Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Privacy?

Hi, I just happen to have stumbeld on this page, and I wondered: we will leave some privacy for this guy right? I mean, he's "just" a house-father, so no need to mess it all up, right? I'm sorry, I don't live in the US - so maybe this guy is giving all kinds of info for free, in that case...I rest my case;).

He's only being "run through the ringer" because McCain dragged him into fame when he made him the centerpiece of his debate strategy.63.225.80.41 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Please confine your response to the subject of Joe Wurzelbacher or go to a more appropriate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.243 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE NEED A PICTURE

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

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

Note that Wikipedia's reason for lagging in pictures is our commitment to free licensed content, that can be used, reproduced, and modified.

I had wanted to take a picture of the plumbing business in question, but unfortunately all of the addresses listed in the phonebook for Newell Plumbing & Heating are in residential neighbourhoods. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not unusual for a small business which does not need fancy offices. It is one of the types of businesses which is pretty much zoning-exempt. Collect (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't the article title be a real name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very good example, Edison. And don't forget McCain's "Joe the Plumber Tour" bus campaign tour in Florida[1] which even further strengthens the concept of JtP as a personification and cultural icon, rather than a bio about the person behind the JtP everyman archetype. — Becksguy (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

In today's McCain ads on TV [2], there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual. Edison (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Joe the Plumber is a public figure

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

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

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

Plumbing career

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New lead paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida.[3] Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.

• "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)[4]
• "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC) [5]
• "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." and "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade [6]
• "Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." and "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times [7]
• "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PoliSci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full Quote?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

article name

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

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

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

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

It's true that Joe the Plumber is the name he has became famous as. Joe the Plumber is now a redirect to Joe Wurzelbacher. (Joseph Wurzelbacher is also a redirect to Joe Wurzelbacher although it was the other way around at one time.) The introduction should read "also known as Joe the Plumber" after his real name. Or at the very least, the existing phrase "Joe the Plumber" located farther down in the introduction should be in bold.

None of which I can do now. Someone has locked the article.

76.241.69.132 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Suggested breakthrough compromise

User:Bytebear proposed:

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

Reception:

• (undent) REWhy not include foxnews and other journalists opinions about how the media has unfairly treated Joe. We could put this tax lien quote in context, as a lesson about how the media often oversteps its bounds. I think this may be approaching a place where we (or some of we) can agree. I am sorry I did not fully read this earlier. I would frame it more as a section that looks at how all the media approached Mr. W's private life which can include Fox's criticism of those approaches. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[9]
• Whilst I'm not entirely comfortable about this I would be willing to go along with it with respect to the tax lien in order to achieve some stability in the article. I suspect that many of our views are likley to change one the election is over, or he actualy decides to run for political office. However we would need to be extremely careful because if we have a section on press smeers then we should not repeat those smeers all over again. The tax lein is one thing, but there is whole host of other stuff that should not go in. And how would we stop people from doing that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duplication in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tito munoz?

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

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

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher considering a run for congress

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

He was approached and asked to do it was he not? He's flattered, his foolish pride doesn't make him notable. Of course if he actually runs then that's a different matter, but let's not jump the gun just yet a while. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP is not an excuse for paternalism. Just because we are Wikipedia editors it is not an excuse for us to assume that we have a better idea about what is good for Wurzelbacher than what he does. Calling it "foolish pride" is frankly condescending to Wurzelbacher and unjustified. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but my main argument remains. He isn't actually running for congress yet. So it's premature to treat him as a public figure. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he probably isn't a public figure in the most general sense of the word but he's certainly at this point made it very clear that he isn't trying to be a private figure and he's definitely continuing to give interviews. At very minimum he's a limited public figure and we should keep that in mind for what information we put in the article and whether we have any sort of obligation out of BLP to merge this with anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh for crying out loud. Just because something is called a blog doesn't make it a blog for RS purposes. Note for example how The New York Times has "blogs" which are completely reliable sources. That's now what we mean by "blog" and you should know that by now. The Hill and its constituent parts even the parts they choose to label "blogs" are perfectly reliable sources. Moreover, he said it on Laura Ingraham's show which is a reliable source. And if you really want to be stubborn about this see for example here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs should not be used as sources. Often blogs include links to their source material, and that's what should be cited. Many reputable media sources have blogs, but their main purpose is for user comment or editor opinion amongst other things, not necessarily news. If it is to include quick tidbits about the news, often there is a corresponding article which is usually linked as well. --Amwestover (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is clearly a public figure, by his own choice and actions. Joe is seeking to extend and expand his present notability. The New York Times [11] says he "is fast becoming a brand" and that Wurzelbacher has "signed a management deal meant to keep him in the public eye." The article says he might seek to be an "inspirational speaker" or an endorser of commercial products . No shrinking violet here who seeks his privacy. Seems as much an intentional celebrity as, say Paris Hilton. Edison (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

discuss content not contributor

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

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

Mr. W is notable for one event

Can you cite specific policy?

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

Here is what WP:BLP mentions about relevance:

Wikipedia:BLP#Writing_and_editing: The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article. Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets focus on the policy.

