Jump to content

Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Obama quote

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

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

Regarding the section "Political leanings and views on taxation"

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

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

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

Money raised to help him pay back taxes

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


size of business

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

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

Missing section on the debate itself?

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

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

Joe the Plumber's funny Matt Damon comparison

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

Suggestion on BLP noticeboard

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

Lede first words

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

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

See Madonna (entertainer), Lev Chernyi, Prince (musician) etc. the skomorokh 15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Aha -- a name of a performer is your example? Not applicable to a person who is not a performer using a name, but who has the name "thrust upon him." That alone separates JtP from any of your examples. Collect (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also contrary to your list -- Charles the Bald amonfg a few dozen counterexamples I found. Collect (talk)
Whatevs, it's not worth the effort of analysing every single nickname biography. The current version is acceptable though sub-optimal. Just note WP:BOLDTITLE. Over and out, the skomorokh 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bold in lead

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

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

RFC on Joe the Plumber tax lien on house

  • Strong include - The guy is famous for things he said about taxes. The lien information is fully sourced. I'm sorry, but I can't see any NPOV reason to exclude the information. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Include A half dozen vocal editors say that the tax lien information does not meet BLP, which is blatantly contradictory to what BLP actually says:
Does any of the tax lien information fail these three guidelines?
Several hundred journalists in the most prestigious news organizations in the world have felt it was relevant enough to include this tax information, versus a half dozen Wikiepdians. As BLP says: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." These editors who remove this material have absolutely no basis in wikipolicy to do so. They are wasting the communities time, and they have no place in this article.
In addition, major news outlets are now reporting that Joe may run for Congress in 2010, Google News; CNN hardly making him a private figure any longer as many of these authors have redundantly argued. Inclusionist (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008
  • BLP Violation the only connection is the absurd correlation that he is a tax protester of some sort. Any insinuation that he is a tax protester without iron clad proof is a clear violation of BLP policies. To make this insinuation is outright libel against him and has no purpose within his bio. Just because MSM have reported it does not mean it is relevant to his bio. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Huh? - nowhere does the language say anything about "tax protestor" or anything like it. (I know tax protestors; he's no tax protestor, nor do we say he is!) The guy complains about taxes, but hasn't paid the ones he owes under current law. This is not relevant how? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It is not relevant because HE DID NOT KNOW about the tax lien. Please stop making this spurious allegations against him unless you can prove that he actively chose not to pay his taxes. Arzel (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Of the hundreds of articles which mention this tax lien, no one is claiming that he did not actively choose to pay his taxes. Please quit putting words in people's mouths, and please quit creating wikipolicy as it suits you. Inclusionist (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include. If it was unsourced it would be a BLP violation. It isn't. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    That is a terrible argument, should we go littering every bio with disparaging material simply because it is sourced? Arzel (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Well, it also has to be relevant. And it is. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include. This item and his income bracket are important towards establishing if he is a genuine exponent of those that would be hurt by Obama's tax plan (Joe's claim to fame), or whether he is a self-appointed political agitator motivated only by his political bias. For the same reason his political statements and associations are relevant. With all its faults, the media is not blind, which why this item is included in dozen of news reports form a variety of sources that span the political spectrum. OTOH, I fully support removing irrelevant material surrounding his driving license, details about his family etc. This tax-related issue is less inflammatory than the affair example given in the WP:WELLKNOWN section of the BLP policy, and has a multitude of sources to back it up, so no policy is violated by including it. VG ☎ 15:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • BLP violation. It doesn't make any difference whether it is sourced or not IMO it is entirely irrelevant, personal ,nosiness, and none of anyones business except him and the tax office. The fact that others choose to engage in such sordid intrusions into this man's tax affairs is no reason that we should. People should read Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy to see why this should not be included in the article.Actually, reading through the article a second time there are other BLP violations, how is the fact that he doesn't have a plumber's license relevant?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, please take the time to read the title of this page before commenting on an RfC. The fact that he is called a plumber probably has something to do justifies brining up the fact he does not have a plumber's license.Inclusionist (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Bollocks! Whether he is a licensed plumber or not is completely immaterial to this article and certainly likely to be personally damaging.I did read the title. Perhaps you should take time to read WP:BLP? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the invitation to read WP:BLP again. You mention Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, which I quote here:
          "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives."
          Theresa, how can wikipedia causes anymore harm when the entire Western World has written about his tax liens?
          And this:
          "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability." "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."

