which the subject is best known, Joe Wurzelbacher, not his full legal name. Redirects should be used for the full name and for "Joe the Plumber." Edison (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Please feel free to comment if there are any objections. Khoikhoi 07:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E

It strikes me that a summary of this article's content should be merged into United States presidential election debates, 2008, and the namespace ought to be redirected there. The subject here doesn't appear to pass the criteria as defined per WP:BLP1E. I have tagged it {{notability}} accordingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope at least 2 events perhaps streching to 3.Geni 02:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Where do you get 2 from? All his notoriety stems from being mentioned in the debate. Dp76764 (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• An AfD has just been concluded - please read the closing comments as to why not being deleted or redirected for present. That of course does not give permission for WP:BLP violations. --Matilda ^talk 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Maybe the page needs semi-protection to curb persistent vandalism. Shambalala (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised as think it's a frivolous topic/subject ('Joe the plumber' redirects here), and that it should just be redirected to United States presidential election debates, 2008. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• No - it should not be redirected at present - please see recent AfD. Semi-protection may be necessary. --Matilda ^talk 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

About time; this article has been bombarded by IP vandals all day. --Amwestover (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How long should it be semi-protected? Edison (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Until it's deleted. --Amwestover (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That might require semi-protection for an excessively long time. Edison (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say try lifting it after 24 hours - we did do quite well this morning (Australian time = UTC+ 11 hours) with not too much vandalism - when some of the fuss has died down, wikipedia should be free for anyone to edit and to allow th article to develop. If necessary, review week by week after that. I don't think another AfD discussion will be appropriate before the election (which isn't that far off.--Matilda ^talk 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

In order to add this article to McCain-Palin controversies and John McCain controversies categories, there needs to be mention of supposed controversies in the article, they need to be relevant, and they obviously need to be cited. --Amwestover (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant cited controversies in the article: 1)He is not a licensed plumber. 2)His reported income is too low to be hurt by proposed Obama tax increases, as is the reported income of the company. 3) He does not appear to be in the process of buying the company. Edison (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

None of that is controversial. 1.) He hasn't been reprimanded by the county or state, and their are conflicting claims on whether he is required to have a plumber's license. 2.) Not only non-controversial, but completely irrelevant since he specifically said in his question to Obama that he's planning on buying the business. 3.) Not only irrelevant, but also original research. There are no cited contributions in the article saying that he isn't in the process of buying the company. In fact, the article has cited sources saying he's been thinking about this for six years. --Amwestover (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think we need to be very mindful of WP:BLP - I am not sure if we need to make too much of the variance of his personal circumstances with how a plumber might hypothetically be impacted by the policies of the two candidates. This indvidual has come to prominence because of being featured in the debate after asking Obama what could be regarded as a theoretical question. Featuring him as an individual impacted by the policies in the 3rd McCain/Obama debate was a debating technique and he became thereby a hypothetical person - ie how would a plumber who earns close to $250k as a small business be impacted by the policies. That there is a real person who might not have a license and might not earn that much was not core to the debate. Revelations about debt and income violate our policy on articles relating to living people even if based on reliable sources. He said "I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?" - it isn't up to us to speculate as to whether or not he might buy the company, regardless of what the news organisations might like to beat up out of the question. Accordingly there are facts that are not relevant to be repeated in a wikipedia article. --Matilda ^talk 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's no need to get into specific dollar amounts, but I believe the fact that joe and employer stand to benefit from the tax plan joe criticizes is both notable and relevant (not to mention interesting). Perhaps something like "The NYT reports that that by any reasonable analysis both Joe and his employer in fact stand to benefit from Obama's tax plan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousJorge (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am voting for Senator Obama. I would like to ask my fellow supporters to be careful that what they say here and elsewhere about "Joe the Plumber" is not seen as personal attacks. I tend to think that would not be what Senator Obama would want from us and it might very well be counter-productive. Thanks. I really felt that I should say that. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for category: Ohio Republicans?

I don't see a source in the article claiming that he's a republican, though I'd rather not put an uncited category tag on this yet. Anyone have a cite for this or should we remove it? Oren0 (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Chron Article

Some interesting facts in the article:

• "[Joe] told the conservative Web site familysecuritymatters.org that catching the Democratic presidential candidate off guard "was actually my intent.""
• His name was mentioned 21 times by McCain in the debate, and 26 in total.
• He owes $1200 in back taxes, and $1200 to St. Charles Mercy Hospital.
• He has no plumbing license as required by Ohio, and so according to the Toledo Blade, he isn't a plumber.
• He's lived in Arizona, and Alaska.
• He was a registered member of the National Law Party, but is now a Republican and voted in the Republican primary.
• McCain said that Joe was the Winner of the debate.

--Falcorian ^(talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Falcorian. Keep up the personal attacks on Joe. After McCain wins the "true believers" can get back to work without the bother of an Obama presidency. BTW lots of voters owe back taxes and medical bills and Arizona and Alaska are part of the United States. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article actually says the Natural Law Party, not the National Law Party.—greenrd (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Membership in the Natural Law Party doesn't seem to indicate a very serious political operative to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

joe the commentator

His recent comments about the media are interesting given he's about to go do exactly what he doesn't think he should be doing. csloat (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the video link, CSloat. BTW, that version was edited to cut out Wurzelbacher's criticism of Israel.

"Why hasn't Israel acted sooner?" Wurzelbacher asked. "I know if I were a citizen here, I'd be damned upset."

A fuller transcript of the footage is at the Canadian TV source here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090111/joe_reporter_090111/20090111?hub=CTVNewsAt11 and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/joe-the-plumber-files-fir_n_156978.html

CTV also states:

Wurzelbacher said he took the job to cover the war because he was an "expert on media bias." "I was on the short end of the stick," he said, comparing his situation to Israel's.

Given his criticisms of both Obama & McCain, and Israel & Hamas, it seems to me Joe The Plumber's turned out to be a raging liability for anybody that tries to help the guy. 67.40.213.140 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Sam/Joe's Opinion of War Commentators

Can Joe's feelings about war journalists/commentators be added to the article under "Commentator"?

"To be honest with ya, I don't think journalists should be (allowed) anywhere near . . . war," Wurzelbacher told other reporters in the Israeli town of Sderot. "You guys report where our troops are at, what's happening day-to-day, you make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine.

"I like back in World War One and World War Two when you go to the theatre and you'd see your troops on the screen and everyone be really excited and happy for them."

"Now, everyone's got an opinion," he added.

Wurzelbacher added that "war is hell and if you're going to sit there and say, 'Look at this atrocity,' well, you don't know the full story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090111/joe_reporter_090111/20090111?hub=CTVNewsAt11 67.40.213.140 (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Additional sources: Associated Press video transcribed by Raw Story and by The Weekly Standard. —LisaSmall ^T/C 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculation on political future

Refactored page to combine these two very similar issues; original titles were Senator Joe? and Palin-Wurzelbacher '12 —LisaSmall ^T/C 07:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this speculation is serious, but nevertheless, the MSM is speculating that Joe might be a candidate for senate in 2010: [3]. Maybe someone who can edit this article should add that.