Red mentioned: WP:1E

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

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

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

Bytebear, above, had a great idea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

music contract

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

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

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

Dun & Bradstreet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Does Business As:Newell A W Plumbing & Heating

NAICS:N/A

SIC #Code: View Details

Est. Annual Sales: View Details

Est. Employees:8

Est. Employees at Location:8

Contact Name:Alan W Newell

Contact Title:President & Treasurer

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

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

OK. I wasn't aware of that. The word "estimate" is actually correct. So? Employees estimated at eight, "accurately?" I can't see how that offends anyone. Why would they use the term "Est." if it were an exact number, anyway? I feel the article must reflect this. We should have it say something to that effect. --VictorC (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking within direct quotes discouraged by our Manual of Style

Since this has come up recently: [12] -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Keating Five Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. I'm suggesting this. Since one of the perpetrators of the Keating Five scandal was a Wurzelbacher, and McCain is one of the Keating Five, the fact that Joe Wurzelbacher isn't related to the Keating Five is pertinent. It deserves a sentence along the lines of: "Coincidentally, Wurzelbacher is the surname of Robert Wurzelbacher of the Keating Five Scandal. Although John McCain was one of the Keating Five, Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are not related." I don't currently have the documentation for this, but I am very certain that this should be pretty easy to properly reference if it's posted. It's been a pertinent news item. --VictorC (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As there has been ZERO RS sourcing for the name being more than a coincidence, your proposed insertion is absloutely contrary to WP policies. Having a name in common is about as irrelevant a reason for making a comment as one can find. Collect (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that people familar with the Keating Five story will assume that Joe Wurzelbacher and Robert Wurzelbacher are related. By including the information that they are not related, their names are coincidental, we can improve the article (with appropriate references). --VictorC (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can definitively be said they're not related. Odds are that they are, it may just not be closely related. Шизомби (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I can't agree. This would instead of entering doubt, would dispel doubt. Robert Wurzelbacher isn't a fake name. I am not talking about what's "believed" if it is true. --VictorC (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going side with Collect on this one. So what if they have similar last names. If for some reason the possible link were to become widely cited in the mainstream media, we might want to examine it, but for now it's coincidence that doesn't deserve mention in the article IMHO. Mattnad (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree with you. But you are wrong about the names. They are not just similar. They're the SAME. There's even some info as to how the Wurzelbacher family name has under 200 entries in the USA. I know with my family, which has a rare name there is the same thing as possibly happening here. It is a simple case of coincidence. That's why it's important to distinguish Joe Wurlzelbacher as NOT being a Keating Five Wurzelbacher. Especially in light of the fact that John McCain is one of the Keating Five (sorry to sound repetitive). As we already know Robert Wurzelbacher was convicted for his involvement with the Keating Five. If it were a more common name, I would completely agree with you. If this were Joe Smith, or even Joe Schultz, I freely admit this conversation wouldn't mean anything. But we have two people who are both involved with John McCain who have the same exact surname. People are going to assume the worst in many cases, which might be prevented by addressing this topic in the page.--VictorC (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it never crossed my mind that there could be a relationship. Even if they were closely related, which they are not, it's a "so what" for me. I could be wrong, but I'd bet there are few people out there who might think there's a meaningful connection by name alone. Major media outlets haven't worried to much about this distinction because coincidence aside, what's the news? As you've already said, they are not the same person. There are many things that Joe is not and we don't mention those either.Mattnad (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Must be Deleted!

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

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

There has been much more than a "mention." There has been nonstop coverage by McCain and rebuttals by Obama. See Willie Horton discussion above. A "failed campaign meme" is highly encyclopedic. This is not a one-off flurry of coverage of some unfortunate plumber whose Plumber butt was mentioned on the Evening News. He inserted himself in the presidential campaign, he was discussed over 20 times in the final presidential debate, and he has been discussed by both candidates every day since, as he himself has appeared in national news shows since and been discussed in reliable sources worldwide. Edison (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Ok, I'm not a contributor, just a regular reader of Wikipedia. Lately, often when I come to look for a particular article about a topic, I'm seeing lots of proposals for deletion. What the hell for? Why so intent upon deleting articles that people are clearly looking to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.217.220 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

We remember the "Daisy" commercial from the 1964 campaign [13], which was only broadcast once by the Johnson campaign. We remember the Willie Horton commercials by the Bush, Sr. campaign of 1988 [14]. Why should we quickly forget "Joe the Plumber," the chosen meme of the McCain campaign of 2008, intended "to put a human face on tax policy" per a commentator on CNN 18 October? Edison (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

There's a lot of stuff on wiki that a lot of people don't remember or never encountered. Seems that part of the reason for wiki's very existence. However, there is a movement to draft JtP into politics, so you never know...he may remain notable for quite some time. We'll just need to wait this one out. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me the lengthy article and even more massive discussion page, tied with the enormous interest in this gentleman in the US media, justify retaining the page. Will he be forgotten at some point in the future? It's too early to predict when or if that will happen. CsikosLo (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Hierarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're persistent - I'll give you that. But past efforts to eliminate Joe's biographic info have not been accepted by most editors. Also, I've asked this before - in your view, when will it be acceptable to include some of Joe's bio information? What's the threshold? This guy gets more ink than many celebrities, and still you are arguing he's not notable as a person. Why is that (still).Mattnad (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber vs Joe Wurzelbacher in lede