          Theresa, does this tax information meet no original research policy and Wikipedia:Verifiability?
          I guess many editors are just not used to people double checking their acronyms. Inclusionist (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It meets them for sure. So do I. Should I get an article, because my name shows up in Google? Just because a newpaper has written something doesn't mean we have to copy. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh and no offense, but I'm not sure how seriously I can take your comments in this discussion with a username like "Inclusionist". I can see your intentions here without you even needing to say anything. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How do I, when several hundred journalists in the most prestigious news organizations in the world mention your name and your tax lien, like Joe the Plumber, you can have your own page too. Inclusionist (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete IT is a BLP violation. It also has an absurd number of references, contrary to WP policy on cites. Also people backing this absurd number of cites issue warnings which are not relevant in any AGF situation. Also we have info on traffic tickets -- ought it go into every article we find? This is not even a close call. Collect (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include. There's no possible BLP violation, as we've explained at WP:BLPN. The fact that he owes (back) taxes is relevant to his opinions on taxes. If you want the article to be only about his questions to Obama and McCain taking him on as a mascot, that's an alternative, but, if his opinions on taxes appear, then so must public information about his taxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    Am I correct that since someone REMOVED the material about JtP's opinions on taxes, that your position would be to DELETE the lien section? Collect (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Its a BLP violation and ultimately irrelevant. Posting this information is of course part of an effort to smear a guy who dared speak ill of The Obama. "Joe the Plumber" is noteworthy as a political meme and a euphemism, far far less so than as an individual. Dman727 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not news: The only reason this material is included is to question his credibility to ask questions regarding taxes or to give opinions on taxation.
  1. Nobody needs to demonstrate any sort of qualifications or requirements to question or have concerns on any issue. The validity of the question and the answer are not affected by who is asking the question. It is simply an exchange of information. Is it relevant that I'm typing this on a Mac, which is being saved on a Linux box, which will be read on your PC? No.
  2. If you believe that someone is unqualified to give an opinion, then simply don't include the opinion. Joe the Plumber is entitled to his own opinions but that does not mean that they warrant mention on Wikipedia. You don't see all of this guy's opinion's on his Wikipedia article.
  3. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate storage of information. His tax liens, his divorce, his roommate in college, his favorite ice cream flavor, and anything else you can come up with are not relevant to his notability. --Amwestover (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed with your command of acronyms. Actually, Wikipedia is not news and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate storage of information are the same thing. The section you quote is irrelant, since it is talking about articles, "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". So A+ of your understanding of acronyms, but it doesn't seem like your arguments support the acronym you quote. Inclusionist (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, they're not. NOT#NEWS and INDISCRIMINATE link to different things if you'd actually bothered to click on them. But you're not editing in good faith so I really don't care what your opinion is. --Amwestover (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - How is this relevant and in what context? Because the talking heads are telling us so? --Tom 16:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include The taxation opinions and issues are directly relevant to the notability of this individual, and said information is well-sourced. The fact that his opinion and lien have been repeatedly reported in major media outlets and is relevant to his notability satisifes WP:BLP guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the guy is famous because he questioned political candidate about income tax / small business tax policies and the candidates then decided to use him as a hypothetical model to illustrate the effects of their policies. His previous deficiencies in other forms of tax payment are non-germaine to the event that makes him notable and should not be included under our BLP guidelines "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Joe the Plumber" is a lot more than "the guy", who asked the question. WP:BLP probably was not designed to handle the velocity of a presidential election campaign. I don't think it's the only set of guidelines that apply here. Just read up on current "Joe the Plumber Tour" if you think this article is only about the person and then explain why the overlaps between the person and politics don't matter.Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And guess who is going on the "Joe the Plumber Tour"? If you guessed "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher" the supposed subject of this article, you would be wrong. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include a) The tax lien is of public record. Additionally it has been internationally broadcast in print, audio and video media. So Wikipedia here is simply setting out what is already well known. b) The tax lien is relevant. Joe is notable (in part) because of his words on taxation. c) The tax lien item is needed to show Joe the Plumber is an honorable person. Wikipedia owes Joe the respect enough to mention that he's gone to the trouble of not paying his taxes to the point at which there's a lien against him. (I may be out of line here, but I'm under the impression that this section is for the purpose of ending discussion (on inclusion or exclusion of the tax lien info). We are here to state our positions. We aren't posting here to dispute the positions of others, or to argue against the votes of others. If this assumption is correct, then consider this a request to bite your collective tongues, state your positions, then refrain from disputing the statements of others. The time for discussion (I believe) has just ended and we are here only to post briefly what our stance on this issue is, not to issue comments or to disparage the stance of other participants. Again, if I'm mistaken, please ignore this.)--VictorC (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Include - This is a making a mountain out of a molehill. Very publicly available and verifiable, arguably relevant to topic, arguably not harmful to "Joe" who has embraced his popularity/notoriety (depending on your POV) in the media. ... but could use some qualifying context. 'nuff said. Mattnad (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include This is an individual who has become famous for his views on taxes and tax policy. His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it. As noted, the subject has voluntarily spoke to a candidate on camera, and voluntarily become a celebrity afterwards, granting many interviews before and after the debate. He is entitled to all the "living persons" protection that WP:BLP policy provides, but not to some level of protection greater than that. To the extent that he has become a meme in addition to being a real person, readers are entitled to information that helps distinguish the person from the meme. Whether his tax lien or other legal troubles make him more of an Everyman or less isn't up to us, it's up to the reader. — LisaSmall T/C 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tax lien section

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

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

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

The editor who added them as part of a game admits such above. He is, however, claiming somehow that since the same research appears in "hundreds" of places, that he would have the right to add hundreds of cites, including those which, by consensus, were already deleted (Rockwell etc.). Also that this is somehow a "vote" with only a half dozen folks actually standing up for WP standards on our side. Collect (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Not quite fair. "WP Standards" have been thrown around this debate like confetti. I've seen so many acronyms used here, some that were used incorrectly, to justify eliminating content that the editors didn't like for other reasons. This obvious overuse of citations was a protest against some editors shifting their arguments back and forth between BLP guidelines, WP is not the news, RS, Verifiability, NPOV, and many many others as it suited them. Can we please stop making this so personal, stop forum shopping, and be civil? This is supposed to be fun for goodness sake. Mattnad (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks were made in this section. And yes, people do read talk pages and are quite capable of determining facts. Collect (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

=

Removed views on government/taxation

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

You have provided arguments that "Joe the Plumber" != Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, but nothing that convinces me that Mr. W's views on social security have any place in this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 09:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The views on Social Security were part of a general statement Wurzelbacher made about what he feels is the role of the US government. This is very relevant to an article on "Joe the Plumber", since "Joe's" views on the role of government have become the center of McCain's campaign message, according to the McCain campaign as well as the media which covers the "Joe" meme. Including Wurzelbacher's views on government programs doesn't tilt the article to imply that McCain supports all those views, which he doesn't. It simply gives an accurate, concise picture of what "Joe the Plumber" stands for, in his own words. I would argue it violates NPOV to EXCLUDE Joe the Plumber's statement of his own political philosophies, if there is going to be an article on him. Stating he is a Republican is not even as relevant- after all, according to the man, it was not his party affiliation, but his ideas on the proper role of government that motivated him to ask the challenging question of Obama. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the excluded material:

In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "A lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation, and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."[2] Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.85.195 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hold the simple view that such quotes are out of place if this were a BLP, and, more importantly, since it is now an article on JtP that it has no place in an article on JtP. JtP was held up and discussed as an example of a person who would like to make $250K and would like the taxes in his way not to be increased. Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
So then WHY do we have sections in the article discussing Joe the Plumber's supposed plans (according to random blogs) to run for office TWO YEARS FROM NOW, along with silly campaign slogans about "plunging the crap from Washington." As far as I know, he is not going to run for any office (if he runs AT ALL, far in the future) under the name "Joe the Plumber," correct?
"Joe the Plumber" has evolved past being just someone mentioned in one presidential debate. McCain mentions him in every speech and Obama has to deal with the issue as well. The man has been interviewed many times and appeared across the media. "Joe the Plumber" is a central issue in the presidential campaign, and this adds to the notability of Wurzelbacher's views re: the issues that "Joe the Plumber" is addressing for the campaign- i.e. taxation, role of government, "socialism." In this context, his views on Social Security could not be more relevant. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit: "JtP was held up and discussed as an example of a person who would like to make $250K and would like the taxes in his way not to be increased." Yes, but the sticky fact is he didn't make anywhere close to that amount of money, so his question was even more about his philosophy on what the US government should/shouldn't tax, and ideas on taxes in general, than it was about his personal situation at that time. His views against Social Security taxation fit right into that. Doesn't matter that that issue was not directly in the debate- he talked about it in the media, on which he appeared as "Joe the Plumber." 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your "Joe the Plumber has evolved past being just someone mentioned in one presidential debate" thesis - but not your analysis. The growth means that "Joe the Plumber" is no longer simply (or even mostly) Mr. W. Mr. W's personal relavence to the title "Joe the Plumber" and as subject of the "Joe the Plumber" article are getting smaller and smaller; as is the need to include much personal information about him at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but in that case, why is there anything about Wurzelbacher's future run for Congress? "Covering the meme but not the man," it's a good idea, but also a lot of risky distinctions to make in which is which. If the article only covers the aspects of "Joe the Plumber" that are pre-defined by either the McCain or the Obama campaign, that is not an NPOV article, but a summation of one or the other side's political rhetoric. Some people seem to want to go in that direction. To be encyclopedic, the article HAS TO take account of widely reported facts connected to the meme, even if they are not directly included in the rhetoric (or in the interest) of either campaign. Anyway I give up. Someone can add the material later if they want. I think it is at least more justified for inclusion than some of what's currently on the page. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress that works by consensus. In an article such as this with lots of new potential material being generated by reliable sources daily and with a large number of editors involved, that progress can sometimes be very slow. your question about certain materials being included or not is happening in several threads. Please feel free to join those conversations. You may wish to create an account that will help other editors in complex multi thread discussions such as this keep track of who said what where.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

government computers used to snoop JtP's motor vehicle records

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

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

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

Wait a min, you think THIS is relevant to "Joe the Plumber," but you want to delete a brief quote of the man's deep convictions on taxation which inspired his confrontation with Obama (plus all mention of his owed back taxes)? Amazing! 70.21.85.195 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I did no more than mention an article. It is possible that some editors might consider this part which is directly campaign related to be of relevance. And a heck of a lot more relevant than the "lien" garbage as it directly impacts how such material was found. By the way, his "confrontation" with Obama, as you put it, seems rather to have been accidental, not a result of some plan for sure. Lastly, please AGF in all cases, it makes for pleasanter talk, and fewer personal attacks. Collect (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No idea what AGF is, it makes for pleasanter talk if you avoid insider-jargon or link to the page explaining it. Also, these talk pages are not at all intended for general discussion- especially not political discussions. So both what you said there, and the way you said it, were more like polemical spam on this page than something which contributes in a useful tone to the discussion of how to improve the article. As I said I have no opinion on the lien issue and would not try to add it, but as of RIGHT NOW, it has at least received more media coverage (dispatch.com??) than the issue you mention. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Just one other thing, I didn't mean anything had been staged when I said they had a confrontation. It seemed like a neutral word to describe what happened, according to Wurzelbacher's account. Sorry if you took it a different way. 70.21.85.195 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith. A simple rule. When a page is protected, the only place for disucssion is, perforce, the Talk page. Thus it is the only place available to show people what is in the news. It is therefore NOT SPAM. In point of fact, I presented the story in a rather unpolemical way. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