Maybe we can get WP certified as an official Ouija Board too <g>. Somehow I am of the opinion that speculation in an article subject to BLP rules is not quite in the spirit of an actual encyclopedia. YMMV. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

wp:crystal until he announces his candidacy, it is pure speculation.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Before citing policies, you might actually read them... WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". The IP gave a proper reference... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't even get the link to work. I'm sure Balloonman (a long time admin) loves being quoted policy by an IP. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then neither link works, because all I did was copy him. At any rate, it's in WP:NOT, you could have just searched for my quote. Just because someone's an admin or an IP doesn't determine how much policy they know... balloonman was rather plainly incorrect, as all I had to do was copy and paste from the policy he cited to prove he was not using it correctly. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." is one example. We "know" that the events are likely to take place, but the speculation about them does not belong in WP without a lot of discussion. We have no idea at this point who will or will not run for any specific office unless and until they announce their candidacies. Collect (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct Collect, and your right IP, just because someone is an admin doesnt mean they know policy (although we hope they do), however Balloonman probably wrote the policy... regardless he is not 'plainly incorrect' but your understanding of said policy is I'm afraid. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What Collect quotes is about entire articles on future events, so it's irrelevant... this debate is about mentioning something in the future in an existing biography, not creating a new article. Where does the policy say we can't mention something in an existing article until it's officially announced? Policy simply doesn't say that, we often include well-referenced speculation. I find it highly unlikely baloonman "wrote" the policy (which actually dates to well before his first edit), because he is claiming it says something it doesn't say. Now, you can say the current sourcing I provided isn't that great, and that would be a good argument... but you can't say policy prevents us from mentioning well-sourced speculation, when policy specifically allows for it, and I quoted where it does. if you still doubt me, when the Barack Obama article became a featured article in 2004, and for the next 3 years before he officially announced his candidacy in 2/07, there was a lengthy section about speculation that he would run: [4] I know people absolutely despise admitting they're wrong about something, but sheesh, you're just wrong. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Big difference, the speculation about Obama was news and widely reported. A single reference on a blog on the Christian Science Monitor is mere speculation and the classic definition of CRYSTAL.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, "classic" would be no source at all. But if the sourcing was the problem, we could have just said that right off the bat and avoided the discussion, rather than claiming policy requires an official announcement to mention something, regardless of sourcing, which it doesn't. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources discussing the possibility of a "Palin-Wurzelbacher" Republican ticket for 2012?(2160 Google hits) At what point should such discussion be included in this article? Edison (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that was funny! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP, last I checked, does not use Ouija boards as sources. Collect (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Edison was politely asking if there are reliable sources available. The Ouija board slam is not justified by Edison's inquiry, and violates WP:GOODFAITH. Edison, my answer to your inquiry is that when the speculation makes it into a major publication, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times or a major newsweekly, at that point, it can be included in the Wikipedia entry. See discussion immediately above in this section re how WP:Crystal should apply to media speculation about whether a person will run for office, particularly the comment by IP user 74.138.229.88 which notes:

WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

—LisaSmall ^T/C 07:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The speculation's over. According to a Toledo Blade report on his "autobiography," the book includes Wurzelbacher's thanks to Laura Ingraham "for helping me launch my bid for Congress in 2010." That's a campaign announcement, in his own words, in his own book, reported in a major paper in his home state. —LisaSmall ^T/C 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IOW -- not Senate. Seems that the Ouija Board got a lot wrong. Collect (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request - Footnote 92 needs fixing

The template appears to be broken. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The fixed citation is,

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that reference #70 duplicates ref. #11. (There are probably others as well, but I need to go buy the Special Obama Edition of "Spiderman" now. Cheers! Wurzel-Eating <g> 63.226.216.81 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: first & last sentences

{{editprotected}}

Currently, the first line of the article begins "Joe the Plumber is a term applied to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher..." Oh, please, please, change "term" to "nickname" or "alias" or "moniker" or whatever word you like, but get rid of "term," which is clumsy and inappropriate. "Stage name" would also be inaccurate. I think "nickname" is best, being the most neutral. Also, in the final section of the article, the last sentence is currently "Wurzelbacher's focus in on the Israeli experience of the conflict." Please change "in" to "is." I think these qualify as uncontroversial requests; anyone who disagrees will surely say so. Also, please note Ism schism's request immediately above. Thank you. —LisaSmall ^T/C 09:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. This seems uncontroversial enough. I went with moniker and I made the requested change to the last sentence, along with another minor change to make the paragraph flow a bit better. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

<g> Do you klnow how long it took to get "term" accepted? See the "nickname" "sobriquet" threads in the archives! Collect (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I read /Archive 7#Sobriquet? where I don't really see consensus for anything, but I can't find a Nickname section in the archives. Unless there is a ton of objection to my edit I'm not going to change it back. The wording, in my mind, is better now. The use of the word term sounded kind of amateurish to me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request - Career > Promoting digital converter boxes

The sentence:
In the adds, Wurzelbacher tells viewers that they can apply for a $40 federal government coupon for the cost of a converter box.

Should be:
In the ads, Wurzelbacher tells viewers that they can apply for a $40 federal government coupon for the cost of a converter box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.134.193 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Education?

Does anyone know? Can someone please add this info? Is there another "celebrity" or "notable figure" for whom no educational background is listed? I realize the guy is barely literate, but for the record this section should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Many. And this talk page is not for opining about "barely literate" but for actual discussion on improving the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the "barely literate" comment offend you? Tough. It is an accurate and objective assessment, which answering the question of his educational background would legitimately address. Also the question of his age is also omitted from the article for some reason. Are you genuinely interested in improving the article or just commenting about your own offense? Because using your own standard, this talk page should not be used for that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you read WP:BLP for guidelines governing this article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, perhaps you'd care to explain how your interpretation of WP:BLP leads you to believe that it somehow contradicts my simple request that "Education" and "Age" information be included in the article.