We have been edit warring over the first part of the lede. Some editors insist on Joe the Plumber as first and highlighted words, others on Joe Wurzelbacher (or his full name) as first and highlighted words. The article title is Joe the Plumber and style is that that the title be first in the lede. Also, there is sufficient consensus here that the lede should start with "Joe the Plumber". More generally, this article is more about Joe the Plumber as a symbol or metaphor than about Joe the person, although obviously he is one of the persons behind the metaphor, but not the only one. And as User:Edison also pointed out above: In today's McCain ads on TV [15], there are four women each saying "I am Joe the Plumber." It is a meme, which started with an individual person. He should have coverage in the article about the meme, but it is bigger than one individual. Also note that Joe the Plumber is an historical reference and clearly predates this campaign as researched by Edison in Talk:Joe the Plumber#Shouldn't the article title be a real name?. There are references from the 1940s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with the lede isn't that it starts with "Joe the Plumber," but that it's written as if the article is about the nickname rather than about the man who bears it. "Joe the Plumber is a nickname applied to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher..." This needs to be rewritten, something like "Joe the Plumber, real name Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, is..." Postdlf (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More on the "nickname" aspect is coming, hopefully tonight. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some editor's question

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

Campaign articles are where the daily news belongs. This article is not suited for "anecdote of the day" for sure. WP is NOT NEWS Collect (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This happened. JtP met McCain and this fact won't change in the future. It also is not an "anecdote of the day" (maybe the part before their joint appearance; there I agree).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...driver's license or his sports utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times"

What exactly does pulled mean in this context? Kingturtle (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is referring to "access," it's an unfortunate choice of words. The literal meaning of the word "pulled" is misleading and leads to misunderstanding. It should be changed to something like "accessed," "obtained," "reviewed," "retrieved." Good call! Feel free to change it. --VictorC (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The action itself was unfortunate. "Pulled" is idiomatic at this point, "snooped at" is what is really meant. Collect (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Snooped at" is what happened, but it's POV to use it. We need a neutral word, such as retrieved, obtained, etc. — Becksguy (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

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

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

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

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

Actually it appears it was speedy redirected See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe the Plumber. I wonder why that was undone? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit. He has become an infamous election phenomenon on par with Dukakis' tank shot or Bush I's "Read my lips". The fact that he, as a person, is completely lacking in notability is irrelevant; in fact, this combined with his delusions of immanent wealth and refusal to understand Obama's tax policy has made him a perfect personification of American Conservatives' myopic deification of this "bitter self-made man" archetype. If you're going to challenge his notability, the exact same argument can be made for Paris Hilton. But in the end wikipedia has an obligation to document notable individuals, even if they in no way "deserve" to be famous. Oh, and no one is impressed by belligerent attempts at article deletion. Despite the unfortunate trend that has been underway for some time here, taking a hatchet to wikipedia's article count is no way to earn wiki-street cred. Peace. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted before election day 2008. After the election, if Joe the Plumber fades into history, the article could be considered for deletion, and if deleted, rolled into the article about the election campaign. If the real Joe W. continues to be a public figure by speaking out or running for public office, the article may have to move to his name at that time, if he runs for office as Joe W., not as Joe the Plumber. But that's all speculation. For now, the article stays in Wikipedia, undeleted, under Joe the Plumber. Anomalocaris (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Once notable, always notable. It makes no sense to argue that this article becomes magically subject to deletion after election day 2008. Using that logic, the entire corpus of election 2008 articles also becomes subject to deletion after election day. The whole point to an encyclopedia is to have a place to look up items that have faded into history or that one doesn't know. — Becksguy (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is election manipulation. Wikipedia is turning Joe the Plumber into a phenomenon that he wasn't. Really, delete this article. Thank you.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You CANNOT be seriously suggesting that the media's love affair with Joe the Plumber is because of Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching the TV news, he is presently a daily feature. Reference to him is a current mantra of the McCain campaign. He is accompanying McCain at campaign rallies. McCain has stated that he will be part of a McCain administration. Notwithstanding, the Republican Party is considering sponsoring him for a run for Congress. This is a topic with real legs. I see your point of the interpretation of "election manipulation," but I don't think you really are curious enough about this topic to get informed about this and to see the other side of the story. Given, the page may devolve into deletion a year from now, but it's hard to imagine this happening any time soon. --VictorC (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohio tax records

