Talk:Gretchen Whitmer

Operation: Gridlock falsehoods

In the cited article given, there is no verification that the protesters are all "conservative group members and supporters of President Trump", as the article implies. Indeed, anyone who attended the rally knows that disgruntled democratic voters attended as well. This gives the impression that the article is trying to paint a picture of a one-sided protest instead of disapproval of the mayor's handling of the situation. It is impossible to know that all 3,000 to 4,000 were of the same political leaning, and it is also irresponsible to definitively affirm that they were as such.

Agreed and corrected thank you for your concern Amorals (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reworked the whole paragraph to attempt a more neutral approach which highlights both sides of the deal. I'll check some more sources later, but will need to use a VPN to do so, which will stop me using the same machine to edit here whilst I am.

In particular, I've removed the description of the protestors per the above, named the groups which coordinated it - if someone can check the DeVos link it would help - and stuck a little closer to the sources, particularly in regard to exactly what she said the sad irony might lead to. I've removed the use of "restrictive" to describe the lockdown for now at least - quite prepared to talk about that, but it seems a bit POV. I don't agree at all that "many" have protested the order - the Guardian source that I will add in a moment to the article suggests that 71% of Michigan resident support the lockdown as it is. I added in some details of the protest, but there's probably too much in there just now. Let's talk about that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated the "restrictive" description as it seems fair to add as several linked sources describe it as such, and its arguably necessary to add so as to present the case held by the demonstrators. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken:: The slight problem I have with that is that it's a bit of a tautology really - stay at home orders are supposed to be restrictive aren't they? It also suggests that the criticism is more widely held than it is possibly. Perhaps something along the lines of, "which protesters considered overly "restrictive"? Not sure where it goes - perhaps the next sentence? If it's where it is then we'll need to move a citation to there as I'm not sure that all of those cites will describe it as such, but that, in itself, is easy enough to do. Thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern, that would be a better solution I must say. I may have acted too rash in reinstating in hindsight. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Having looked back at the sources, I have tweaked this around a bit. The restrictive quote is tricky I think - I think I've done it in a way that maintains some balance.

I was wondering whether we needed to add at the end of the paragraph that MI is one of the worst affected states in the country (for balance again). I was also considering whether there might be validity in making sure that the links between some protesters and much more extreme right-wing groups might be worth spelling out, but this article probably isn't the place for that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If, according to Amorals, it's "gratuitous" to note a poll commissioned by the Detroit Chamber of Commerce (hardly a hotbed of liberalism) found that 57 percent of Michiganders approve of Whitmer's response to the coronavirus pandemic, then it's certainly irrelevant that 4,000 people (0.04 percent of Michigan's population) protested her response. You can't logically argue for one without the other - NPOV requires that we include all relevant points of view balanced by their prominence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we keep both elements in. The 57% can be couched in a way that relates to the protest and providing balance. I won't immediately go back to that edit, but will think about it overnight. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not willing to engage in a revert-war over Amorals' removal; if they're not willing to have a balanced and NPOV discussion of the issue, then we'll just have to have no discussion at all until there's consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your comment above is extremely self-centered. The editing of the article will go on with or without you. You can decide not to participate, that is your choice. This discussion is not about you. It is about the article. You clearly admit in your edit summary that you removed the information as retaliation for Amorals edit. That is not the way the process is supposed to work. For example, you removed my addition and you claimed, falsely, that the only source for the material was the Washington Free Beacon. But that was not true. The main source for the contact tracking info is the Washington Post, a reliable source. I cited Newsweek and FOX News also. But you removed it anyway with the specious argument that there was no reliable source. You are engaging in an edit war and you need to stop.CharlesShirley (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the attempt to blanketly delete the entirety of the paragraph when the incident it documents has been widely-documented and found to have spurred similar protests nationwide by a number of reliable sources, is a bad move. The Boston Massacre only resulted in 5 deaths, but nonetheless, what it helped kickstart stretches far beyond the initial incident itself, thus deserves to be documented. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's quite simple: NPOV demands that we reflect all significant points of view. In a section about Whitmer's response to the coronavirus crisis, if it's a significant point of view that 0.04 percent of Michigan residents decided to protest Whitmer's handling of the coronavirus crisis, it's also a significant point of view that polling indicates that a majority of people in Michigan support Whitmer's handling of the coronavirus crisis. Plain and simple, you can't have one without the other. I have added several more sources which reflect that viewpoint, including the Detroit News and national political newspaper The Hill. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against your intentions to submit a poll into the article. My issue derived from you deleting the paragraph entirely for what seems to have been for no reason. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems this issue has grown to a stalemate and should maybe see to having other users chime in, may I suggest we open up an RfC? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Might be a good idea anyway. I might take a look at what we have (and had) later and see if I can brush some things up for now unless anyone objects? If I take things too far one way or the other then I'd have no problem with being reverted by anyone who's prepared to move towards a consensus. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBarnof you are delving into personal analysis, i.e. original research in attempting to extrapolate what % of the population participated in the protests. We merely are recording what happened. Your attempts to inject approval ratings statistics or include criticism of the protests is what will ironically violate WP:NPOV, which is what you are concerned about. As it stands now, we are just saying what happened and not passing any judgement on whether the protests were good or bad. That is the encyclopedic way to do it. Amorals (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Health tracing paragraph - notable?