I would ask for your assistance beyond that, but I understand that apparently you've been banned from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the information? Kelly ^hi! 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He is a high school graduate, is he not? Edison (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question. I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have searched the internet and major newspapers and all I could come up with is that Wurzelbacher says he "went to" Springfield High School in the community where he lives now. Numerous stories to repeating this all appear to be based on this Toledo Blade article. I have not found anything to indicate that he graduated from that high school. I could not find anything that specifically said he dropped out, except for one unsubstantiated comment in a blog. I found many nasty remarks suggesting he should get a GED, but these seemed to be based on animus and did not cite facts. Two large newspapers independently reported that he dropped out of a plumbing apprenticeship program in 2003 without completing the work, but neither mentioned whether a GED or high school diploma was required to get into or complete the apprenticeship (NYT and Seattle Times). His current employer as of January, 2009, announced that Wurzelbacher does not have a "Columbia J-school" (journalism school) degree, and implied but did not explicitly state that he has no college degree of any kind (NYT and Pajamas Media). —LisaSmall ^T/C 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Lisa! I also did the same internet research and found only the same material you did. So it appears that the only real information we have on his education is his own self-reference to having attended Springfield Local High School, (which is actually in Holland, Ohio), outside of Toledo. I could find no independent corroboration that he attended that or any school, or that he graduated, if he ever in fact did. Nor is there anything I found that proves that he either needed, took, passed or failed the GED, or completed any kind of post-secondary education or training. At this point, it's all pure speculation and, as you say, just commentary. I was also unable to find any date of birth information. If any of this basic info can eventually be discovered, hopefully some eagle-eyed editor will include it down the road, as these are pretty glaring omissions in the article. Thanks again for your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.77.205 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LLLLA great many articles lack such information, and per WP policies, "primary sources" are not considered proper here. If we find a reliable source reporting, then we can consider it, but, at this point, the article is far more about politics than about a person. Collect (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite disagree on the use of primary sources in this instance. If there were, say, a public "Ohio State Graduation Database" or some other primary source that held info providing a Graduation date and location for SWJ it would be entirely appropriate to say that "SJW graduated from Ohioville Public High School in 19XX {ref - Ohio Graduation Databse}" That is certainly the least (and I would argue non-)offensive type of primary source material to use in an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there are some Ohio state employees who would be willing to perform database searches to obtain that information. :) Kelly ^hi! 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Buh-dum Ching. :-) I did say "public" database! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Def of "public" is the problem -- all state records are "public databases" even if they are not generally accessible to the public (as opposed to "private databases"). WP standards exclude as RS records not readily found in "secondary sources" -- that is such things as birth dates which are only found in the primary source are generally not used. The theory is that if the fact is noteworthy, that an RS would have referred to it at some point. Collect (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think that you are misinterpreting our WP:PSTS:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. " (emph added)

In taking a gradutation date from a graduation date database involves zero interpretation and is easily verifiable by a UNreasonable, UNeducated person - let alone a reasonable educated person. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FL does not make the information about high school graduates available as a matter of course. I strongly suspect this is true of other states. WP specifically lists such things as "date of birth" as things which should not be in a BLP unless they are given in a secondary source. I consider such things as "date of graduation" to fall into the same category as "date of birth" (if anything, less relevant to a BLP). "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I consider "Do not use" to mean "do not use." YMMV. Collect (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You do appear correct that BLP trumps that section of PSTS. - Should we come across a public Ohio Graduation Date Data base, I will join you in opposing including such information in our article until it has also been published in an outside source!-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request - "Commentator" section needs to be updated

As Wurzelbacher is now reporting from Israel, and is being reported on for reporting from Israel - the "Commentator" subsection of "Career" needs to be updated. I am open to any suggestions and propose the below text;

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher became a war correspondent for Pajamas Media. From Israel, Wurzelbacher reports on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and explores the Israeli experience of Hamas rocket fire into Israel. In his reporting, Wurzelbacher has called on President-elect Obama to assist Israel in its campaign against Hamas, and stated that he does not "think journalists should be anywhere [around] war."

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support adding the above text. I tried to make it short. If someone has a better text, please share. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment for reasons above, "war correspondent" should not be used. If it is used, we should at least put it in quotation marks. csloat (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support As that now appears to be his official job title, putting it in quotes is like putting "(sic)" after everything people want to point fingers at. [5] Collect (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have issue with chronicling Joe's every changing work. However we should be careful to give his current role its due weight. To say he "became a correspondent" gives his current gig a greater sense of permanence and meaning. It's not a permanent position as far as we can tell. I would think a more neutral phrasing would be along the line of, "In January 2009, Pajamas Media hired Wurzelbacher to comment on the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict from Israel." I would add that Joe's comments disagreeing that "journalists should be anywhere [around] war" suggests that he does not identify himself with journalist in the area.Mattnad (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment [6] Ernie Pyle acted as a cheerleader for the GIs, and not a critic of specific operations. To my belief, he was the eptome of the "war correspondent" and he did not want to report on the actual war. Collect (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the terms "became" and "war correspondent." Also, I have corrected the tense in various places. The below text should be a good compromise. I am open to all other suggestions as well.

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher began reporting for Pajamas Media. From Israel, Wurzelbacher commented on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and explored the Israeli experience of Hamas rocket attacks. In his reporting, Wurzelbacher called on President-elect Obama to assist Israel in its campaign against Hamas, and stated that he does not "think journalists should be anywhere [around] war."

I hope this compromise helps. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me. csloat (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support adding the above compromise text. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment & Suggested alternative: I'm not sure Joe comments on Obama/Israel and Journalists/War zones qualify as "reporting". He was giving his opinion which would be at best "editorial". And here's a thought, why don't we just leave it with the first half as follows:

In January 2009, Wurzelbacher began reporting for Pajamas Media. From Israel, Wurzelbacher commented on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and explored the Israeli experience of Hamas rocket attacks. Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support adding the above alternative text proposed by Mattnad. This proposal provides NPOV informaton taken from reliable sources, with each being cited, on Wurzelbacher's recent career related activities. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is time to move forward

This article is clearly a biography. We can change it back to his full name. Joe has moved on from acting as a plumber and is currently an author among other things. QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Move had been unanimous, and I would suggest that such a consensus is unlikely to change in a couple of months. Collect (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that despite the overwelming consensus in the first section here to not call the guy a plumber? It's looking more & more like you really do think your own opinion is the only opinion that could possibly be "consensus", despite any and all evidence to the contrary. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A few of the sockpuppet accounts in that "vote" are now blocked. See also the BLP/N discussion on the issue not all that long ago. Collect (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bite of the apple? More like sour grapes. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Recent developments and more detailed research say otherwise:

• Per the lede paragraph "Wurzelbacher is currently promoting digital converter boxes for analog television,[7] his political watchdog group,[8] his charity, [9] and his book[10] he describes himself as "unemployed." [11] Note it does not say he's currently doing plumbing work at all.