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

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

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

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

Collect: You said "gross," perhaps the article isn't correct. Perhaps this is the figure for "net" which would make logical sense? --VictorC (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you are recording the connection which has already been made in a published reliable source, you would be in violation of WP:SYN - a Wikipedia editor putting facts together in a way to promote an analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that invested in this area to bother, but read his quote. It's self evident that he was referring to the American Revolution and the related "No taxation without representation" slogan. Do you really think we need a reference (which I'm sure we could easily find if we cared, but we don't)?Mattnad (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a website calling for his candidacy. This is a seperate, notable act, in no relation to him being notable for being mentioned during the debates. One need not declare candidacy to become a write-in. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd be interested in seeing what his IQ is. I'd like to see what his educational background is. I'd like to know what are the last five books he's read are. That would absolutely broaden my perspective of him as a potential legislator. Being a Republican, I want to have the best and most qualified people on our side (instead of the Democratic side), but in any case these points pertain to any potential legislator. --VictorC (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if he actually runs, that will be your chance to find out. Once the election is over, I suspect that JW will fade from the limelight unless he decides to do something like run for office.Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Helen Jones-Kelley merge proposal

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

• This proposal has led to a further discussion on the BLP nature of the article, the concern being that the only notable issue is the relationship with Joe the Plumber. This discussion can be found at, Biographies of living persions/Noticeboard Helen Jones-Kelley. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge proposal at Talk:Helen Jones-Kelley resulted in a unanimous No Merge consensus and has been archived. — Becksguy (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Spread the Wealth

This comment by Obama must be mentioned more prominantly within the article. It is quite clear had Obama not made this statement that Joe would have remained unknown, therefore it is important that it be mentioned early and not relegated to the end of the article. Additionaly, per WP:LEAD this is an important aspect which should be summarized within the lead somewhere. Arzel (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How about you develop that first in the article, and then we can see if the lead needs it. I will say I don't think it's a prominent as you do for this article. Joe was made famous by McCain's using him as an example in the second debate. If you think this point is prominent enough for the lead, we could just as well add the impartial, third-party conclusion that Joe's imaginary business would probably not pay more taxes under Obama (cf. Point - Counterpoint).Mattnad (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, how can you even deny that this is the basis for his notability. It has been talked about almost non-stop. Hell, the "Spread the wealth" statement was the name of the most recent campaign tour of McCain. To claim otherwise is being seriously obtuse about the event leading up to his notability. Also, your strawman has no point I am afraid to say. Arzel (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there a many news articles that talk about it. Here is just one. [16] Arzel (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable. It just isn't as important as you think it is and it's OR to state it's the basis of his notability. Joe was notable when McCain mentioned him on stage. Much later McCain brought up socialism after his other tactics didn't catch on. It's certainly not deserving of such prominence in the lead. Feel free to include in the body of the article. Remember, this is about JtP, and not about McCain's campaign (although they obviously overlap).Mattnad (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, socialist Canada, with its share the wealth socialized medicine, was recently ranked higher than the US of A in economic freedom [17] by the Cato Institute. Gotta love those 8 years of GOP leadership. Mattnad (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is relevant here how? Please tell me then, why did McCain mention "Joe the Plumber" upwards of 25 times during the debate? Arzel (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain was very clearly using Joe query to suggest that even an average trades person views Obama's intentions with suspicion. If you like, I could refer you to the Joe the Plumber article. It's very helpful and explains a lot. Just not with the Republican election campaign spin you want to put on it. Mattnad (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And civil discourse has left the building. Arzel (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, McCain was very clearly trying to relate to the average American by using an average example. The average tradesperson views Obama's intentions without suspicion. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be included as it has become a mantra in the McCain campaign. Also it should be noted that McCain voted to "share the wealth" to the tune of 700 billion dollars (in the recent bail out) with fabulously weathly banks and CEOs instead of folks like Joe the plumber, in order to maintain neutrality. --VictorC (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not neutral, plus they are not even closely related to each other. Arzel (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Below are just some of the sources, in the past month, talking about Joe the Plumber in relation to "Spread the wealth" and how it is being used by McCain. From the left, from the right, from the middle, some of the articles even criticize Palin for have the same policies using Joe the Plumber and "Spread the Wealth" as a reference. There is simply no way to deny that Obama's "Spread the wealth" comment is what resulted in his notability. In fact there are so many articles about it that it is common knowledge. In the past month there were about 26,000 news articles on "Joe the Plumber", approximately 7,000 of those hits with "Spread the wealth" and "Joe the Plumber", over 25% of all articles. Wurzelbacher was thrust into the national scene because of McCain mentioning him numerous times during the debates, but thousands of sources clearly indicate that the reason he was mentioned was because of Obama's "Spread the wealth" comment. A perfect illustation of a Cause and Effect relationship.