So, apparently, (per this edit summary) this needs to be discussed here. I have significant concerns about the nature of many of the sources in this paragraph, especially the Free Beacon. Might I suggest that, if this is considered at all notable (and I'm not convinced as yet that it is - it seems a bit too recentest for my liking) that we adopt some more neutral sourcing? Newsweek seems fine, and there's an article in the Detroit News - I can't find a balancing one in the Freep but don't have my VLE fired up so can't access much of it just now. A rather more neutral tone to the start of the paragraph would also be helpful I think - it seems to blow it out of proportion a little. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that this warrants inclusion with a better source like Newsweek. I encourage Charles Shirley (original editor) to re-insert his edit but with more encyclopedic wording (as blue square thing pointed out). Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I remain rather unconvinced that this is actually all that notable - certainly in terms of inclusion in this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s been covered by RS and relates to an important subject (coronavirus pandemic) about a figure that has gained notable coverage. Seems very appropriate to include. If not in “this” article, then where?Amorals (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly more relevant at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Michigan? I think I'd like to see if this sticks in the news at all first though. Lots of things are covered by RS and are related to important subjects, but we don't include everything. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You might have problems with the sources but that is false issue. The Washington Post (WP: Whitmer cancels contract) has written a long article detailing the problems with Whitmer's administration's handling of the contact tracing, by hiring a partisan, political strategy firm. It has been covered by CNN.com by Chris Cillizza (Cillizza: Whitmer takes hit). It has been covered by ABC News ("Later Tuesday, Whitmer's administration abruptly canceled a contract with a firm one day after it was tapped to help track down contacts of infected people. The GOP had complained the company is owned by a Democratic consultant who planned to also use software developed by a firm with ties to Democratic campaigns.") It has also been covered by FOX News which is a reliable source. It has been covered by Newsweek, a reliable source. It has been covered by Detroit Metro Times, Detroit News, Deadline Detroit, WDRB.com, CRAINS Detroit, the Daily Mail UK, Washington Times, The Daily Wire, WBCK-FM, Michigan Information & Research Service, Ricochet.com, San Jose Mercury News, the Edwardsville (IL) Intelligencer, Associated Press, on and on. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This topic is a significant issue for Whitmer and it needs to be in the article because it is not only a important story in Whitmer's life, but it is an important story in the national COVID-19 debate and since she is on Biden's short list for Vice-President it is an important story in the Presidential race. It should not be removed from the article without good reason and a good reason has not been presented yet. The only argument for the removal is that it is not supported by reliable sources and that has been shown to be a false issue. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The only argument at first by NorthBySouth and then by BlueSquare is that there was not reliable source. That was a false argument. The Washington Post is a reliable source. Also, Cillizza at CNN has pointed out that this this story has Whitmer's chances at becoming Biden's VP running mate. This is not a COVID-19 story, but a story that has impacted Whitmer's life directly and any attempts to keep it out of the article is wrong. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, I don't think there's any attempt to keep it out of the article. Given the way the paragraph was initially presented and its use of very obviously partisan sources, I think it's reasonable to ask the question. Recentism is also a valid reason for asking questions - if it has a wider impact than a single new cycle then, sure, it might go in. Otherwise we'll end up including every time that anyone criticises her for doing something - which ends up being silly.

Now, we have the Post article - which seems very short, but then I may not be able to view any of it from where I am. I'm sure that at least some of the other sources will be towards the more reliable end of the spectrum - I'm entirely happy with using the Detroit News, for example, although I'd like to see that being balanced with a less right-wing source such as the Free Press - but I'll need to fire up my VPN to get to see very much else and can't do that and edit Wikipedia at the same time... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No. No. No. BlueSquareThing, what you say above is just not correct. Cillizza in the CNN article points that the Washington Post was the FIRST newspaper to report this story. You attempt to paint the Post story as if it came along later after the Washington Free Beacon or Newsweek or FOX News. That is a false claim. Also, you state that the Washington Post article is short, it is not, in any way. That is flat out wrong. You even admit you haven't read the Post article. The Post article is over 1000 words, over 14 paragraphs. It is a long, significant article that talks about many things about Whitmer other than the contact tracking problems. You need to read the reliable source before you comment on it.CharlesShirley (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No. What you just stated is flat out wrong. It is NOT just the Washington Post article, but it is also ABC News, FOX News, CNN, Detroit News, San Jose Mercury News and Newsweek. It is a whole bunch of reliable sources. You and NorthBySouth went by my personal talk page and made the false argument that I was relying only on the Washington Free Beacon. It was a false argument from the beginning. You and NorthBySouth removed the valid, relevant, important information even after I cited the Newsweek article and the FOX News article. There was never, ever a reliable source issue for you to remove the information. CNN has correctly pointed out that this story has an impact on Whitmer's life directly, by lowering her chances to become Biden's VP. It is effecting the national Presidential election. You have not presented any reason so far--either here or inappropriately on my talk page--why the information should be out of the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed nothing. Of the sources you eventually included, I'd credit Newsweek as being balanced, but I'd want some balance to the others that were in the article - the Freep article is a good way to balance this against the News, for example. Given that this diff of yours redid edits that only used the Free Beacon as a source, I sort of think you might need to make sure you work on balance in the first instance - particularly as your edit summary specifically argues that the Free Beacon is a reliable source. It's about balance. Everything is. It doesn't matter if you like her or dislike her, balance your sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed CNN just wrote another piece about this. The momentum on this story has only increased not decreased. Charles Shirley you should go ahead and restore your additions. If more editors have an issue with this and present more compelling reasons, then this can be addressed in a more official capacity, for now you should go ahead and include. Amorals (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of Bsubprime7. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Chris Cillizza of CNN agrees with us that this story is important and that it is a national issue and the arguments to bury it are wrong. Cillizza wrote: "That sort of rapid walk-back is a reflection of two facts: 1) Whitmer knows her administration screwed up. 2) Whitmer knows she is very much in the national spotlight these days. And she's right about both!" Cillizza knows notable when he sees it. There is simply zero reasons to keep this important topic out of the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said it should be kept out of the article entirely. What has been expressed is a strong concern with ensuring appropriate tone, balance, neutrality, and sourcing. In addition, due weight applies - given the brevity of this biography, devoting extensive paragraphs to a single news cycle is inappropriate. We are in no hurry here, there is no deadline - we can come to a consensus on an appropriately-worded and balanced addition, and then add it to the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note the new 1RR sanction