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

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

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

Did you read the BLP/N discussion? [12] David Shankbone, Mosmof, Wikidemon, and more than a dozen others are part of my "singlehanded" consensus -- seems to me that they are not my sockpuppets, and their consensus does count. Thanks for removing your "singlehanded" slur ASAP. Collect (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His last and current gainful employment is as media pundit and correspondent. That's how he spends his time, how he makes his money, what he almost certainly lists on his 1040, and his source of notability. Rvcx (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a plumber - Not licensed and cannot be licensed unless he does some work. I remember all of this hubbub that if he's working, then he's a plumber. Collect said that over and over and over. He's not a plumber according to Ohio officials and other sources, and he's not working. Oh, and John Glenn is a former astronaut [13] according to NASA. So Collect, you are wrong again.Bruno23 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose and clarify my position: Since I was ask for my "professional" input [I'm mostly familiar with Florida law but that doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with other states, county or city laws] I give it another try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not a Plumber It's inconsistent at best to call him a plumber. The guy has been widely denied that title by other professional plumbers and plumbers' associations. He's also widely lampooned in credible media sources as well as the public for NOT being a plumber, so why should the article decide to call him one in spite of public and professional opinion?

• Support: Not a Plumber He used to do some plumbing work; that doesn't make him once and always a plumber. Is Wikipedia going to start listing Michael Jackson's occupation as "King of Pop"? Rvcx (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael JAckson is listed as "Singer, songwriter, record producer, arranger, dancer, choreographer, actor, businessman, financier" which I suggest includes "former occupations" by the standards proposed here. Collect (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there are a few holdouts who insist on altering Wiki-Reality, why not simply include the fact that his occupation listing is disputed? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. 67.40.213.140 (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is his occupation disputed? The fact that his occupation is disputed on this wikipedia talk page is not valid encyclopedia content (until it is covered in a reliable source). -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber - In January 2009, Wurzelbacher became a war correspondent for Pajamas Media. From Israel, Wurzelbacher reports on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas and explores the Israeli experience of the conflict. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber - he was what is called a plumber's helper, that is, a guy who assists a licensed plumber but who has not personally attained that status. He's not a plumber or a former plumber or an ex-plumber. And before the fight starts about whether he's an author, please - being the subject of a ghosted "autobiography" does not an author make. —LisaSmall ^T/C 07:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• delete and salt - Does Wikipedia really need to completely edit-protect this page so that there can be a 2-week argument about whether he's a real plumber? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber — and never was one. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not a plumber The state laws and guidelines clearly delineate what does and does not qualify someone to be a plumber. Just because he did some plumbing work in the past doesn't inherently qualify him to be a plumber, and especially not only being able to work under the supervision of a legally licensed plumber. If I stop by my friend's house and fix his sink using some rudimentary tools as a favor to him, does that make me a legit plumber? If he were to be called anything it would be a plumber's assistant. It's like calling a Physician's Assistant a doctor. For that matter, if you terminate your line of work, you're no longer anything but unemployed. For all intents and purposes, you were in the plumbing industry and would be again if you were to be hired by a plumbing business. Until then, you're not.

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber While some sources claim he was one, others say flat out that he wasn't. I don't think we really know for sure (is there any real evidence that he ever did actual plumbing work?), and in such a case, I'd support something along the lines of "describes/described himself as a plumber". Now that he is doing a variety of other stuff, listing those things seems to make perfect sense. And if there's no clear and simple thing to put in the infobox, I still don't see why it needs to be included in the infobox at all. The guy isn't notable because of his profession, he's notable because he became a public part of a political campaign. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber He was at one point a 'plumber's helper' if anything. Just because a person might have gone to medical school for four years and can provide some medical care doesnt make that person a doctor. There certiciation should be honored on WP the same way it is in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.22.117 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• remove the occupation field. We don't need to say what his occupation is in the template - there is no guideline for that. If the issue is to complex to be described in two words, just leave it out of the infobox and discuss it ín the article. Zara1709 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• remove the occupation field. I think Zara1709 is right--the fact that Wurzelbacher's prior longtime occupation was as a plumber, or as a handyman who focused on plumbing (depending on whether you define "plumber" as "licensed plumber" or "person who does plumbing work") is a bit irrelevant to his current notability, which is as a media personality. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Not a plumber Wikipedia Guidelines on categorising people says in part: "For some sensitive categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples..." Since this discussion clearly evidences the fact that Joe's categorisation as a plumber is not unquestioned, he should not be so categorised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonshirt (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the occupation field Agree with Zara1709 and IceCreamEmpress. His occupation is in flux at the moment due to his notariaty and cannot be adequately explained in the space the infobox allows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.9.107 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Long Overdue

I had been away from all of the arguments and WikiLawyering transpiring in here for a while. I tried to make something of the sobriquet vs. nickname argument, but couldn't. Then I got sick and set it aside and decided to move on while still considering alternatives. But it seems to me like this article as a whole has virtually completely strayed away from the Joe the Plumber aspect of things and become increasingly a biography of Mr. Wurzelbacher himself. In fact this article falls under WikiProject Biography and must follow the guidelines for articles on living people. For this reason, I suggest that the two concepts be separated from one another. I think this article ought to be renamed Samuel Joseph Wuzelbacher and a new article be created titled Joe the Plumber which would essentially explore the metaphorical side of things with each article of course making some reference to the other (this one retaining the meeting with Barack Obama and the subsequent coining of "Joe the Plumber" and the other mentioning the established origins of the moniker/sobriquet/nickname/whatever you wish to consider it). I think it's only fair to do that since Mr. Wurzelbacher has developed a rather extensive biography in a short period of time to officially deserve his own article and at the same time not lose sight of what made him famous in the first place. As a side note, I think it would be very helpful to phrase Obama's initial reference to "Joe the Plumber" and perhaps any such references by John McCain. What does everyone else say to this? -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming into this cold, and have never edited the page. I've been following Wurzelbacher's saga, and I think that Alan's idea is a good one and may cut down on the petty bickering. There's more to Wurzelbacher than a plumber's assistant, and there's more to Joe the Plumber than Wurzelbacher.Kbk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

As of December 17 [14] there was pretty overwhelming opposition, but consensus can change. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wurzelbacher is ancilliary to Joe the Plumber. He made his name under that pseudonym; he hasn't tried to retire it or disassociate himself from it; most publications still use it to identify him, seen most recently in the story about him becoming a war correspondent. I don't see the problem with this article covering Joe the Plumber and the man behind the marketing gimmick: I think readers can handle it, and understanding would be made more difficult by either duplication or the dissemination of a body of text that isn't that great. I've been waiting for a while to know when this page will be unprotected - the infobox needs to go; we don't need a redundant infobox because it exists. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd raise the taxes just to spite him. >:3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.175.124 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's related to the article how?

Meanwhile, who else wants to weigh in on this potential solution? It really is the only way all the issues can ever truly be resolved. I can't understand why there would be opposition. And yes, while JTP is part of Wurzelbacher, don't forget the name no longer applies to just him. There's also the American Middle Class aspect of all of this, and even further reaching areas of relevance, hence its own article focusing on what the Sobrikername stands for in its own merit. -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: Joe the Plumber - Fighting for the American Dream section needs to be fixed

The first sentence in the second paragraph begins, "An advance copy of his book sent to The Toledo Blade, wherein Wurzelbacher revealed more negative opinions about John McCain as a candidate: "

The article(to which Reference 88 links) from the Toledo Blade, however, states that the book "cost The Blade $24.95 plus $18.60 for shipping...". The current phrase in the article suggest that the Blade was given a complimentary copy of the book, but this is not the case.