His views on taxation

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

Relevant bits from WP:BLP: People who are relatively unknown WP:NPF
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.
I think the tax lien information, although it has been reported by "real" sources, makes the article sound snarky and unencyclopedic. betsythedevine (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Include I think his tax lien is relevant because it shows his bias of having other citizens fund the government. And having other citizens fund the government is his premise for questioning the marginal tax increase proposal. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Include For the same reasons as Timhowadriley. He seems to have a beef with taxes in general. Seer (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Include, relevance. Bstone (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Include, "only material relevant to their notability" -- clearly his own tax status is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Exclude, until a reliable source reports on it and draws a conclusion. Otherwise it risks being original research and a violation of WP:BLP Dp76764 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: so the Toledo Blade saying [1] "In January, 2007, the Ohio Department of Taxation placed a lien against him because $1,183 in personal property taxes had not been paid, but there has been no action in the case since it was filed." does not count as being a reliable source? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Response However, the source article is from the Associated Press. It's this. Nonetheless, it's not original research because it's *some* source. But you can claim it's not a reliable source. Timhowardriley (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Response:Thanks for the warning; I've got my quota filled for today. First, I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article (see Erxnmedia's comment below). Second, as myself and others (including Admins) have pointed out: putting in these kinds of details about someone's personal life may violate WP:BLP policies, regardless of them being well sourced. Thirdly, none of the sources about these details have used them to draw any conclusions, so currently they are just statements of fact. Including them (and especially commenting on them, depending on how they are written) trends towards WP:OR and may skew the POV of the article. $0.02 Dp76764 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Response Regarding "Exclude, until a reliable source reports on it and draws a conclusion.": I don't see that a sourced article needs to draw a conclusion about a fact. I've searched WP:BLP for "conclusion" and couldn't find what you're referring to. I do understand that Wikipedia articles can't synthesize conclusions. But I don't understand the context of your objection. So what policy are you referring to? Timhowardriley (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply:If we only cite sources to make statements of fact, Wikipedia would degenerate into just a collection of factoids. There has to be some critical thinking applied as to the meaning of the facts (obviously not by editors here, that would be original research). I'm not sure how exactly to phrase it, but WP:RELIABLE seems to convey some of it. Dp76764 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If you are looking for "critical thinking" from reliable sources, how about this one from The Independent newspaper (which was named National Newspaper of the Year at the 2004 British Press Awards): "to [McCain's] huge embarrassment, it later emerged that Mr Wurzelbacher is a tax defaulter who does not have a plumbing licence and earns just $40,000 a year, which entitles him to a tax cut under Senator Obama's plans" [2]? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Include, because this may indicate that he is a tax protestor and more right wing than the average blue collar voter that McCain is representing him as. Also, all major news sources, including conservative sources such as Wall Street Journal and New York Post, have chosen to report the tax liens.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Even without the inference, you are preventing a statement of fact that all major news outlets have reported. JP is about taxation, it's about finances, and it's about politics. So JP's financial conduct is highly relevant to the discussion -- if it were not, all major news outlets would not have chosen to report the item. This is a perfect case where Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may help. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see you point out a policy that supports your addition of this material. You may want to review WP:NOT and WP:EVERYTHING; just because these things are reported on doesn't mean they belong in this article (and absolutely not in the main debate article). Dp76764 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the clear consensus here, Dp76764 has been constantly reverting this section. I've warned him appropriately for being in an edit war. I would hope he would honor consensus and reliable sources. Bstone (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, this profile and the version at United States presidential election debates, 2008#Joe the Plumber have been aggressively whitewashed both for JP's tax liens and his views on taxation without representation. I think a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may be appropriate at this time. Also note that the aggressive whitewashers will be the first to claim that the other guy is edit warring. It's a two way street. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are suggesting that Mr. Wurzelbacher run for adminship (RfA, I presume you mean Requests for comment? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Meant to say Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Exclude Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. It is in violation of Undue Weight issues and also violates BLP by marginalizing him personally. Per WP:BLP Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.. It is clear that his notability (which I question anyway) is due primarily to he being mentioned by McCain numerous times during the presidential debate, and he is being attacked because of this. It must stop. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
JP, a registered Republican, is wearing his victimhood fairly lightly.[3] Also, how would this concept of victimhood play if it turns out that he sought out the attention he is receiving?Erxnmedia (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree Regarding "... irrelevant to his Bio.": This article is not Joe Wurzelbacher's biography. Instead, it's an article about a character created by a politician. And this character is a current event. Regarding "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects": whereas, adding a relevant tax debt is disparaging Mr. Wurzelbacher's character, the tax debt debunks an important claim by him that he's conscientious about taxes. Regarding "participating in or prolonging the victimization": he's scheduled to be interviewed by Mike Huckabee. See [4]. So victimization does not apply. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include Joe has made himself a national figure, enjoying the media attention, and reputable, main stream news organizations have reported on this. Upwards of 625 news organizations reported on this lien[5] and the only justification the editors here can come up with is it makes the article "snarky"Inclusionist (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Comment It already has, but that doesn't justify adding it. --Amwestover (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Joe the Plumber is certainly a public figure (go read the article, specifically on limited purpose public figure: plenty of stories specifically mentioning his liens in reliable sources, going on the tv show circuit, isn't he going to GOP rallies??) and there is no outright defamation, no malice here (maybe irony). Rather, we are trying to publish facts, not repeat lies with flimsy substantiation. I think the WP:NPF is a nice safeguard but doesn't really apply here. --Howrealisreal (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber is not a public figure, he is a private citizen. In addition, he hasn't been a guest or attended any GOP rallies, unless you have sources to prove otherwise. The issue isn't defamation or malice, but notability. When it comes to biographies of living people who are not well known, according to Wikipedia policy it is not appropriate to include information about them that isn't relevant to their notability. --Amwestover (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Include The information is not defamatory and its in the public record and it has been reported by several (625 outlets did someone say?) reliable sources. Joe gave up his right to privacy when he let Fox News tape the whole discussion. You can defend him all you want but facts are facts and encyclopedias are by definition a collection of facts. Let's not let our political bias blind our ability to report the facts like all of the newsmedia outlets clearly do.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please refer to the BLP reference at the top of the thread. For biographies of living people that are not well known, contributions not relevant to their notability should be omitted. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of facts, there has to be cohesion to the contributions. Liens are not pertinent to his notability so they should be omitted. Joe the Plumber has also been divorced (which is how we know his income from 2006, it was obtained from court records) but his divorce isn't covered in his wikipedia article either for similar reasons. Mentioning anything not to related to his notability would give it undue weight. --Amwestover (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Include JW's tax issues are a national topic of discussion and this controversy adds to his notability. Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there. The alternative is googling it and getting info from blogs and other rumor mills, which doesn't help anybody.--RS57 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
also if anyone want a primary source for the tax lien, here it is: link--RS57 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include - this is an individual who has become famous for his views on taxes and tax policy. His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it. As noted, JW has voluntarily spoke to a candidate on camera, and voluntarily become a celebrity afterwards, granting many interviews before and after the debate, and presently scheduled to appear on the Sunday political talk shows about 36 hours from now. He is entitled to all the "living persons" protection that WP:BLP policy provides, but not to some level of protection greater than that. -- LisaSmall T/C 03:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: thus far I count a majority of people wanting to include the tax information, yet editors continue to remove this section. Inclusionist (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include, if adequate sources for the lien can be found. If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant. We don't need a secondary source for that. WP:BLP suggests we need reliable secondary sources for the lien, or his statement about the liens (either confirming or denying) and a primary source. (This comment is without reading the article or article history.) Without checking the AP source pointed to above; if it's a real AP article, it's adequate. I've brought up the question of third party press releases published on AP before, but this doesn't seem to be one of those. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include if Wikipedia is going to be the news, we should report what major media outlets are reporting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • include Has been explicitly commented on by major news sources and explicitly linked to his notability (which is connected to taxation issues). As Arthur said above. If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude And not a "vote." The man is not a "public figure" under SCOTUS definitions, and including personal matters when he is only notable for an issue he raised is against WP policies. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm " fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345." The person being discussed does not meet those criteria. Collect (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude - per WP:NPF and tangential information to the article which is about the meme and the person who gave rise to the meme. The info thus should not be included as violating BLP. --Matilda talk 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments.
    His being legally considered a "public figure" is irrelevant, except as to "our" BLP issues, as the AP article would be an invasion of privacy absent his being considered a public figure.
    There seems a clear consensus to include. However, the BLP issue needs to be dealt with separately at WP:BLPN. It appears the previous discussion there lea to a keep finding, but it may not have dealt with this specific piece of information.
  • — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a non-legalistic definition of not being a public figure at WP:NPF - People who are relatively unknown. He is unknown apart from his questioning Obama's policies in a way that was escalated in the 3rd canddiate debate and there being significant follow-up media reporting. The BLP issues relevant to him are contained at WP:NPF which is a subsection of WP:BLP - In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. ... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. The material is tangential to his notability which was questioning tax thresholds and their policy impacts. There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is WP:OR. --Matilda talk 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those who want to delete the tax lien information have used the word "consensus" quite a lot, as those who have wanted to keep this tax lien.[4] The stark difference is that the majority want to keep the tax lien information. I find a lot of hilarious contradictions in what is being said by those who want to delete:

Arzel

Inclusionist, you don't get to decide concensus. Furthermore this is a BLP issue to which concensus does not even apply --Arzel 05:24, 18 October 2008 [6]

The WP:BLP page:

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

Matilda

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


no consensus for inclusion as it violates WP:NPF a subsection of WP:BLP ---Matilda 04:37, 20 October 2008 [7]