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fix the damn roads

There is no mention that her entire campaign focused on fixing the damn roads. During the campaign her opponent bill Schuette accused her of planning a 20+ cent gas tax to pay for her road plan, which he flat out labeled ridiculous in the debate. After taking office she then proposed a gas tax that was roughly double the number Schuette accused her of planning. To date, she has accomplished nothing towards fixing the damn roads. She did however cancel the Pure Michigan marketing campaign, a highly successful campaign that returned $9 for every $1 invested in marketing Michigan’s biggest industry. ErwinMFletcher (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph under tenure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Section needs removal

"The protests were criticized as illogical and incoherent; Charlie Warzel of The New York Times described them as "a twisted, paranoid and racialized" event pushed by conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones. Polling by the Detroit Regional Chamber in mid-April found that 57% of Michigan residents approve of Whitmer's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, including the extension. The family of the first child to die of coronavirus in Michigan expressed support for Whitmer's decision to extend the stay-at-home order, and noted that social distancing would save lives. LaVondria Herbert, the child's mother, said "I want to say thank you to the governor for making people go home."

This is bordering on parody-levels. How is this relevant to the incident at all? Clearly this section needs heavy revision if it has allowed this kind of tripe to pass through its gates. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, maybe it does. I never got around to it this last weekend - stuff got in the way. I'll see what I can do, but it might be worthwhile acquainting yourself with the rest of the talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely you can see how badly-written and non-WP:NPOV this is, though. The end bit is especially egregious, Wikipedia is here to document, but you don't cherry-pick reactions to facilitate a point. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No this addition is not NPOV, badly-written, especially egregious, bordering on parody-levels, irrelevant tripe written to kiss Whitmer's ass. It can use some trimming but is basically appropriate for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So did you mean to blank out my comment or is this just the kind of etiquette I should expect from the editors here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So sorry--I have no idea how I happened to delete you. Thanks to the editor that fixed it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You might find Help:Page history helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss a small protest against Whitmer's coronavirus policies, NPOV and DUE require that we provide all relevant viewpoints. If it's relevant that a few thousand people showed up at the statehouse to protest, it is also relevant that scientific polling suggests that most Michiganders support Whitmer's actions, and that the protests have been criticized in mainstream sources. You can't have one without the other. That's basically what NPOV demands - Views of a tiny minority (the protestors) cannot be presented unchallenged or as if they are more than what they are. So yes, some folks protested against Whitmer's policies. Other folks criticized the protests and specifically supported Whitmer's policies. That appears to be the predominant viewpoint, and as such policy requires that it be given more prominence and space than the minority one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You're telling me using the testimony of the mother of a dead child in favor of Whitmer isn't breaking neutrality? Its clearly an appeal toward emotion, and I'm going to sound like a bastard for going against its inclusion but that's exactly why it shouldn't be here. It pushes the narrative in favor of Whitmer, thus rendering any sense of NPOV null. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean everything sounds exactly neutral. NPOV means what it says - representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you think it's not a "significant view" that the mother of a child who died from coronavirus supports Whitmer's actions to prevent the spread of coronavirus... well, take that up with the multiple reliable sources which published articles discussing her point of view ranging from Fox News to PoliceOne (her parents are a police officer and a firefighter). Your personal opinion that it's clearly an appeal toward emotion is not relevant. Wikipedia articles are not required to be devoid of emotion. Whether or not it pushes the narrative in favor of Whitmer is up to the reader. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Further: there are not two equal sides to every story, and Wikipedia is not required to pretend that there are. If it seems to you that the mother of a child who died of coronavirus urging people to stay home and prevent the spread of coronavirus is a more compelling message than a few thousand angry people parking trucks in front of the capitol building because they can't get their hair styled... well, maybe that's because it is more compelling. We're not going to remove that compelling message just because it might possibly make the other side look petty and small by comparison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the Tenure section doesn't need to be removed, however the article should also include some sample commentary defending the protests published in reliable sources. 68.0.205.15 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree this is written like a parody, but it just needs to be rephrased, not removed. Yes, sure, they were right-wing protesters, etc. But the page does not say what they protested against, like the prohibition to travel to another own house within the state, etc. Or consider this, just today. Well, this is simply ridiculous. Having problems in only one state park does not mean that all parks in the state must be closed. Same with a lot of other establishments. She seem to be looking for the easiest (for her) solution in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your personal disagreement with Whitmer's policies is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant is that they have widespread public support in Michigan. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, as cited article tells, "More than 80% of Michigan respondents support limiting public gatherings and closing schools and daycare centers, while 78% support closing restaurants and bars." As about other specific measures (for example, prohibiting certain types of travel within the state), I did not see any opinion data. The parks generally remained open. Closing all parks right now would be against her promises made just a few days ago [1], so one can wonder would that be supported. But I think this paragraph is better right now. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I partly self-reverted because this madness by right-wing demonstrators escalated [2] and probably deserves more coverage, even on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You know we're supposed to demonstrate good faith in our intentions, describing these protests as "madness by right-wing demonstrators" seems cut-and-dry regarding a violation of that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This continue [3]. Well, everyone is entitled to their rights, unless these rights endanger lives of other people. For example, blindly shooting in all directions in a city would be forbidden. Same is here. With this disease, not wearing a mask while speaking with other people at a close distance endanger their lives, not yours, even if you were tested negative yesterday. Freedom to kill others at will? We are not there yet. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

does it matter that the family of the first child to die of covid supports whitmer?

not gonna fix it because i don't want to make an account/push things as far as neutrality goes, but I fail to see how that factoid is significant 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.203.217 (talk)

I believe it's there for balance as the section includes quotes from the anti-sheltering protesters. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It matters at least as much as it matters that a couple thousand people showed up to protest against Whitmer's public health orders. If we're going to discuss their viewpoint, it's incumbent on us to provide other viewpoints as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 subheading needs total revision

So I've been holding my tongue regarding this article and have left it for a short period of time, upon returning, however, its clear its in an even worse state of affairs than it was two weeks ago when I last made an observation.