I will leave it to you to correct the grammar in that paragraph. Thank you. 128.32.115.2 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Hullo! Could you please put a full stop after the Jr in "Sammy Davis, Jr"? Thankee x Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else bought a copy of the book? Having trouble finding anyone who has to compare the versions. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Joe has a bad relationship with CNN

I understand Joe the Plumber has a horrible relationship with Rick Sanchez and CNN.Should we add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.32.168 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Misspelling

{{editprotected}} The third sentence of the section Promoting digital converter boxes says, "In the adds" when it should say "In the ads." --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Helpful One 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Joe's Original Book Revised Already?

There appears to be some interesting discrepancies. Amazon.com has 2 different "Product Details" entries describing the hardcopy of Wurzelbacher's book. The original Amazon entry lists the publishing date as December 31, 2008, and the newer entry has the publishing date as February 6, 2009.

The Feb. 2009 edition is listed as 192 pages. The Dec. 2008 date doesn't specify page numbers.

However, the Toledo Blade book review, which occurred in December 2008, described their edition of the book as "a 180-page memoir." Was it "an advance copy" after all?

Did ole Joe or his publisher tone down or modify some of the anti-McCain or other ranting? Can anyone confirm from their copies if there are both 2008 and 2009 editions, and the page count? 63.226.215.1 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "number of pages" is always an issue -- I suspect the 180 pages is the length of the actual text, while the other pages are blank, title, index and the like. I would not give it much concern. Collect (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of weirdness surrounding this guy and the actual release dates of his book. I think it merits consideration and is easily investigated. It would be great to hear from anyone who actually has a copy or copies.

More weirdness! Barnes and Noble lists the older December 2008 as the publication date. Very odd. Special:Contributions/67.40.179.31|67.40.179.31]] (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG! There's even a different photo on each edition's book covers. Here are links to the old and new cover photos:

Dec. 2008 version: http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=30149&cgi=product&isbn=0976974037

Feb. 2009 version: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0976974037/bpo01-20

67.40.179.31 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He looks less stoned/mentally handicapped on the new cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Uhhh guys...it is not unusual for that to happen. Happens quite frequently in the publishing world actually, for numerous reasons. Don't be to quick to assign some mysterious motives for something that happens frequently. It is no big deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.111 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they also hosed him off and had him shaved. But doesn't anyone own either book edition? 71.35.115.157 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New Photo on New Book Edition: Wurzel Wears Brownshirt

Per the previous section, in the original hardcopy cover photo Wurzelbacher is wearing a yellow shirt. On the newer book's cover, Wurzelbacher wears a brown shirt. Loves his plumbing colors, does Joe. 67.40.179.31 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the relevance to the BLP is? Collect (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert or anything on this, but aren't professional publishers supposed to get a different, unique ISBN for each variation of the book they publish? Changing the cover photo (and possibly altering the book's original content) seems like more of a change than just a straightforward, unaltered reprint of the original. Both the original and the new version issued less than two months later are listed with the first book's ISBN. If I were collecting Joe the Plumber memorabilia, I would feel jipped if I ordered the raw, original ISBN and got the new, slicked up and city-fied, (re-edited?) version.

Maybe Sam's publishing house is also unlicensed. Where's that snoopy bureaucrat’s task force when you need them? <g> 63.226.221.169 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We are here to discuss how to improve this article, not to discuss what would happen if you were a memorabilia collector. Please keep your comments focused appropriately or they will be removed per WP:TPG. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like the article to be improved by mentioning that Joe's book has at least one variant edition. So far, we've confirmed there are in fact two different publishing dates, and that they each have different hardcopy cover photos.

I am also interested in hearing if the new version has changes in the text from the old version. Hopefully others on the Talk page might have either or both copies and are free to chime in on the topic using the Talk page? The article's accuracy would be greatly improved if this also turns out to be the case. 63.226.221.169 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the memorabilia comment is simply to provide one example of why people would want to know if there is a different version of a book. It actually is of importance, hence the topic being raised for discussion. 63.226.221.169 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

employment status

{{editprotected}} From the opening paragraph:

“ [Joe the Plumber] describes himself as "unemployed." ”

From the last paragraph:

“ Wurzelbacher works for Pajamas Media. ”

The citation for the claim in the first paragraph is from an article from December 20th of last year. The citation for the claim in the last paragraph is from an article from January 7th. Further, according to [15], Joe's continuing to give reports for PJTV. [16] even refers to the "Pajamas TV team" as including "Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and Joe Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber)".

Long story short, I think it's safe to say that Joe the Plumber is very much employed and I think the unemployment bit needs to be removed from the opening paragraph. TerraFrost 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per [17], the final phrase of the lede section "he describes himself as "unemployed."[1]" should be removed from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More evidence: [18]. Check out the last paragraph. That ad is running fairly frequently on Little Green Footballs - a website founded by one of PJTV's founders. TerraFrost 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this article is protected but what you have brought up is a content issue; he may well consider the PJTV contract a "fake" job. Shii (tock) 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a content issue (and I'm not sure why the article is protected either), however, given that he does have some form of income, I believe his own possible opinions towards the job are somewhat irrelevant and should not be given an inordinate amount of weight.

Obama once said he visited 57 states [19]. Should that be included in the opening paragraphs for his article, as well? TerraFrost 19:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a content issue, there have been no editors voicing opinion to keep the current content, and so can one assume silence = consensus for the proposed change? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done--Aervanath (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

why is this article protected?

The most contentious thing I see on the current talk page is... a discussion of whether or not this person should be called Joe the Plumber or Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. The last vote cast was cast over a month ago. Which kinda begs the question... why is this article still protected? TerraFrost 19:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While the most recent contention was a month ago, this article has been the subject of numerous edit wars that have each ended in a longer period of the article being locked.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't the edit war people just be banned or something? A shame to let a few badly behaved editors wreck the whole article's improvement. 208.54.14.28 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Judicial Watch lawsuit

• The below section, under the title "Judicial Watch lawsuit" needs to be added to this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

On March 5, 2009, on behalf of Joe Wurzelbacher, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Columbus charging that Helen Jones-Kelley, and fellow ODJFS employees Fred Williams and Doug Thompson, improperly searched "confidential state databases" in an attempt to retaliate against Wurzelbacher's criticizism of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. The lawsuit claims that "officials of the State of Ohio violated Mr. Wurzelbacher's constitutional rights by illegally accessing confidential information from its official databases," and that "Wurzelbacher suffered emotional distress, harassment and embarrassment as a result of the search." Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, stated "no American should be investigated for simply asking a question of a public official." The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages.