Amwestover

Undid revision 246305434 by JoshuaZ (talk) Refer to WP:CONS, there is certainly not consensus on this matter. --Amwestover 16:02, 19 October 2008 [8]

Undid revision 246304368 by JoshuaZ (talk) a.) consensus isn't a popular vote and b.) the matter is under review for arbitration --Amwestover 15:55, 19 October 2008 [9]

Undid revision 246195172 by Anomalocaris (talk) - Consensus has not been reached on this matter and there is an arbitration request. This is your LAST warning. --Amwestover (tax quote) [10]

22:38, 17 October 2008 Undid revision 245989021 by Erxnmedia (talk) PLEASE wait until consensus has been reached. --Amwestover [11]

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

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

Tax Issues: Partial revert of revision 245979287 by Anomalocaris - Consensus HAS NOT been reached on tax issues. Refer to the talk page. --Amwestover 21:50, 17 October 2008 [12]

→Tax Issues: Consensus iss not achieved in mere hours. Please stop re-adding this until consesus is reached. --Amwestover 21:42, 17 October 2008 [13]

Undid revision 245751809 by 89.159.146.135 (talk) Please refer to discussion page to reach consensus --Amwestover 21:16, 16 October 2008 [14]

Dp76764

Undid revision 245948202 by Bstone (talk) you can't call consensus after only 1 hour, give people time to reply --Dp76764 18:56, 17 October 2008 [15]

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

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

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

  • The matter has been escalated to WP:BLP/N. Consensus does not equal a majority view prevails. I have no difficulty with a 3rd party mediator being brought in. Note that the issue has been rejected by Arbcom as it is a content disupute. I owuld have thought WP:BLPN was an appropriate 3rd party forum for the time being but ...
    I object to the language being used in this subsection heading - I find it offensive.
    --Matilda talk 05:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I am not surprised, why do the biggest edit warriors always have the thinnest skins? It reminds me of those World soccer players who get lightly grazed in soccer and fall down as if they are about to die.Inclusionist (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Little to do with a thin skin - rather a dislike of an unnecessarily misogynous term which fails to help the debate in any way. --Matilda talk 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Inclusionist, you seem to have been an editor on Wikipedia for some time. I believe you should review the guidelines on WP:CONS, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Amwestover (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There exists no consensus on including the tax liens. I count the "vote" as: Include: 4; Exclude: 6; Include only if views on taxation are also included: 2. Here are the comments I found (limit one per Wikipedian) and note that none of these arguments appeal to consensus:
Include
Timhowardriley: I think his tax lien is relevant because it shows his bias of having other citizens fund the government. And having other citizens fund the government is his premise for questioning the marginal tax increase proposal.
Inclusionist: Strong include: Upwards of 625 news organizations reported on this lien
RS57: Many will come to his page seeking facts about the tax lien, and will be disappointed if it is not there.
LisaSmall: His tax lien is directly relevant to that. Readers are entitled to this fact which is from the public record and has been widely reported, and can decide for themselves how to weigh it.
Miguel Chavez: - This is clearly an uncomfortable fact for "Joe the plumber" fans, surely, but it has been a relevant issue in the debate regarding Joe's iconography as the average American, and his credibility as a critic of Barack Obama's tax plan. There is no reason to censor this fact other than to protect his image. One might as well delete the Lewinsky scandal from the Clinton article, or the Iran-Contra affair from Regan's. Furthermore this fact has been verified and widely published by a number of media outlets, and the $1,200 tax lien has been admitted by Joseph Wurzelbacher on several media programs. If it can be explained, then explain it. Don't hide it.
Exclude
betsythedevine: I don't think people should keep putting his tax lien information back into the article, however. It is of marginal relevance to the story and others have cited privacy concerns related to WP:BLP.
Dp76764: I feel that these details about Joe's life absolutely do not belong in the primary debate article ... may violate WP:BLP policies
Arzel: Whether or not he owes any taxes is irrelevant to his Bio. Focusing on the fact that he owes taxes without any context or reason is in violation of WP:BLP.
Amwestover: Liens are not pertinent to his notability so they should be omitted.
Anomalocaris: I recommend restoring the taxation without representation item but not the tax lien item.
Matilda: There is little evidence he is a tax protestor and reporting his outstanding debt comes within the scope of adversely affecting his reputation. Connecting his debt with his questioning is WP:OR.
Include only if views on taxation are also included
Arthur Rubin: If his views on taxes are relevant, then his tax liens (but not necessarily hospital liens) are relevant.
JoshuaZ: If his views on taxes are relevant than his tax status is relevant.
In conclusion, no consensus exists. I believe the WP:BLP argument is persuasive against including and the tax lien should be excluded on that basis. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (re-edited to add Matilda) Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Complete and utter nonsense failure to properly count the !voters. There is a clear supermajority for the assertions that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is appropriate, even considering BLP (on which I am neutral), and a clear supermajority, given that the "Boston Tea Party" quote is included, for the then the tax lien must be included. Whether he is a public figure for Wikipedia purposes seems open; the fact that he is now seeking interviews seems to lead in favor of him being considered a public figure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
With this at another board for attention, I don't think it matters here, but after reading through this I'm in favor of including his tax lien information. It's relevant. Dayewalker (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, you have repeatedly asserted on this talk page that if views on taxation are included, the tax lien must be included also. Only JoshuaZ has endorsed that view, and I have yet to read a compelling argument to support that view, which continues to be shared just by you and JoshuaZ. The tax lien could exist for any number of reasons, including an error in the taxing agency. We shouldn't infer that he is a deadbeat or a tax protestor, and the fact of the tax lien is simply not encyclopedic. Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If you add those who agree to the conditional, and those who think the tax lien is relevant and should be included independent of the the inclusion of the quote, you get significantly more people than those who think the tax lien should be excluded. Perhaps not a supermajority, but a clear majority. Now, looking back at it, I have doubts about the deputy clerk's statement being relevant, even though quoted by a reliable source, but we haven't looked closely at that question. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If one were to count !votes , one gets 10 include, 2 conditional include, 6 exclude. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, above, I originally counted 4 include votes (Timhowardriley, Inclusionist, RS57, LisaSmall) and later, another yes vote was inserted by or on behalf of Miguel Chavez. That's 4, not 10 includes. Arthur Rubin, please list 10 different commenters on this page who had made statements supporting include the tax lien (not counting the two conditional include), prior to your above comment of 07:04, 20 October 2008. Anomalocaris (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This article in now on the personna known as "Joe the Plumber." As such, it is no longer a "person" unde r BLP and, I submit, personal infromation does not belong in it at all. An article on "The Cowardly Lion" would not rationally have Bert Lahr's tax troubles in it, so this also should not. All claims that a lien is relevant are out the window with the change in focus of this article, as nearly unanimously supported. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A misinterpretation of what is at hand. The move was agreed to if you look at the move discussion to a large extent not because of some vague notion of a "persona" but because this is the name he is known under. Multiple editors explicitly supported the move with the caveat that it would not be used as not as an excuse to remove the tax information. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is what most of this entire talk page discussion has been about for some time. Is a person who is known primarily for a single event a "notable person"? Answer: no. That is why the article is now properly about the event and the issues engendered by a chance encounter with a candidate, and not about the biography of that person. Just as an article on "The Cowardly Lion" would deal with Bert Lahr as he portrayed the character, and not be a biographical article on Bert Lahr. If Bert Lahr is a "notable person" then he would have his own BLP. We have now decided Joe Wurzelbacher is not a "notable person" in his own right, ergo under WP guidelines, he should not have a BLP on him. "Joe the Plumber" as a single "character" as it were gets an article -- parallel to what a Cowardly Lion article would have. Wurz's biography which would not meet WP standards in any case thus does not belong in the Joe article. If you feel his full biograohy is propery in WP, then an article under his full name would have to be there. Collect (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Go reread the discussion to move it. What someone is called isn't the same as whether or not they are a "character". The Cowardly Lion is a fictional character played by Bert Lahr. Joe the Plumber is not a fictional character. It is a term people are using to call Joe Wurzelbacher. Oh, and by the way we do have a an article on Bert Lahr anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I knew that -- which is one reason why I gave it as an example. JtP is really about an event and issue -- and that is all. JW would be about the person, and the place for all the biographical stuff. JW would only be valid for a "notable person" and by the name change, we pretty much have agreed that JW is not a "notable person" under the BLP definition. Hence, under JtP, none of the personal stuff belongs. Under JW, if he were given an article, personal stuff might belong subject to BLP limits. Collect (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Except see the move discussion section above. Moreover, this ignores the point about failing to distinguish between a character and a person with a name other than their given name. We're in the second case, not the first case. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