First things first, "Covid-19 epidemic leadership". Where do I start.

• COVID-19, not Covid-19.
• It hasn't been an epidemic in several weeks, even the "main article" link acknowledges this.
• "leadership" is clearly implying praise on her part, we don't do this for Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo, for instance. In fact, this article can take example from Cuomo's, who has undoubtedly received greater media coverage regarding this pandemic than Whitmer ever has. Let's take a look at Cuomo's:

"In 2020, Cuomo received widespread praise from epidemiologists for his handling of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic in New York State, which includes a state-wide lockdown and a shutdown of non-essential businesses in an effort to help flatten the curve of the virus. Like many other national leaders, however, Cuomo also received criticism for apparently failing to grasp the gravity of the pandemic before its risks were fully visible to the American public."

Short and sweet, evenhanded, and get's the point across. Getting back to this article, it's a total mess, any reader who gets on this article and reads, "The protests were described as "twisted, paranoid and racialized", pushed by conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones," is going to go, "Gee, I'm guessing whoever added that has a strong opinion regarding this." I forgot Wikipedia was the place where we use opinion articles as citations now.

Then we jump a few lines below and we're graced with this.

"In late March, Whitmer gained national attention when Trump was reported to have told Vice President Mike Pence, "don't call the woman in Michigan", ostensibly in response to Whitmer's earlier criticisms of the Trump administration's initial response to the crisis. Whitmer responded by embracing that description of her, including wearing a "That Woman from Michigan" T-shirt on an April 1 Daily Show interview with Trevor Noah. In late April, Saturday Night Live comedian Cecily Strong portrayed Whitmer in a skit that referenced both the Trump incident and the Lansing protests. In May, Detroit rap artist GMAC Cash released "Big Gretch", a song praising Whitmer's response to the pandemic in Michigan."

Is it possible to be more irrelevant and inconsequential? SNL skits and a rap group that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page are the most unencyclopedic things you could ever think of to put into this kind of article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, its apparent this article is being edited by a small number of editors, roughly the same two or three, so an RfC should be relatively uncontroversial in acquiring further analysis regarding the violations present in this section of the article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What version of subsection do you suggest? Please post it here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be bold and perform my version on the article itself now, we'll see how that takes. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've edited it here, I've stripped it of fluff, irrelevant quotations from random opinion columnists, and the numbers of protestors which seemingly compelled other editors to insert such NPOV-breaking material as a dying child's testimony if favor of Whitmer. I left such material as the judge issuing his ruling, as this is something worthy of inclusion, and the T-shirt fiasco even though I don't see the point of this at all as it was originally described as getting "national attention" when I guarantee it didn't. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been further bold - 4,000 protestors in a state of 10 million people who demonstrably overwhelmingly support Whitmer is likely not relevant either, and I think the T-shirt thing is less than profound. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good move on the T-shirt, but the protestors need to be included whether you personally think they represent the majority or not. It received significant media coverage to justify it, plus you left the judge's decision, which is related to the protestors as it is. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the judge's decision is a legal order in a court of law, and is inherently relevant - it's not a "rebuttal" to protestors, it's an impartial jurist declaring what is and is not legal. If we're going to include discussion of a small protest, we'll also need to include the widespread criticism of the protest and that other people supported Whitmer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to remain calm here, so I'd like it if you did too. The judge made that decision explicitly because the protests and backlash against Whitmer occurred; we're definitely not including the dying child's mother just so Whitmer gets to have an emotional appeal. If you think 3,000-4,000 protestors are a minority, what are they then? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to accept my compromise, I object to your bold changes, have reverted them to status quo ante, and it's now incumbent on you to discuss and gain consensus for them. We can't discuss a small protest against Whitmer without mentioning that the protestors were widely criticized in reliable sources and that other people supported Whitmer. It's simple NPOV and due weight - a small minority viewpoint cannot be presented as if it's a majority one, and it's clear that the protestors are among the minority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC

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

---

Briefly summarizing, a disagreement has arose regarding content within the COVID-19 subheading of Whitmer's article. Most of my points have already been established regarding why it needs major revision above, but I'll quickly restate myself starting with the subheading itself:

• COVID-19, not Covid-19.
• It hasn't been an epidemic in several weeks, even the "main article" link acknowledges this.
• "leadership" is clearly implying praise on her part, we don't do this for Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo, for instance. In fact, this article can take example from Cuomo's, who has undoubtedly received greater media coverage regarding this pandemic than Whitmer ever has.

Now, NorthBySouthBaranof has argued against the inclusion of the protestors, claiming they are a "small minority viewpoint". Despite this, he agrees to include the judge's decision, which is inherently linked to the protests, and aren't even in favor of the protests as it is. When I brought it back for the shake of context, NorthBySouth decided to bring back the emotional appeal of a dead child's mother's testimony. Not only does this affect the NPOV of this article, it contradicts NorthBySouth regarding what constitutes a "small minority viewpoint".