Just some of the sources. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Palin reference Arzel (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All of these are weeks after he became known. Joe was notable well before the McCain campaign took up this "spread the wealth" talking point. I object to your bringing out this point in the lead for a few reasons. The Lead, as now written, is neutral, and inclusive of past and current McCain strategies around JtP, inclduing what you'd like to add now. See the quote from the Lead as follows

"Wurzelbacher then received prominence when he was mentioned frequently, as "Joe the Plumber," in exchanges between Republican candidate John McCain and Obama during the third presidential debate on October 15, 2008. Since then the nickname has been commonly used by the McCain-Palin campaign to refer both to a symbolic everyman[1] and to Wurzelbacher himself.[2]"

Your effort to add this GOP talking point to the Lead bring in bias, and opens the door for counter points that we don't want there. So for instance, the article has information that discredits McCain on these points. There is also information in the article that would suggest Joe has biases and wasn't being fully honest with his questions, etc, etc, etc. Both sides would like to bring in their pet arguments into the Lead. As I've said before, expand this point all you want in the article, but it's a subset of McCain's use of JtP since the debate.Mattnad (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GOP Talking point? Seriously, this lack of good faith by you is really sicking. Those words by Obama are the only reason Wurzelbacher is notable, there is no other reason, and you certainly have been unable to provide one. Arzel (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned in the past about personal attacks and I'm sorry you and I disagree so much that you're taking to misspelling your rancor. I've given you the simple reason why he became notable; McCain used him in the second debate to make a point. Your position that, "Those words by Obama are the only reason Wurzelbacher is notable" (emphasis added) does not hold water, but it does illustrate your desire to shape this article around that point. It's too narrow and biased for the lead in my view. And as I've said before, feel free to include your views in body of the article so long as they're not overtly POV or OR (which they are now).Mattnad (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? How about this from you. "If you like, I could refer you to the Joe the Plumber article. It's very helpful and explains a lot." You should practice what you preach. And exactly how is adding notable information to the lead considered narrow? And how is factual information biased? Arzel (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the reason Joe the Plumber first became notable was due to the debate. The interview with Obama was little known until the debate. I would say it is fair to agree that both McCain and Obama brought JtP into the limelight. 66.177.105.166 (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. But with Obama the result seems to be without intent or (possibly - and I think this is a stretch) it was a strategic ploy to distract the McCain campaign from concentrating on the real issues that matter to the majority of voting citizens, like losing their mortgages, throwing 90% of their tax money into a bottomless pit in an overseas war (without any oil profits, without catching Osama Bin Laden) or not being able to buy their own health insurance (unsubsidized). Maybe Obama used Joe the Plumber like dangling meat in front of a hungry dog, making the "spread the wealth" remark deliberately, knowing the Republicans would eagerly ignore the issues as soon as they caught wind of it?? Maybe this is the real crux of the "spread the wealth around" remark? I think it's possible but unlikely. There is no doubt that McCain has grabbed onto this and made it into a cornerstone of his campaign platform. In any case, the "spread the wealth" slogan deserves more focus - possibly as a stake in the heart of the McCain campaign. VictorC (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected - again

Page sysop protected for 36 hours due to consistent, sustained edit warring. Hash it out here on the talk page, folks - it's getting old. Tan | 39 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

typo

{{editprotected}}

Typo: Barck Obama, in section Media appearances. Also, why is the article fully protected? As far as I can see, there was no serious edit-warring involving autoconfirmed accounts. At any rate, as long as the page is editprotected, an edit protection template should be added. Everyme 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the report! --Elonka 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the edit. Everyme 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Israel comments

The bit about Shepard Smith's interview makes this section terribly long, thus giving it undue weight, and doesn't really add anything. It's not as if there isn't good reason to believe Obama's policies to be bad for Israel. JtP invited people to research it for themselves and come to their own conclusion; it's not his obligation to spell out the entire record in a short interview. The fact that Smith read some pro-Israel statement from the platform means less than nothing; JtP, like the rest of us, is entitled to take that with an appropriate dosage of salt.

The comment was rather insignificant to start with, and all the WP article should do is report it, not add reams of commentary. Just say: this is what he said, and leave it at that. Let readers form their own conclusion on whether what he said made any sense. -- Zsero (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The NYT editorial page thought it was significant, as have others. What's most remarkable (to me anyway) is that a Fox commentator thought Joe was reckless in his unsupportable statements - hence Smith's comments that Joe was not correct (and I'm paraphrasing nicely - Smith was not so kind). We cover a lot of that in this article, but you want to eliminate two sentences that are "terribly long". You also removed a link to an article that has the full transcript - thereby making it hard for our readers to see what really happened.