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

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

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

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

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

Tax lien redux

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

In that case the (Boston) tea party quote is irrelevant, and also should be removed under WP:BLP. There is no question that the lien is relevant to his quoted position there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
While I don't believe that his Boston Tea party quote is a BLP violation, I don't see that it adds much to the article either. I've no objections to its removal. Dman727 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is what I've thought all along so I definitely have no objections to the tax lien information being removed and his quote on taxation. --Amwestover (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the tax issue is relevant because Joe the Plumber has become synonomous with tax issues in the 2008 election. It is a documented fact that he not paid his taxes. Many people do not know about his unpaid taxes because it has not been covered much by the media. The reader can take that to mean whatever they want about his feelings about taxes in general.--~M 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Rainme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainme (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate store for facts. Contributions have to be relevant to the subject's notability, and tax liens or opinions on taxation are irrelevant to JtP's notability. --Amwestover (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Boston Tea Party/Taxation Without Representation quote is not a BLP violation, because it was given by JtP to a national audience. Moreover, it is important to leave it in this article, because it reveals JtP's ignorant antipathy to taxes in general by virtue of the fact that (other than felons and others who have been deprived of their right to vote) the only citizens of the United States who are actually victims of taxation without representation are citizens of the District of Columbia. JtP is a citizen of Ohio and a voter and is not a victim of taxation without representation. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yet on the BLP noticeboard:

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

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

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

Inclusionist (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Full protection

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

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

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

Article fully protected for 55 hours

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

We've already tried this, but there are multiple editors who are not exercising good faith and/or are unfamiliar with the consensus processes or even what consensus is. --Amwestover (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You do realise that BLP trumps consensus don't you? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The protected article is worst of all worlds -- it has the lien and not the tax quotes. Collect (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes they protected the wrong version. VG ☎ 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure would've been nice if the protecting administrator abided by this policy instead of applying the protection with zero context. --Amwestover (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Boy, I bet it would have been nice.... for you. Tan | 39 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, cuz you wouldn't want to exercise discretion when using Admin tools or anything... --Amwestover (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As an admin also I'd like to support Tan here. He did what I would have done in the situation. Come along and protect the page as is. Using discretion leads to accusations of favoritism, corruption, you name it we get called it. Far better to simply protect the page as you find it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that's a cop-out. If an admin's only role is to flip the switch with no regard for the situation, then whoever whines to the admin first wins. If discretion is explicitly not required then bots could do your guys' job. --Amwestover (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will take it the wrong way; we'll take it exactly in the spirit that you meant it. Tan | 39 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion, SmarterChild, but no thanks. My last comment was intended for someone with a pulse. --Amwestover (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The whole reason there's this discussion is because we can't decide if it violates BLP or not. It's hardly fair to make one admin decide. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To me it is obvious (it should be to everyone), the page HAD to be frozen. Reviewing the history, some of the same items had been added, deleted, reverted and restored numerous times all within several hours. That's a disaster. What is worse, it was being done all by folks who were involved in the discussion on THIS TALK PAGE. You all should know better than that. This discussion isn't closed, and once the page is unfrozen, it STILL won't be closed.
The point I'm trying to make is that, once the page is UNFROZEN, we will still all be trying very hard to come to an agreement on the issue of the tax lien information and its pertinence. That means we are expected not to mess with the page until such a time that there IS an agreement. Even a non-participant in this discussion should be able to see that this discussion has been going, and isn't resolved. In any case, consider this a request to, once the page has been UNFROZEN, bite your collective tongues, refrain from editing the page, and civilly continue this discussion to its resolution. Then AND ONLY THEN, should the item on the tax lien be altered.
If things don't go according to my suggestion, I'm afraid what just happened a day ago will only be repeated, and we will only have ANOTHER freeze on our hands. No one truly wants that.
'Nuff said. --VictorC (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Theresa, but not everything is black or white on Wikipedia and discussion is often warranted to clarify certain things, such as why this is a violation of the BLP policy. Consensus is key in order to prevent edit warring. But editors such as Inclusionist have openly stated that the supposed majority should overpower the supposed minority by reverting their edits. Not only is this blatant meat puppetry and circumvention of the consensus process, but it demonstrates bad faith and I simply can't trust or respect anyone on Wikipedia who exercises bad faith. Wikipedia disputes can only be resolved when everybody is acting in good faith, and since this is definitely not the case here, I think the only solution is to remove the dispute material and put full protection on the article until November 5. By then, hopefully everybody will have cooled down. --Amwestover (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