I propose we revert back to my edit here excluding the SNL and rap group fluff, which we both agreed is irrelevant already. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is a malformed RfC request. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, you suppose to suggest your version on talk and discuss it with others prior to RfC posting. You did not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We did discuss it, and its been discussed prior weeks back as well. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• A valid RFC must neutrally present the dispute; this clearly does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• What is the question we are meant to !vote on and discuss? This should be withdrawn, rephrased and restarted as a clear RfC in a new section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Its quite simple if you read the above comment, you're !voting on whether we should be implementing the revision I previously implemented as opposed to the current one. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That your version? It has little to do with your suggested changes posted above. Why did you remove that she had support by the people? My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that revision has a wide number of changes which have nothing to do with your statement above. I agree that the section header can be rephrased and amended, I agree that some level of the pop culture stuff can be trimmed down, etc. However, I do not agree that we can mention a small protest of 3-4,000 people without mentioning a) who organized the protest (a conservative political group) and b) that the protest was criticized in reliable sources. Additionally, if we are going to include opposition to Whitmer's policies (as expressed in the protest), NPOV demands that we also include appropriately-weighted support of her policies - otherwise it presents an unfair and unrepresentative picture. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Below is my proposed re-write of the section. Basically, this version describes: Guv's order; fact of protests; polling data; and Trump comment and Whitmer response. Excluded are the various back-and-forth politcal expressions of support and opposition, which tend to be self-reinforcing and endless.

In March 2020 Whitmer issued a stay-at-home order in response to the coronavirus pandemic.[39] A poll that month found that 69% of Michigan residents supported Whitmer's actions.[40] After the governor extended and tightened the restrictions in April,[41][42] an eight-hour protest against the restrictions organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition and co-hosted by the Michigan Freedom Fund[43][44] attracted between 3,000 and 4,000 protesters to the Michigan State Capitol.[45][46][47] On April 29 a Michigan judge upheld Whitmer's order against a legal challenge, ruling that "Our fellow residents have an interest to remain unharmed by a highly communicable and deadly virus."[49] Polling by the Detroit Regional Chamber in mid-April found that 57% of Michigan residents approved of Whitmer's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, including the extension.[1][2][3][4] In late March, Whitmer gained national attention when President Trump was reported to have told Vice President Mike Pence, "don't call the woman in Michigan" in response to Whitmer's earlier criticisms of the Trump administration's initial response to the crisis.[51][52] Whitmer responded by wearing a "That Woman from Michigan" T-shirt on an April 1 Daily Show interview with Trevor Noah.

DonFB (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You say that you have "excluded the various back-and-forth political expressions of support and opposition." What, pray tell, is the protest, if not a political expression of opposition? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: my comment refers to pro and con statements about the protest itself, not the gov policy. You dismiss my effort with: 'not acceptable'. What modification would you propose to my suggested version? DonFB (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The protest itself is a public statement of opposition about the government policy. We cannot discuss it without discussing the fact that it was widely criticized (WP:DUE), and we also must include balancing statements of public support for Whitmer's stay-at-home order, as are included in the prior stable version - notably the description of the protests as "twisted, paranoid and racialized", pushed by conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and the statement from the mother of the first child victim of COVID-19 in the state. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There were more protests, even today, but the protesters have been generally described as Anti-vaccine and conspiracy activists, sadly supported by the President, which made them more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It was criticized by liberal pundits and supported by conservative pundits. Baranof, you seem to want to include only commentary that criticizes the protests, to the exclusion of supporting commentary. We do not need to rehash that kind of point-counterpoint material (Alex Jones, mother of the victim, etc, etc) in this section, or we will be in UNDUE territory for this article. Nor do we need the long-winded description of the protest (blocking traffic, etc). As far as a counterpoint to the protest, describing the opinion polls supporting the governor is sufficient. If you want all that additional political type material, you can start a new article (suggested: Michigan Pandemic Protests), which would be fine with me, although some editors might say it's a Coatrack; but I'd be ok with it. More protests have occurred; we can cover that--briefly--but trying to include contentious dueling political commentary will overload this section and should be excluded, or covered in a separate article. DonFB (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking about "the opposite side", I think it is worth including the opinion by Donald Trump about her and protesters. "Conservative pundits" - which ones? Probably not. The description of the protest, yes, it is highly notable that a group with assault weapons occupied the local legislature building - this should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Conservative commentary is not hard to find, if you look. I previously included a comment from a Federalist pundit to balance the Warzel quote. The better solution is avoid that type of potentially endless political tit-for-tat in a single section of an article about a governor. State the basic facts: protests occurred; opinion polls showed support for the governor. Split off a new article if you want more in-depth coverage of the political battles. DonFB (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I take note that the conservative balancing quote has since been cut. My choice is to leave out such dueling commentary from this section, but I'm inclined to add back that quote for balance, if there is no agreement to exclude all such hot air. DonFB (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What you included [4] was not about protesters, but an attack on the governor by website known to promote misinformation about the pandemic [5]. But I agree, it is debatable what should be included on this page and what on the page about the pandemic in Michigan. At the very least, one should say here who these protesters were; there is no really a controversy about it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The section currently identifies the groups supporting the protests. The Warzel quote one-sidedly endeavors to generalize condemnation of the protest. I repeat: state the basic facts: protests occurred; opinion polls showed support for the governor. Contending opinions from media organs is gratuitous material in this section. It belongs, if anywhere, in the Michigan/pandemic article. DonFB (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That does not comply with due weight and gives equal validity to unequal positions in a manner which creates false balance. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. It is clear that the view of the protestors is that of a minority, and a fairly small minority at that. Our article must reflect that, and give greater prominence and space to the view that Whitmer's actions were proper, appropriate, lawful, and necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason to eliminate excessive description about cars circling and backing up traffic, and, for that matter, including the names of the promoting groups. Suffice it to say that protest(s) by a few thousand people occurred and that a judge upheld the orders and public opinion polls supported the governor. Dispense with media commentary; there's no end to it. Readers who want to know what media pundits thought of the protests can find it easily enough; it could also be included in an article devoted exclusively to the pandemic in Michigan, not stuffed into this single section of an article about a governor. DonFB (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you reread my suggested text above, you'll see that it does not offer "false balance". It includes a single sentence that a protest by 3-4 thousand occurred; the remainder of the text deals with opinion polls; judge's decision, with quotation; and Trump-Whitmer back-and-forth. There's no false balance there. DonFB (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Our article must . . . give greater prominence and space to the view that Whitmer's actions were proper, appropriate, lawful, and necessary." It seems to me this article is a victim of WP:ACTIVIST, where we are dealing with editors clearly harboring goals of making the article's topic look as good as possible. I think the suggestions by DonFB have been overall good proposals, we don't need to forcibly insert a narrative that makes Whitmer look better than her dissenters because you don't agree with them yourself. We're not here to cater to your ideological views. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