Your concerns about of length seems one sided. Take for instance this section on database searches in the article. It's nearly 500 words, and 5 long paragraphs. Comparing the two - you find details of Joe's interview too long, whereas 500 words critiquing bureaucrat who was also an Obama donor is free from your urge to cut the article down. Some might call this a double standard. Mattnad (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about cutting the article down. I'm concerned about giving a trivial incident undue weight by sheer space devoted to it. The database searches are a serious matter - quite possibly a criminal matter; this is a throwaway line at one rally. A NYT editorial makes no difference - the NYT editorial page is going to say whatever is most convenient for the Democratic Party on that day. And I don't know why you're so shocked that someone on Fox would do this; Fox actually does have balance, unlike the NYT. But the fact is that JtP was not "reckless" and his statement is hardly "unsupportable". A brief survey of Obama's history on this matter, and who has his ear, can certainly lead a reasonable person to the same conclusion as JtP. The evidence is far from conclusive, but it can't be dismissed as easily as you seem to imagine. The fact that JtP wasn't prepared to give a mini-lecture on the subject at a moment's notice is irrelevant. -- Zsero (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The day a majority of wikipedians ranks Fox News a better sorce than The NYT is the day Wikipedia looses all credibility.65.54.154.41 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All of Joe is trivial in the broader scheme of things. He's a prop for the McCain campaign. But in the context of the is article, what he says and does is relevant. And while you think it was a throwaway line at a rally, others see it otherwise. This has received a LOT of coverage in media. And Smith wasn't asking for a mini-lecture. He was just asking why Joe thought Obama was a threat. Joe had no answer. As for what this means, we can let the readers decide - per your recommendation. So in summary, the interview happened, it was public, the Mass Media (on the right, center, and left) think it's worth covering. I think you're in the minority on this. And in the end, it's only a couple of sentences - why are you getting so bent out of shape over it? Mattnad (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Mattnad. Joe is used as vox populi by McCain's campaign, so Joe's comments on Israel are just as relevant as his comments on taxes. VG ☎ 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The line itself is worth covering; the subsequent commentary is not. The fact that Shepard thought it appropriate to read some press release from Obama's campaign, as though it somehow disproved JtP, shows how smart JtP was not to get into a debate with him, and instead to invite people look up Obama's record on Israel and make up their own minds. But you keep missing the fact that we have to keep the total word count on this issue short, in order not to give it undue weight. JtP isn't famous for his comment on Israel, he's famous for his comment on Obama's tax policy. If he makes comments he makes on other matters, and they're widely reported, it's OK to report them here, but not to give them detailed analysis that blows their importance out of proportion. -- Zsero (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That notability horse is really dead now. Stop beating it. JtP has been in the news for a host of issues unrelated to taxes. Claiming that the focus of the article should be around his tax position is just your attempt to spin the article. VG ☎ 17:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What else has he been in the news for (beside the vicious attacks on his character)? What non-tax-related comments have caught people's attention, beside this one? I'm not saying not to report this comment, just not to give it space disproportionate to its importance. And certainly not to the mere fact that an ordinary person, not a practised debater, declined to be drawn into a televised debate about details. He made a reasonable comment, said he arrived at it by reading various things, and invited people to do their own research; what more needs to be said about it? -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that his outlandish comment had to be contradicted by the moderator of a right-leaning TV station is worth mentioning, especially when that fact was reproduced by NYT, The Daily Show, and even Haaretz. VG ☎ 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

JtP has NO notability ouside the campaign. The evidence that people who are directly connected sith the Obama campaign sought to find "dirt" is clear (I consider $2,500 to be a direct connection). Collect (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a very biased, US-centric view here. Haaretz disagrees with you. VG ☎ 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

His comment was far from "outlandish". Is Shepard Smith "right-leaning"? At any rate Haaretz is certainly not! As for US-centric, this is a US topic. US reportage determines what's notable about it, not foreign reportage, which will naturally focus on aspects, however trivial, that relate to the reporters' own countries. -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Americans do not WP:OWN the article on JtP. VG ☎ 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with WP:OWNership, which is about WP editors. A topic that is inherently USA-centric, and is notable only for its impact on the USAn public, must be reported from that perspective. -- Zsero (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At least 300 Wikipedians disagree with you. VG ☎ 18:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) re: US-Centric Topic - it's actually pretty funny how that point-of-view is an exemplar of what the many of our foreign allies see as a problem with some Americans. Chauvinism aside, there are also parts of the US public and media who feel this is a relevant topic - hence the news coverage and commentary. And in the end, what we have here is not that controversial for Wikipedia. This is a bit more detail about 5 minute interview that's been seen by millions and discussed broadly. And if you think the summary introduces "commentary", I have no problem adding verbatim quotes - may be a bit longer, and make Joe look a little sillier, but if that's what you want, I'll do it.Mattnad (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the Smith interview is commentary on the original line. I have never claimed that the original line is not noteworthy; it is, though only marginally. But commentary on it crosses the line. -- Zsero (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming Joe's responses to a question, even from Smith, qualify as "interview". Otherwise you're speaking a language other than English. Given we can agree that Joe's interview and his responses are relevant to what Joe thinks (as he was doing the talking), I think the article is OK including parts of the interview. So Smith's end of interview commentary on how Obama has always been a strong supporter of Israel is out, but Joe's skirting the answer on why Omama is a menace is in. I'm OK with that.Mattnad (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, only his original comment is at all notable, and that marginally. Any commentary on it, including the Smith "interview", are out. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that anytime someone mentions Israel, either positively or negatively, it becomes a political and cultural brouhaha. This subject just makes the article more of a battleground than it already is. However, if JtP's quote about Obama's purported viewpoint toward Israel is included, then Shepard Smith's response also has to be included, otherwise it violates WP:NPOV and is unbalanced. And the article has become a WP:COATRACK for far too many campaign issues. We already have a campaign article, there is no need to include those issues as a constellation around Joe the Plumber, either as a metaphor or as a person. And BTW, Fox is often considered to be unbalanced and right wing, unlike the NYT which is, more or less, centrist and neutral. — Becksguy (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You've got that backwards. All the Smith "interview" is good for is to show that the original comment is at least somewhat notable, and deserves a brief mention. The exchange with Smith itself is not at all notable, and certainly Smith's subsequent reading of Obama's position is a complete COATRACK, because it has nothing at all to do with JtP. And anybody who thinks the NYT is centrist and neutral probably thinks the same of NPR! -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