No the policy page will do it. I keep citing that page. It's there for a reason.I note that you quote part of it but fail to understand what it is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. VG ☎ 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
@People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF) "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe is not a NPF anymore but a limited public figure, i.e. someone who thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, and he's doing his best to become less limited — he doesn't mind running for Congress, turns down no interview, etc. VG ☎ 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

absurd number of cites which were not independent in research

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

Which policy is it violating? – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Who cares! Collect is rightTheresa Knott | The otter sank 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
He may be, but I doubt there's a policy that determines how many citations are allowed. It looks ugly that's for sure. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason for that ridiculous amount of references for one statement is that the previous versions with (a lot) fewer references constantly got reverted. VG ☎ 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The version with the fewer references was constantly reverted because it was a violation of WP:BLP and there still wasn't consensus on the matter. The newer over-referenced version still suffers from the same problem. --Amwestover (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Repeatedly claiming that it is a violation doesn't make it one. See Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN. VG ☎ 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Surely you meant to link to this policy: WP:ONEEVENT. And likewise, claiming that there's consensus when their isn't doesn't mean there's consensus. --Amwestover (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your civility, and I agree with everything else you said. Thanks! Scapler (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I quote WP:BLP:

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

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

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

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

User:Collect, since you will delete, delete, delete regardless of how many sites are there, the "One is sufficient" statement is dubious. I didn't add all of those citations to try to convince you, I added all those citations to show how ridiculous and marginalized your position is to everyone else.
As I wrote above to you:
The absurd number of references were added after an absurdly small handful of editors decided that they knew what news was better than the entire Western journalistic world, and continued to delete all references to the tax lien. User:Collect you were one of those choosen editors who know more what is news than the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC, USA Today, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, etc., etc., etc., etc. To name only a couple out of hundreds of news and television organizations.
Inclusionist (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One -- thank you for the personal insult. Two -- deeting when one is actively seeking consensus AS WE WERE is part of the process. Three -- juvenile behavior which you admit to is not part of rational WP consensus seeking. Fourth -- I am not the New York Times, but I know WP rules and procedures at this point, and deliberately putting gas on a fire is not going to work. Collect (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about news. We are an encyclopedia. So what papers decide to include isn't necessarily the same as what we include. Do you agree that the number of references is too large at the moment. Yes or no? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Where one single ref from ABCNews covers the entirety of the tax lien section, having an additional 16, many of which add absolutely nothing, is absurd. Collect (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is very juvenile and petty to have that many references, it is pratically screaming "Joe owes taxes!". Grow up. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of juvenile and petty, you are treading pretty close to incivility here. Tan | 39 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I am trying to uphold the basic tenents of WP:BLP, just exactly what are you trying to do? Arzel (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
He's trying to stop an edit war. Stop attacking him please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It's okay, TK, we've moved his attacks to my talk page now. Tan | 39 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Every notice when a person's rational argument collapses, they start personal insults? Collect, Theresa knott, and Arzel have had the legs kicked right out from under them. WP:BLP doesn't support their deletions in fact it contradicts pretty much everything they say.
Some editors here are throwing out every acronym they can imagine to justify the deletion. Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues.
...Even other deletion editors who support their views say consensus is needed.Inclusionist (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet more bad faith from Inclusionist, what a surprise. Do you think we don't know how to click on links or something? The FIRST paragraph in Restoring deleted content:

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

I mean how stupid could you be? You linked right to the part of the policy which states that the burden is on the restorer of content. The reason there are personal insults hurled your way is because you're a bane to the Wikipedia community. Seriously, go find something else to do with your time. --Amwestover (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, remain civil. The reason you are having personal insults thrown your way is...oh, wait, Wikipedia specifically forbids personal insults like "how stupid can you be". Make your points in a more appropriate manner, and respect other editors. Scapler (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not respect editors who blatantly admit their bad faith, as Inclusionist has. They are a bane to the Wikipedia community. Since he's admitted his bad faith I've stopped responding to any of his comments and remove any content he puts on my user page since the opinions of editors acting in bad faith are unimportant to me; but I just couldn't resist pointing out how he linked to policy which shatters his argument. It was just way too tempting. --Amwestover (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
If you don't rrespect other editors, then you should find a forum other than Wikipedia to post your thoughts. Civility is a requirement for participation here. There are many blogs on the internet where it is not required. Edison (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Still, be the better man, err...editor or whatever. Though I certainly do not doubt your intentions at all, you are only trying to improve the article. Scapler (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I striked the personal attack. I stand by everything else I said. --Amwestover (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Question for those who want to delete the tax lien information

  1. How does the tax lien information violate #BLP?
  2. WP:BLP lists three criteria for inclusion #rules, which rules does the tax lien information violate?
  3. Arzel and Theresa Knotts have said that consensus doesn't matter with BLP issues. But the BLP page contradicts this #consensus So do we determine BLP issues by consensus?
  4. In response to a question "Which policy is [the citations] violating?" Theresa Knotts wrote "Who cares! Collect is right",[18] what did Theresa Knotts mean by this? Inclusionist (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The tax lein is not noteworthy. If you want to include it in a criticism or commentary on how the media has sought to discredit this man, I am all for it. Those facts are not anywhere in the article. I would also include that some in the media have gone so far as accuse him of not using his "real name". This article is very factual, but not complete. There should be a section criticising the media for its actions on reporting trivialities in efforts to slander this man. Here are some references:
Bytebear (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Bytebear, I warmly welcome your contributions when this article is unprotected, I agree "There should be a section criticising the media for its actions". I think what you have to say has merit, and I will support any inclusion from sources such as foxnews and other well established sources. I can help you find any sources for any of your inclusions. Inclusionist (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