She made many actions and a few of them might not be necessary, but speaking about her actions in general, yes, they have been supported by ~80% of population as sources say, and this is just a matter of fact. As about the protesters, yes, sure, they are looking really bad on photos with attack weapons occupying the state building. But this has nothing to do with our editing here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like our policies. But our policies are clear. We cannot present the minority position of the protestors as if it deserves as much space or credence as the majority of view of those who support the stay-at-home orders. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't performed a study, but it may be true that more liberal pundits condemned the march protest than conservative pundits supported it. Nevertheless, the Warzel quotation is pulling more than its weight. If you want Warzel's words to stand in for a general condemnation of the march, more than a single reference to his opinion piece will be needed to support that summation, which exists now in the text. I have found a couple of different comments by well-known conservative pundits supporting the protest (not the Federalist quote), which I'm prepared to add, in order to show that a contrary and reliably-sourced opinion exists about it. However, as I've stated, I believe this paragraph, and the article, will be better served by excluding such point-counterpoint verbiage. The facts are simple and can be stated as such with no need for an overlay of dueling punditry: the governor issued an order; a group of people protested; and opinion polls and a judge supported the governor. Yes, more could be said about who disliked the protest and who liked it, but need not, because I see no implication in the text that the protest is equally weighted with the opinion polls or the judge's order. It's simply an event that happened, but one worth reporting. Two points about the protest itself that should be considered for modifying the text: 1) the protest seems to have been the first sizeable one of its kind (more than a handful of people), which is what makes it worth mentioning; and 2) the description needs improvement to make clear that protesters were supposed to remain in their cars, but some got out--the wording "with an estimated 100–150 people protesting on the ground" is an unclear and confusing way to explain those circumstances. More straightforward text is needed, such as: "Organizers intended that protesters should remain in their cars, but about 100-150 people got out of their vehicles." DonFB (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we need to develop better the content about protesters. But how exactly? Your point 1) - I agree. Your point 2) "protesters were supposed to remain in their cars, but some got out--the wording" -yes, that was 1st protest, but a few other, more important protests have followed. See here, here, here, etc. This is armed protest ("Michigan Militia Puts Armed Protest in the Spotlight"). See photo here, published everywhere. That is what really notable and should be described. If you want to suggest your version of this, please post it here for discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the actions, taken collectively, should be more vividly described. I've been arguing somewhat in retrograde, without much consideration for the subsequent protests. The open carrying should definitely be mentioned, in accordance with sources. And that's the important point: let's focus on describing what the sources say actually happened, without trying to give chapter and verse of the pundit pronouncements. We could, conceivably, include a (single) summarizing sentence with supporting sources to the effect that: "Liberal pundits decried the protests, while conservatives supported them." I would continue to urge that we not start directly quoting what each side in the punditocracy said about the action, because it's overkill for this section of this article. DonFB (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it needs restructuring. Thanoscar21 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not that restructuring. Such edit did not provide any balance. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC request - Agree with comments above about this being a poorly done RfC. If the question is, "should there be a subsection about COVID in this article?", I think the answer is no. It would seem to be either WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Malformed, and obviously, Abort. Please read the RfC guidelines about neutrality in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous to attempt to abort, over a formatting error? Or some perceived bias cause I was too forthcoming? We've engaged in a fruitful discussion because of the RfC I've placed here, which was more than anything prior with regards to its former enclave of editors. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: Where does COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan say that It hasn't been an epidemic in several weeks? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Try replying to where I actually said that next time, otherwise I don't have time to participate in whatever petty scrabble you're trying to incite right now. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: You said that right up there in the initial description of this very RfC. Nice talking to you, too. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

opening vp convo with Biden campaign

A CBS article mentions that Gretchen has been in touch with Bidens campaign and has had an opening conversation about consideration about being considered for vice-pres, I just didnt know where to add it in since the formatting is a little odd on this article, I didnt know whether it would fit into an already made section or if a new one should be formed. I do care about formatting a bit so wanted to check with you all here first. Let me know your thoughts, I think its noteworthy, definitely if she formally gets asked, but let me know.Eruditess (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't add it unless it becomes official, anything else would be WP:CRYSTAL. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Kidnapping plot" : current event banner ?