• Support I support adding the above text to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done --CapitalR (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How strange! User:Ism schism requested a {{editprotected}} change to an article, then the same user supported and affirmed that his suggestion should be made. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I'm new at this and it seems suspicious to me.63.226.216.139 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition seems timely and accurate, and is worded neutrally. Might I ask how you would have written the clearly relevant material? Collect (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask how someone can get an entire paragraph added when I can't even get five words removed? TerraFrost 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Ism schism's proposal - which was only endorsed by him - my proposal is endorsed by two people - myself and User:TheRedPenOfDoom [20]. Given that no one has expressed opposition to my proposal, the question still stands. Why does CapitalR get a paragraph added when he's the only person who's supported it's addition and I can't get a mere five words removed, even though there are two people who support it? TerraFrost 16:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Our newcomer does have a point there. How can you vote on your own proposal? The context aside, if you propose a change, then you must leave it to others to vote on, no?

And I think the editlock can finally be dropped. What's left to fight about? No more usage of sobriquet (I tried), he's not a plumber (or turd gurgler) and he's probably officially employed, so let's be a little more civil in this highly biographical article.

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia decisions are not settled by voting. Decisions are made by community consensus based on policy. WP:VOTE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but you failed to directly answer my questions. Both of them, though I do appreciate your verbosity. Either way, we're still far from a "consensus" on either proposal and this talk page as a whole has become very bureaucratic. For what it's worth though, I have to say, this talk page is by far the greatest example of wiki-lawyering I've ever come across. That much I do appreciate. But somehow I still fail to understand why we don't split this article into two (One for Joe and one for JTP) and minimize any further complications. This article started out focusing primarily on the name, not the person. Since then, Mr. Wurzelbacher has developed a cultural identity for himself and this article has since gone to focus mainly on him and is officially considered a biography at this point. In the meantime though, these proposals are going nowhere and some just seem contrived on a whim.

-Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can the editprotection finally be removed? Straw poll

Can the editprotection finally be removed? There are many editors who, with good faith and capable ability, wish to contribute to this article. They should not be deprived of the ability to edit this article because of only one or two editors who can not be civil. I am open to any and all comments, but I do believe the editprotection should be removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I strongly oppose a full unlock, or even one that only allows established users. There have been several blocks which have accomplished nothing besides a delay in the endless bad faith edit wars. I would support, if it's possible, unlocking select editors because yes, this article badly needs grown-ups to edit it. The current monstrosity of a block, believe it or not, exists not because of the two people you're talking about.[21] Nominations ought to be decided by an admin, though I doubt the admin who imposed the block, Tanthalas39, ought to do it, given that he recently went temporarily insane.[22] The block expires April 5. I think my way of doing this is the only way to improve the article and prevent the inevitable flood of garbage from Collect, Mattnad, and various other unhelpful entities. SluggoOne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk pages impress no one. Your unhelpfulness is ill considered. I at no point sought to do anything other than improve this article. Thanks! I note moreover that you have not had any real presence here, much less any presence while I was editing here, so I wonder a bit how a vandalism account now becomes an arbiter as to "garbage." Collect (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Two honest questions. Let's both avoid avoid those personal attacks. If this page is unblocked, do you see any reason you won't go back to edit warring should consensus stack against you again? Do you see why I fear that, if you're allowed to edit here, the cycle of page locks will never stop? SluggoOne (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal attacks -- but you iterate an inaccurate one. And since you were not here, I wonder just what information you have ... so please redact all your attacks, please. Collect (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you see why I fear that, if you're allowed to edit here, the cycle of page locks will never stop? SluggoOne (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, admin Tan39, before he went nuts, had this to say, emphasis on the second sentence. [23] Also note the tactic of automatically invalidating criticism by asking it be removed; you replied to Tan's above comment the same way. SluggoOne (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual editwarrior who had been fighting here has now left the building - along with his aliases, after promoting several silly noticeboard complaints against me which failed in a blaze of dust. As for your possible alternate personas, I have no doubt that you were here under a different name in the past. So please cut out the attacks -- they do not benefit the work to be done here. Collect (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the departed Mattnad, I think the same as everyone else: good riddance. You goaded me to back up my assertion, and what I provided, Tanthalas telling you that you alone were the reason behind several page blocks, was unimpeachable. Per your standard procedure, you ignored my response and went on to something tangenitally relevant. (And yes, this is your standard procedure: you also twice ignored my question and started in about Mattnad, which doesn't constitute anything close to the words "yes," "no," or "I don't know.") I believe I have the right to goad you back. You have no doubt I've posted as someone else? You have nothing even approaching proof since this is incorrect and without merit, so an attempt to prove this assertion would do what ought to be impossible: damage your reputation even more. But please: go ahead. SluggoOne (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"I believe I have the right to goad you back" No, you do not. Use of this page is to be used solely for discussing how to improve the content of the article.. So both of you quit it. Now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest that in order for the protection to be lifted and stay lifted, some kind of article probation should be proposed at WP:AN. As it is, it seems to me to be likely that even if the protection is left to expire at the beginning of April, renewed protection will inevitably be a necessity. CIreland (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock for established users - Though leave the article partly protected, and ban any editor who is abusive, uncivil and/or consistently involved in unconstructive edit warring. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Poor Tanthalas39. Anyways, if people want to improve the article, there is nothing stopping them from creating sandbox pages and editing and getting consensus to make changes to the article. Although I must admit that I was surprised that a request that had support from two editors and no opposition was declined while a request from a single editor was applied to the article within hours with no discussion or appearnce of consensus at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

TerraFrost's issue proves that this method isn't quite as effective. Add one-strike-and-you're-out to ism schism's method two above this, and that should be enough to partially unlock. SluggoOne (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I never had any interaction with you at all, I am curious as to your demeanor. Collect (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Isn't issuing 3RR warnings and escalating as appropriate (ie. banning for progressively longer amounts of time) a better solution? As for whether or not it ought to be restricted to established users... that seems reasonable. Certainly, there are more established users who might be able to make changes than there are admins TerraFrost 04:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I have advised the protecting admin about this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note Due to the poll above, I have reduced the protection level so that autoconfirmed users can now edit the page. Please refrain from editwarring. I highly recommend that all editors follow a one-revert limit when editing this page, as it has been highly contested in the past. Work out all disagreements on the talk page before performing more than one revert.--Aervanath (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy merge proposal

