Talk:Gretchen Whitmer/Archive 2

"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)

"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)

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

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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, 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)
 * , is this it (here)?  Seagull123  Φ  20:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

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:
 * ce
 * ce
 * ce
 * ce
 * ce
 * ce
 * ce
 * 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.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although and  have been previously suspended fairly recently, I've posted the user warning vandalism level 2 on her/his Talk. Assume Good Faith, etc.
 * "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.
 * 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".
 * 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.
 * 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 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * someone has restored it. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly, some folks won't take no for an answer. After the RfD, we can have another RFC here.
 * Ok. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

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

 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:41, 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.

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. &mdash; 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) William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 7 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. &mdash; 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.

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)

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


 * 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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 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.

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)