Should the section regarding the kidnapping plot not display:

--JBchrch (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Family background

What is her familiy background? German? Israeli? Or both? - Or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C129:3F00:4921:B380:861B:D978 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In general, we don't include such information unless it is important to the notability. WP:BLP WP:EGRS
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the name Gretchen is of German origin (based on a character of Goethe's Faust). --46.114.2.183 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Americans also can read Goethe, and don't pay a lot of attention to ethnicity of names. "William" is supposedly Germanic, but I'm simply named after grandfathers. William (of Clan Fraser of Lovat), and there's not even a hint of Germanic ancestry. Allens have been in the US since pre-revolutionary times, Vermont through upstate NY to Michigan. We're self-identified as Scottish, although my maternal grandmother was a Canadian of most likely English descent. Trying to discern descent by name is foolish.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-authoritarian and anarchist"

Can someone revert this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.32.163 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It has already been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

The main photo is low quality and unprofessional, I think she deserves Wikipedia using her official state headshot. Andrewjbacker (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I could not find the official state headshot while taking an – admittedly brief – look at Wikimedia Commons. If it exists already, could you please link to it? If it doesn't, feel free to upload a suitably licensed photo and open another request. Thanks and best wishes, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Blablubbs and Andrewjbacker: found these on Commons, which appear to be fairly good ones, what do you think? File:Gretchen Whitmer (cropped).jpg, File:Governor Gretchen Whitmer.jpg, File:Gretchen Whitmer Portrait.jpg. Seagull123 Φ 17:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Seagull123, my toughts here would be that

• File:Governor Gretchen Whitmer.jpg is probably too small to be cropped and only shows her profile
• File:Gretchen Whitmer Portrait.jpg doesn't all that sharp to me,
• which would leave File:Gretchen Whitmer (cropped).jpg – whether that would be an improvement over the current image I'm not entirely sure.

The official portrait, as suggested by Andrewjbacker, might also be an option, but I'm not sure whether MI releases those into the public domain. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, is this it (here)? Seagull123 Φ 20:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Seagull123, that is the official portrait, but per Michigan.gov is for personal and non-commercial use only. You may not modify, copy, distribute, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, sell, or transfer information, products, or services obtained from Michigan.gov unless the law otherwise provides or the State gives you prior written permission. here, it seems to not be under a suitable license. If someone wants to, requesting explicit permission might be an option. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Since no replacement for the current photo has been found, I am closing this edit request. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"See Also" link to non-existent "Impeachment Proceedings" article

The article currently contains a link to a non-existent article about impeachment proceedings against Whitmer. There are three issues with this:

1. There is no point in specifically creating a place for a link to a non-existent article. It does not help the reader gain any information.

2. As of November 19th, 2020 there have not been any "impeachment proceedings" per se and it is not clear if there will be any. A motion was introduced to the Michigan House but it's not clear whether that motion will gain any traction given that it is apparently not broadly supported within Republicans, not to mention Democrats.

3. Any proposed or ongoing impeachment proceedings against Whitmer are not mentioned in the main article, so there is no introduction into the topic.

For these reasons I feel that it is premature to have a "see also" link for a non-existent article about impeachment proceedings. If and when any such proceedings occur, they may merit their own article and corresponding mention in this one.

Until then, it may be reasonable to, at most, briefly mention that some members of the Michigan state House have introduced a motion concerning impeachment proceedings which has yet to advance through the legislative process: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/18/whitmer-impeachment-resolution-introduced-but-key-republicans-oppose/3767778001/.

104.13.110.123 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The link to the nonexistent article has been removed. There should never be a "see also" link to an article that doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, it was dead on arrival. Added better references.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment resolution of November 2020

Various editors have proposed qualification to the subsection title. Another (apparently teenaged) editor keeps removing them, usually with a non-specific edit summary such as 'ce'. Or no summary at all.

The Governor has not been impeached. This resolution was "introduced" (the technical term), a mere announcement without substance. It has not so far been assigned a committee. It is not expected to have any action during the lame duck session. There are no "proceedings". There are only 3 sponsors, and no co-sponsors, of 110 house members. The leaders of the house and senate have denounced it as shameful.

As the consensus of editors has indicated, the unqualified subsection title of "Impeachment" or "Impeachment resolution" shall not stand. Further such edits will be reported as vandalism.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Today, AlsoWukai reverted all the changes of the day (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown), 25 hours after her/his last revert. Note the edit summary was merely 'ce'. This caused several important changes to be removed, and also restored mistakes of her/his previous edits that had individually been noted in my edit summaries:

• restore the date
• these are Republican Party members
• a resolution is 'it' not 'them'
• other trivial changes such as verb tense that are important to understanding the current state. The legislature is only temporarily adjourned, not yet adjourned sine die. Apparently, AlsoWukai is not well informed as to legislative procedures and practices.

In the past, AlsoWukai has removed qualifications from the subsection title discussed here, and various other edits, with only the edit summary of ce:

1. ce
2. ce
3. ce
4. ce
5. ce
6. ce
7. ce
8. ce

Etc.

Many of the edits do nothing to improve the article, resulting in run-on sentences, possessives where they are not normally present, and elision of important contextual words such as "kidnapping". Almost childlike. Not formal encyclopedic style.

Although AlsoWukai (talk · contribs) and Wukai (talk · contribs) have been previously suspended fairly recently, I've posted the user warning vandalism level 2 on her/his Talk. Assume Good Faith, etc.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Them" refers to calls for impeachment, not impeachment. There is no difference between Republican Party members and Republicans. None of my other edits, certainly not the ones you list, make errors of the kind you describe. For example, I deleted the word "kidnapping" from "kidnapping plot" because it was redundant; the plot had already been described. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have restored Wukai's edit as I feel that they improved the reading of this article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This so-called ce is introducing nonsense that is not supported by refs.