• Support I support merging most of a portion of the information at Ohio government database searches to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy in order to avoid UNDUE at this and Helen Jones-Kelley's BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Much is directly relevant to the BLP at hand, and removing it from here would essentially make the controversy "go away" from the article even though it is of demonstrable noteworthyness wrt JtP. Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• support - it's clutter and "controversy" is not a reason to keep it here in such detail. Collect has confused editing for brevity with complete removal. Not the same thing. Mattnad (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposal elsewhere appears to be precisely removal of this controversy from the articles of notable individuals, and placing the material into a nice backwater of an article. Withe the specific legal case just started, removing it from JtP is, IMHO, quite foolish. Collect (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is not for "removal" but reduction and redirection to a more detailed and focused article. There is no need to have long and nearly identical sections in this article and the Helen Jones-Kelly article. An obvious wikilink is hardly a "backwater" as you put it. Mattnad (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The controversy wouldn't be noteworthy at all were Joe not a celebrity, but since he is, it gets its own page? The merge ought to go the other way. SluggoOne (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The material or related material is also germane to the Jones-Kelley and other articles. The probes into the affair are notable in themselves, and not just because of JtP, but that does not mean it is not relevant in this article since JtP is officially "notable" per deletion discussions. Collect (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I don't want this info out of the article, just condensed with a link to the larger article where a much more detailed description of all sides can be added. Also, I am concerned that too much detail might be UNDUE per BLP for the Jtp and Jones-Kelley articles. I may be wrong too, but I wanted to hear others thoughts as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can show you articles where side issues get a lot of undue weight -- in some cases more than a thousand words on a side issue, and fifty or more cites. This is not close <g>. Collect (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this whole situation is noteworthy because Joe was involved, and Joe is famous. Ohio endured a much more notable scandal courtesy of Attorney General Marc Dann last year, but this scandal appears not to have an article. Merge it the other way into relevant articles, but if the Dann scandal doesn't get an article, this one's hardly necessary. SluggoOne (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked up Marc Dann -- he had an affair in his office, which is not that big a deal. He was just fined $1,000 for getting a security system improperly using campaign funds. No prosecution is in his future. And it is in his article. Collect (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohioans do not care about Helen Jones-Kelley, but if you say the name "Marc Dann," people across the spectrum shudder. In terms of media coverage, it's nonsense that HJK vs. JtP gets its own article while the Marc Dann disaster has none. While both lead to resignations, one lead to the resignation of a functionary nobody cares about, while the other lead to the resignation of a man who, in more ways than one, is Ohio's version of Eliot Spitzer. I do not support removing or reducing the Jones-Kelley section from Joe's page at all. SluggoOne (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dann's article mentions his woes explicitly -- so that is a straw man. HJ-K got a lot more news national articles than Dann did, so the fact that WP takes a less parochial view than some Ohioans is not relevant. Collect (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A related discussion is going on at the Helen Jones-Kelley talk page at [24]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Compromise? It might be more constructive for those of us who support a merge of a portion of the information to say specifically what information should stay. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's proposed trimming. I don't think there's a need to also include the lawsuit since that would be part of the merged article as well. Mattnad (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Main article: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services database search controversy

During the 2008 United States presidential election season, an employee at Helen Jones-Kelley's department used state computers to search for information on Joe Wurzelbacher. The searches were decried as a partisan invasion of Wurzelbacher's privacy. An official investigation found that the searches breached protocol but found there was no evidence to prove they were part of a political agenda or linked with a political group or campaign.. On December 17, 2008, Jones-Kelley resigned.In response to ODJFS records search on Joe Wurzelbacher, Republican Ohio state representative Shannon Jones sponsored House Bill 648, which mandates civil and criminal penalties for improper access of personal information on state databases. On January 6, 2009, Governor Ted Strickland signed the legislation

• Support I support adding the above text. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Grossly insufficient,. misses vast amounts of factual material, makes no mention of the suspensions and resignations, ignores the lawsuits ongoing, provides a claim that no partisan nature was found, etc. [25] "Ms. Jones-Kelley, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, eventually quit her job. Both she and the governor were Obama supporters, and Ms. Jones had personally contributed money to Mr. Obama's campaign." is relevant to this. " After an investigation by the state inspector general subsequently determined that the database searches were unjustified but stopped short of calling them politically motivated." is a great deal short of saying it found "no evidence." And the report went a lot further than "breached protocol" it says "“no legitimate agency function or purpose for checking on ... name through SETS, CRIS-E, and OJI or for authorizing these searches.” A teeny further than "protocol" to be sure. The lawsuit alleges a specific meeting where the parties discussed him. [26] "The OIG also determined that Defendant Jones-Kelley used state resources to engage in political activity on behalf of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign, specifically the use of a state computer and e-mail account for political fundraising. 35. The OIG concluded that Defendant Jones-Kelley’s political activities were “an inappropriate use of state resources” and constituted a “wrongful act.” " All of which appears to go past "protocol." We ought not so elide factual material as to make the section sans meaning, ought we? Collect (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, what text do you propose be included? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, all of these facts are in the main article now. The link would let people who want to learn more see that. I don't understand your objection to simplifying the section given ALL of what you have mentioned is available.Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the material in the article now is germane to JtP, there is no reason to "simplify" especially when the simplification removes germane material. JtP is not an excessively long article at this point, nor is the material in his article excessively ong. If it were, I would be the first to trim it by a lot. In fact, it is about the same length as the "plumbing work" section, or the section detailing his tax problems. Collect (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The material is relevant to other articles (e.g. Helen Jones-Kelly) which is why it makes sense to have a main article, offer a good summary in this article, and a link. I'm sorry if we haven't made this point clear enough. The portions on his tax problems and plumbing work are unique to Joe and would not warrant a separate article.Mattnad (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I suggest that his "tax problems" as they appear to have been exceedingly minor are a splendid example of undue weight. And the whole bit aboiut licensing is, at best, moot. No charges were ever brought against him in any way, and the issue of legality thus falls into the area of presumoption of innocence. If a person is not charged with a crime, allegations do not belong in an article which is a BLP. Collect (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect, your preceding comments stray from the issue at hand -- It's whether we can have a main article for the database searches so please focus on that. Whether or not there's a crime has nothing to do with the relevancy for a BLP; that seems like a special new rule created by you for your purposes. We could apply that logic to the Helen Jones-Kelly article but somehow I suspect you'd fight that tooth and nail.

But since you just couldn't help yourself and brought this up, I'm personally fine with a trimming of those sections. As I recall, the sections were expanded because certain editors tried very hard to eliminate the most minor references to his tax issues and the very well documented fact that his is not a licensed plumber.