2) Irrelevant, see my anser to #1

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

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

From BLP: "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability"
Regarding 1, again, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC, USA Today, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, and hundreds of journalists seemed to find the tax lien information very "relevant to their notability". BLP repeatedly mentions "references" when it talks about "relevance". In BLP, Relevance and references go hand in hand. Otherwise editors have no way to determine what is relevant and what is not. Then, as seen here, editors could delete anything they wanted to arguing "relevance". The way you interpret BLP, ignoring references, gives editors no guidance on how to gauge relevancy.
Two is relevant, because it is the litmus test of what should be in the article. This information exceeds all requirements for WP:BLP
3: Thanks for clarifying.
I am not sure what you are saying in 4, after reading it over and over. It is really not important either way, compared to the other questions. Inclusionist (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No I disagree about point two. It states what can go in an article, not what should go in an article as you stated. Anything that breaks any of the three rules absolutely cannot go in an article, but that does not mean that it necessarily should if it passes them. The tax lien IMO is not relevant to his notability, so should no go in the article because of my first point irrespective of the fact that it does not break any of the pules mentioned in point two. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledge Here that We Need to Abstain From Editing

THE UNRESOLVED CONTROVERSIES UNTIL DISCUSSION

ON THESE MATTERS ARE CLOSED

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

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

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

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

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

I think perhaps the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_limited_public_figures
would be of interest. I suggest that if we were to follow the law which actually currently applies to many in WP and around the world, that a great many such controversies would be averted. Collect (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Exactly. The tax lien is relevant to his opinions on taxes, as determined by the first poll; sourced to secondary sources (some of which report the primary source); and hence should be included, if any of his opionons on taxes are. I have no objection to the actual wording of WP:BLP, but BLP does not support your proposed actions.
If the article were to exclude all of his comments except the actual question to Obama, then the tax lien might be irrelevant. Otherwise, it's relevant, and excluding it is an WP:UNDUE violation.
It seems the only particular version of the article which could get consensus is one on JtP the phenomenon, excluding all the information about the person. I could agree with that until the consensus for inclusion of the lien is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This whole section seems moot. We resolved the tax lien question above in the first !vote, where the only arguments against inclusion were challenged, and consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion. None of the following polls or arguments (mostly requiring tourchered interpretations of WP:BLP) seem to be about that issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a minute the !vote further up this page has 10 for including and 7 for removing it. That does not like resolved to me! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me, I have until now assumed that commenters use !vote to mean an individual vote against something. Is this correct? If not, please clarify what is meant by !vote.
Arthur Rubin, please clarify where on this page a vote was conducted on the question of including the tax lien. A few days ago, I attempted to review comments on this subject; I summarized the results and I found if anything a preponderance leaning against it. (Amwestover had made a comment opposing including the tax lien and I counted Amwestover as an exclude vote; as far as I can tell, that was a correct analysis of Amwestover's opinion, but Amwestover crossed out his "vote".) I believe that the current preponderance of different commenters is still to exclude the tax lien, but I haven't tallied since my previous effort.
Also, please show how the poll on the question of the tax lien showed that people favored including the lien because of its purported relevance to his opinion on taxes, as opposed to including the lien for whatever other reason.
That the lien has been widely covered in the media is not under dispute; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and its content should be encyclopedic. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
!Vote means "This is not a vote and you can't simply count numbers" It doesn;t mean a vote for no. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

protection

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

Talk pages should not, in general , be protected. Did you mean the article or its talk page? The talk page is where anyone can discuss how the article can be improved. Unless there are exceptional reasons, such as recurrent WP:BLP violations, the protection should be lifted. Edison (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I meant the article - clarified. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel should not have an auto license

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

Since Joe clearly make himself a public figure after the initial Obama question, the bar to BLP violations is somewhat lower than for a private person because of the available reliable sources. However, this new information violates even the somewhat less stringent WP:BLP requirements for a public figure. Defamatory or negative information about a person that has no reasonable direct connection with what he/she is notable for is inadmissible regardless. Even though he is a public figure, he still has the right to privacy and I very seriously doubt he gave informed consent to this level of scrutiny. If he actually runs for political office, that may be a different story as they know what they are buying into. This information cannot be added to the article. — Becksguy (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
On the WP:BLP discussion page, I proposed that WP should follow the increasing body of international law on privacy. This article is a poster child for such a policy clarification. Collect (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Claimed non-payment of small amounts for some traffic fines and taxes hardly supports the wholly negative spin of the above post. Moreover, I'd want to see highly reliable sourcing (and more than one) before even a neutral mention of something like this went into a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. This is obvious smearing. --Amwestover (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose including this in the article. It is completely irrelevant to the political topic the article is covering, and serves only to defame the subject - thus directly violating BLP. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We've been over this. Last week. It's still up here on this page: *HERE* I, too believe that it's irrelevant. I don't see how it's private (it seems to be of public record, not private) but there is no connection to the topics covered in the article. I disagree that it's defamatory. How could the TRUTH ever be defamation??? --VictorC (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Occupations in InfoBox

We've had in the past drawn out discussions about what to put in the infobox. I think we can live with "plumber" even if technically debatable, and "Spokesperson" (or maybe commentator) seems to be fit his current tack, but I wonder if one co-written book and occasional website qualifies as enough for "Author". Most BLPs have one occupation and this one has three based on Joe's shifting activities post plumbing. Somehow, "author" seems a bit overweight. Comments?Mattnad (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see everyone finally working in tandem here. I've been absent from the talk page for a few months, but the principles remain the same. First of all, keep in mind that this wasn't originally a biographical article. Initially this was strictly about the sobriquet/nickname/moniker that was informally applied to Mr. Wurzelbacher by Barack Obama and the cascading effect it had on the final stages of the race to the White House. Amid all the warring, this article has since evolved into an almost entirely biographical article but even so, this really shouldn't be compared to the rest of the several hundred thousand BLP articles. Given the hybrid nature of the article in its modern incarnation, I think, under the circumstances, it's acceptable to include multiple professions. "Plumber" was a bit contentious and no longer relevant so that's out of the picture. I would suggest sticking with what's current and given his many occupations, the two or three most significant among them that will avoid any further conflicts and thus avoid giving prominence to his lesser-established jobs.

Is that of any help? -Alan (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The infobox can have the DOB. QuackGuru (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Plumber" and "Spokesperson" have stood quite nicely for a long time now. There is no rationale to play with it at this point. Precedent in BLPs has been to use common terms, and not to make the infobox a plaything for political agendas. Collect (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, with added reasons. Joe seems to be dabbling with opportunities that come his way, but the info box should be brief. Let the article cover the details of his activities.Mattnad (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Note that where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or other policies, the policies prevail.
  2. ^ 'Who is "Joe the Plumber"?', KARE11, October 16, 2008
  3. ^ Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 2008.
  4. ^ including myself
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_the_Plumber/Archive_3&oldid=1154653160"