1. The references do not refer to the "calls" for impeachment as shameful, they refer to the impeachment resolution itself: "shameful what the Democrats did to President Trump last year".
2. Separating "Republican" from "Party" in this context is not correct, especially as we in Michigan call "Milliken Republicans" who now vote for the Democratic Party. Specifying that they are party hacks is more correct. Yes, those of us in the community use the phrase "party hacks". It doesn't mean what you think it means.
3. And most importantly, as yet there is no impeachment. That's why multiple editors have called for a qualifier on the subsection title.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's rather strange, that we don't have Impeachment resolution as sub-heading in the Mike DeWine article. Both governors have faced virtually the same situation. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I was removed when some of the information was challenged. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This subsection is now removed. It was never "resolved" by the legislature, therefore was not a "resolution". The companion article was deleted.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson: someone has restored it. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sadly, some folks won't take no for an answer. After the RfD, we can have another RFC here.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@William Allen Simpson: I have actually never heard of an Afd "delete" resulting in a section on another article being deleted. I only thought an Afd "Delete" meant the article in question was deleted and was considered not notable enough for a stand alone article. Could possibly post something that shows the result being a delete on another article (Not Gretchen Whitmer obviously). Thanks Elijahandskip (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The redirect to this section has been deleted. The former section and heading have been deleted by many editors.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed text

On November 18, 2020, three Republican members of the Michigan House of Representatives introduced House Resolution No. 324 in an attempt to impeach Whitmer. The state senate majority leader and state house speaker (both Republicans) opposed calls for impeachment, calling them "shameful". The resolution was "dead on arrival", as the legislature was adjourned and not expected to take action in a lame-duck session.

Disruption

Please let this run its course without disruption.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Major problem with User:William Allen Simpson as it is now relevant due to a recent threat from William Allen Simpson on a similar articles discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Much to my surprise, as I'd only observed actions on Wikipedia, the administrators found that Elijahandskip was hosting attack pages on DeWine and Whitmer, an alternative Wikipedia website (and Twitter account). And a view that mainstream media, or what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources", is biased. Also, that Wikipedia is inciting racism. After discovery, the blog entries were deleted (or hidden from administrators). Don't feed the trolls. William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

DNC

How come the fact that she's vice chair of the Democratic national committee isn't in the infobox? SRD625 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary? It's a small thing, it's not a publicly elected office, and the infobox is meant to show at-a-glance items, not every last detail in the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s in the infobox for Keith Ellison who was the previous vice chair and also notable about that this information is not on any other Wikipedia article SRD625 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

A varying IP user (IPv6 addresses change from time to time) has repeatedly changed the honorific prefix parameter to variations of "The Honorable" and "Her Excellency".

1. 2601:406:8000:7de0:e57d:c090:c753:d90f
2. 2601:406:8000:7de0:e57d:c090:c753:d90f
3. 2601:406:8000:7de0:a4de:2585:dfed:c0b8
4. 2601:406:8000:7de0:a4de:2585:dfed:c0b8
5. 2405:201:3016:2031:10f0:e4f0:afbc:e7f5

"The Honorable" is only used in the US for former officeholders, and current judges. There are no "Excellencies".

The current Governor is always "Governor".

By convention the correct prefix as a former state Governor will always be "Governor", as "President" for former US Presidents.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; we need don't anything there. However, I did learn (after going round and round with unsourced honorific additions on various articles) that "Her Excellency" might not be so inappropriate. See the sequence of changes here, here and finally here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit of unsourced original research in the Excellency article, and only applies to what some general thought in the early 1800s. AFAICT, it was not the styling of Governor Mason himself on the legislative record. Today, the Governor's letterhead and/or signature does not contain "Excellency" or "Honorable". (See ExecutiveOrders.) The Governor is not addressed at events or on television as "Her Excellency" or "The Honorable". The Michigan Compiled Laws do not specify the word "excellency" for addressing the governor. As with US presidents and the thirteen colonies, that probably died out long ago.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect section

In the section State Legislature > House of Representatives it states that Governor Whitmer ran for office in the 1990s, that is untrue she did not run for office in 2000 as shown by this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Gretchen_Whitmer#State_House — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwaybabbee (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

The citation for citation 99's link is out of date:

Change link: "https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/what-michigan-schools-will-look-under-governor-whitmer-or-schuette" to "https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/what-michigan-schools-will-look-under-governor-whitmer-or-schuette"

Thank you ☺ Vimb20 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

The kidnapping verdict section refers to two of the federal defendants as "being acquitted on the basis of entrapment." This is not correct, the jury verdict made no finding on what basis the jury acquitted Caserta and Harris.

A more correct statement would be simply to state two of the defendants were acquitted. In fact, Judge Jonker granted a motion in limine to prevent the entrapment defense from being pursued by any of the defendants, and the only mention at the first trial to the contrary came after several defense opening statements opened the door for the Government to put on predisposition evidence, which happened outside the presence of the jury. 2603:8080:7703:9A6:3DDB:BB08:991C:5F6B (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

The statement "She has spoken against single-payer healthcare as unrealistic" is misleading and should be removed; the source only said she opposed El-Sayed's plan to pass single-payer health care in Michigan on the state level because it was unrealistic and she expressed support for the idea of Medicare For All "in concept" on the federal level in the same interview, albeit a version that allows people to keep private insurance. 72.74.36.97 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 17:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Filemon Vela Jr. is no longer a Vice Chair of the DNC. JoeRoosh (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: During her incumbency as a vice chair, she served with Vela. The fact that he resigned prior to the end of her term doesn't require notation here, as this article is not about Vela. General Ization ^Talk 03:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the early life section, please remove the Geni source provided as this is a user generated website. 2600:100C:A219:7127:B052:84F1:B47D:6776 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)