Now, If certain editors don't try to remove the main points I think we'll be fine with reduced sections. I'll even do it myself. Thanks.Mattnad (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)I have sought to deal with precisely the issues at hand. The material is germane to JtP (no one denies that). It is not excessively long in the article here. No one denies that. It does not run afoul of any BLP concerns. No one denies that. The issue of "not a licensed plumber" is completely irrelelevant here, I used it as an example of the sort of material which is IN the article now. As for making any statements about me personally, please redact them as not being proper on this talk page. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As there has been no consensus to merge, and there has been a reduction of material in this section not directly realted to JtP, I have removed the merge tag and replaced with a link to the larger article on the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Ohio Government Database Searches

The first sentence of the section reads,

“ During the 2008 United States presidential election season, an employee at Helen Jones-Kelley's department used state computers to search for information on Joe Wurzelbacher. ”

It would be more appropriate to refer to "an employee of the Department of Job and Family Services" and then refer to Jones-Kelley as its director. 98.204.136.104 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the searches were done at the specific behest of the Director. We ought not imply otherwise. Collect (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it would be appropriate to say "an employee of the Department of Job and Family Services, allegedly at the behest of its director, Helen Jones-Kelley." As a public department, it should still be identified by its formal name. It would be equivalent to saying "A member of Donald Rumsfeld's department abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib." It is needless and inflammatory. 98.204.136.104 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

HJ-K did not deny it was at her behest. The report makes clear it was at her behest. "Allegedly" is weaselwording when there is no factual gainsaying of the matter. HJ-K's only claim is that it was done as a matter of routine. If Rumsfeld ordered a specific prisoner to be abused personally, you would have an analogy. I doubt he did. Collect (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

References & suggestions to "Illegal" search may violate WP:BLP

I'm concerned that references to "illegal" conduct on the part of Jones-Kelly in the database searches controversy violates WP:BLP. The only official investigation found no evidence of "illegal" actions. There has been no indictments and only since the controversy, new laws have specifically been created in this regard. I believe that to include these terms without citation that laws were broken at the time (and none to my knowledge have been), causes unnecessary (and malicious) harm to Helen Jones-Kelly. Please discuss. Mattnad (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

is wording "investigation as to whether something was illegal" improper re database investigation

Currently, the "investigation" makes no statement as to what it was an investigation "of" -- only that it found only a "breach of protocol." Aside from the fact that the investigation's aim was to determine if anything was illegal (which was the prior wording), the report most certainly can not be read as saying all that happened was a breach of protocol. The other editor however says it is improper in a BLP to say there was such an incvestigation. Is he in fact correct in that interpretation? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment These comments concerning Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe Wurzelbacher, concerning the database searches, might violate BLP. To be safe, as this issue involves two BLPs, I think it is best to act on the side of caution and gain more input through the BLP Noticeboard. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion concerning BLP has been listed at Concern over possible UNDUE and allegations at Helen Jones-Kelley and Joe the Plumber. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What was the purpose of the investigation, then? Collect (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth

It is quite odd that the Joe the Plumber‎ page does not have Joe's date of birth. This article is a biography, like other biographies. Why no DOB? QuackGuru (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you have not added it with appropriate sourcing. You ought to. SluggoOne (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that "primary sources" are frowned upon. I found no reliable source giving a DoB, and since most people do not simply give it out, I would not regard it of any importance at all to the article. Many BLPs do not have a DoB on WP as a result. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most BLPs do have a DOB. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More than 41,000 are in a category of living people without even a birth year in their BLP. I consider that to be "many." Collect (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a person's age, if known, isn't important to that person's biography makes me wonder what is. SluggoOne (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what the person has done enters in? Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. The article contains what Joe has done, and we ought to exclude every bit of it. If someone can find appropriate sourcing, Joe's DOB should replace the article's contents. That is exactly what I said. Chop chop! SluggoOne (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

IRSvote.com: Do we have sources to call it a scam in a BLP?

Due to BLP concerns I reverted the following edit[27] based on this source[28]:

However, due to the unclear nature of where the payments are going, the site has been described as a scam.

My concern is that I don't feel that this Blog opinion piece is enough to meet the standard required to make this accusation of a BLP. I've moved it here for comment by others.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At best it looks like an advertisement and spam-like in an encyclopedia article? Inappropriate. This section should be removed or a tangential referential to a website business without the blatant self-promotion. LaidOff (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check the evolution of that section it was originally inserted an an attempt to say he's involved in a scam[29]. I've tried to keep it neutral worded and BLP complient. I have no objection to it being removed completely if that's consensus. I only object to it being used as an attack without reliable sources indicating actual misconduct.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remove it incl. the section per wp:el (as a for profit and therefore commercial link).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI I'd rather not do it myself. I believe if I did it could be at least technically argued that it's be a fourth revision for me. (That was on a different article). I'd rather someone less involved make the edit.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to give editors a chance to comment. I'll change it later if no one objects.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why has this been completely removed? The debate seems to be about whether or not to use the word "scam", rather than whether or not to include any mention of his latest business venture. I can't see how this should go completely unmentioned. NiggardlyNorm (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hi NiggardlyNorm - Joe's 1-900 is a for profit enterprise and can fall under the WP:EL guidelines (if links are attached). To put in in English, the wiki project should not be providing advertising for external ventures unless there's some reason it's relevant to the article. And then there's a more basic issue with this content. Joe is mostly known for his role in the McCain presidential election campaign and this recent publicity/business/political venture is marginal as best, and not really encyclopedic. I will add that there's other parts of this article that are also marginal (do we really need to include that he briefly advertised digital converter boxes?). I hope that in a year or two, someone will come around and cut out the clutter without being reverted. And as you've intuited, the "scam" comment is also unnecessarily caustic and violates the spirit and probably the letter of WP:BLP. Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Today interview

I'm assuming we can find some reliable sources that discuss his comments from this interview instead of cherry picking quotes using the interview itself as a primary source. --Onorem♠Dil 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And we may want to reduce the length of this section for WP:Undue reasons.Mattnad (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to trim lede

The lead is a bit repetitive - probably due to vestiges of past editor wars. The second sentence now reads, "Wurzelbacher is an American celebrity, author and former employee of a plumbing contractor." This is concise and to the point. With this in the lead paragraph, I suggest that we drop the last sentence "Wurzelbacher has since become a spokesperson, author, and web commentator." I'm hoping we can start to identify the main points for the lead, and let the article explain the minutia of his career. Comments?Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And would also agree to a substantial shortening of the exhaustive detail given this relatively minor figure. Collect (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was clearly repetitive. I've corrected this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like short, but consistent list of endorsements for the change. There's complexity with the citations that make it a little challenging, but I'll get to it soon.Mattnad (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can clean the references if you like. I already changed/trimmed the lead to get rid of the repetition and such. If you feel you have helpful changes to contribute then please do so, but I wanted to let you know that this has actually been corrected. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(Oudent) Thanks Wikiwikikid, missed that edit.Mattnad (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aparently he's left the republican party

See phttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html this] time article. Not sure where to put this in the article.Geni 23:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the info in the lead; normally I wouldn't do that, but it wasn't exactly obvious where else it should go. And I do think it's not a triviality. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is pinknews.co.uk a valid source for this article?

If it is, then I suppose it can be labeled "homophobia" If it is not a vlaid RS, then I would suggest it be removed. Collect (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)