Here is the paragraph on JtP's response and comments to a question asked relative to Obama's supposed position on this issue, as it currently exists:

On October 28, Wurzelbacher was asked, at a rally, by a McCain supporter whether he supported the view that "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel." According to the Associated Press, Wurzelbacher replied, "I'll go ahead and agree with you on that."[20] In a subsequent interview with Fox News, Wurzelbacher said he was simply offering his "personal opinion that I've come up with by looking into different facts," but that "you don't want my opinion on foreign policy. I know just enough about foreign policy to probably be dangerous."[21] When Shepard Smith repeatedly pressed him for his rationale, Wurzelbacher refused to answer, and instead insisted it was up to Mr. Smith’s viewers to figure out why he, Joe the Plumber, thought Mr. Obama was a menace to Israel.[22].

Where is the balance to JtP's statement agreeing that a vote for Obama is said to be a vote for the "death of Israel". Despite his comment about his personal opinion, the balance isn't there, and therefore it lends undue weight to the claim that Obama opposes Israel. Regardless of it's claimed purpose to provide notability to the original comment, it's still a paragraph supporting only one viewpoint, and therefore violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and should be deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are completely misconstruing NPOV. NPOV means that Wikipedia reports things from a neutral point of view. Reporting what JtP said is neutral. The article is about JtP and when his own opinions are presented there is no need to "balance" them by an opposing view. So long as the article neitehr endorses nor dispute his claims, it is NPOV. It is not UNDUE for a WP article to report its subject's views; but it is UNDUE to spend too much time on one particular statement that is peripheral at best to the subject's notability. -- Zsero (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His views on Israel are undue weight. As much as people here think he is, he is not a public figure, and his comments really have no sway. More notable people than he make somewhat controversial comments on a daily basis which don't garner inclusion here since WP is not a newspaper. On an additional note, some people ridiculing him do not belong either. Per BLP, article should not serve to mock the subject, and including video and comments of people taunting him to "Pay his taxes" would fall under this. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to briefly report a statement of his that has gained a lot of attention. It is undue weight to spend too much time on it, e.g. by presenting analysis on it. Just report it without comment and move on. -- Zsero (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The exchange with Smith is quite notable per NYT, Haaretz, and The Daily Show. VG ☎ 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a balancing or opposing view to say that JtP didn't express those opinions, since no one is questioning that he said them, and they are reliably sourced. It is the attack against Obama that requires balance regardless of who said it, and whether it's an opinion or not. What JtP said in this case is not neutral, and as an opinion it does not negate WP:NPOV requirements. Otherwise, using that logic, nothing violates neutrality if it's wrapped in the cloth of their own opinion, with the claim that as an opinion, it is inherently neutral because it merely reports the opinion. This is a run around the requirements of WP:NPOV by indirection. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. As examples: The article said that JtP asked Obama a question about a tax increase and expressed an opinion that his taxes would increase under Obama. Reporting only that, either directly, or indirectly as an opinion, is POV and unbalanced. Therefore the article also contrasted that with sources that said his taxes would actually be lower under Obama. Also, the article stated that JtP is not a licensed plumber, and indeed he isn't, as reliably sourced. And for balance, the article also reports that it's not necessary to be individually licensed if one is working under a licensed plumber's supervision or as a plumber's helper. As it should in all these cases. It's the same concept; one of neutrality in what we say about someone, opinion or otherwise. More generally, if only one side is expressed in WP on any particular issue, readers might walk away with the impression that there is only one legitimate side to that issue, and that does a disservice to them. And to us as editors. — Becksguy (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your not going to convince Zsero with this. Anyone who claims that the Interview with Smith is only "commentary" has a separate agenda. Here's the issue: McCain has invested heavily in JtP for their campaign, and an editor doesn't like information that make JtP look bad - even in his own words. Anyway, I for one think it's reportable that a Fox interviewer, immediately after speaking with Joe, felt compelled to set the record straight on Obama's position. That seems notable and many media outlets think so too. Just not Zsero. Why does he think it's trivial when Fox News doesn't? Mattnad (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Separately, re: Arzel's comments that JtP is "not a public figure", and therefore his views on Isreal don't matter. It's hard to address this, except to say it's another example of someone writing in a language that looks like English, but isn't. Here we have a man who has been invited to participate in the McCain election campaign tour, takes part in multiple media interviews, fields questions from McCain supporters at a rally, has hired a publicity company, has people trying to draft him to run for congress, is still not a public figure - go figure. Mattnad (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply repeating a million times that he is a public figure does not make it so. He is a private citizen who has been forced into the public eye. I realize that you are playing the party line by continuing to demagogue him, but in a couple of days after all the partisans have left the building we can return this article back into some semblance of a rational presentation. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're using Newspeak, but I'm unfamiliar with the dialect. "Forced" by whom? The publicity management firm he hired? The McCain campaign? The media? The people at the McCain-Palin Rallies? Where's the "force"? Perhaps it's armed bandits from Canada who came across a hole in our border fence? You have (sometimes) taken a strong position on protecting him from his own pursuit of fame and fortune. Paradoxically, you have no reservations leaving other aspects of Joe when it's for Republican partisan benefit (cf. Share the wealth). I agree he might fade, but do all people someday. I'm not playing any party line to suggest that Joe is part of this election and as such deserves mention - even when he says things that are impolitic. We should cover Joe's statements, great and not so great. You'll note that I've made no effort to change the most recent entry with his Nov. 2 interview with Cavuto. That too is part of his notability. Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you been paying attention at all? Obama said "Spread the wealth around". McCain then uses this phrase and JtP as an example of Obama's redistribution of wealth policies during the third debate. The media and left bloggers trash this guy because he doesn't have a plumber's licence (which he doesn't need), owes taxes (which he didn't know about), and all other sorts of disparaging comments. JtP is defended by McCain and others, and also goes onto TV to defend himself against these attacks, and it explodes from there. He did not seek the attention that he recieved. The fact that you are so against the primary reasoning for how he reached his notability, calling it a GOP talking point and now Republican partisan benefit only further displays your obvious partisan bias. My only concern with this article is that it not violate WP:BLP and that it be factually correct. If you think that factually correct means republican bias then I suggest you stop drinking kool-aid for the rest of the day. One more day, and then you can either rejoice or sulk and then we can make the article factually accurate without any partisan bitching. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets all stop discussing other editors and refocus on the article at hand. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you still haven't shown the "force" behind Joe's repeated and obvioiusly voluntary pursuit of the cameras and you're still selective on which facts to present. Hard to take you seriously, really. Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy, you are simply misrepresenting what NPOV is about. NPOV is not "balance". When presenting the article subject's view, there is absolutely no need to "balance" it, let alone to attempt to refute it. If you think there is such a need, you need to re-read the relevant policies. -- Zsero (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are two quoted lines from the WP:NPOV policy: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It also says: When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. Note that it refers to "competing opinions" and uses "viewpoints" and "opinions" interchangeably. From that it is obvious that opinions are viewpoints and are covered by NPOV. Granted it doesn't use the term "balance" (my shortcut for the concept), so I'll go back to using the full expression. I'm saying that the paragraph in question does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Mentioning JtP's viewpoint without mentioning Obama's refuting viewpoint—which is clearly very significant since it's his position that's the subject, and he's a presidential candidate—is a violation of NPOV, pure and simple. We are not talking about JtP's opinion on whether hot dogs are better with mustard, nor are we talking about an opposing viewpoint that claimed JtP didn't say what he reportedly said, rather we are talking about JtP's agreement with a viewpoint that attempts to place Obama in a negative light to a significant number of people. And there is an significant opposing viewpoint which is conspicuous for it's absence in this paragraph, although it's reported in the press and stated on Obama's website. As to the seriousness of that issue, note this headline from Fox News: 'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel' I believe you are misinterpreting NPOV in this case, Zsero. — Becksguy (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are completely misrepresenting the NPOV policy. The bit you quoted means that if there were competing credible views as to what JtP had said, we would have to bring both. Or if the subject of the article were Obama, or his views on Israel, and for some reason we quoted JtP's opinion on that, we would have to also quote credible alternative opinions. But here the subject is JtP; his own statement is directly relevant, but Shepard Smith's opinion about that statement is not. Not that it's completely irrelevant, but it's not required by NPOV. It would be perfectly NPOV simply to say "here's what JtP said" without saying anything at all about it. And that's what I think we should do, since this particular statement of JtP isn't directly relevant to his notability, so devoting too much space to it, by discussing and analyzing it, lends it too much weight. (Indeed, since you do insist on quoting Smith's view about JtP's view, NPOV would seem to require also quoting views or facts that support JtP's view, to balance Smith's, which would make the section even longer.) -- Zsero (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, this is not a case of misrepresenting WP:NPOV policy, it's a case of differing interpretations of that policy. So please don't use misrepresenting, as it has negative connotations, and does not help in reaching a resolution. I very strongly believe my interpretation is the correct one (and apparently I am not the only editor with that opinion), as applied in this case, and obviously you do not. Since there is no indication we can come to consensus on our own, I'm turning to WP:Dispute resolution, starting with the informal end of the process, to see what other uninvolved editors think. — Becksguy (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats to beat up old women

How best should we cover Joe's threats to beat up a 69 year old, 100ish pound woman? [25]. Seems to me that would be pretty important stuff to include, should the information about him threatening to beat up a senior citizen female go in the lead or in a separate section? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Obviously not an actual threat. --Onorem♠Dil 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Joe the plumber" is meaningful in the context of his role in the recent election. What Joe W. says, well, it not really relevant, especially since he was speaking with color and it's assumed he didn't mean it as a serious threat. It's time to be an encyclopedia here!Mattnad (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)