Talk:Gretchen Whitmer

message: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note the new 1RR sanction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Second paragraph under tenure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the damn roads 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: NPOV doesn't mean everything sounds exactly neutral. NPOV means what it says - . 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  is not relevant. Wikipedia articles are not required to be devoid of emotion. Whether or not it  is up to the reader. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , 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)

text: P.S. I partly self-reverted because this madness by right-wing demonstrators escalated  and probably deserves more coverage, even on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This continue . 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)
thread_title:  Section needs removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  does it matter that the family of the first child to die of covid supports whitmer? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What version of subsection do you suggest? Please post it here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  COVID-19 subheading needs total revision 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't add it unless it becomes official, anything else would be WP:CRYSTAL. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening vp convo with Biden campaign 

message: Should the section regarding the kidnapping plot not display:
--JBchrch (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kidnapping plot" : current event banner ? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Family background 

message: Can someone revert this nonsense?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.32.163 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-authoritarian and anarchist" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, it was dead on arrival. Added better references.William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" link to non-existent "Impeachment Proceedings" article 

message: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Disruption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DNC 

message: 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".
#2601:406:8000:7de0:e57d:c090:c753:d90f
#2601:406:8000:7de0:e57d:c090:c753:d90f
#2601:406:8000:7de0:a4de:2585:dfed:c0b8
#2601:406:8000:7de0:a4de:2585:dfed:c0b8
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Honorific prefix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect section 

message: 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)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: casualdejekyll 17:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 

message: Filemon Vela Jr. is no longer a Vice Chair of the DNC. JoeRoosh (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request