This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gretchen Whitmer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
You've got two paragraphs on her being "Big Gretch" but nothing about her mocking Catholics with the Doritos video. It's time for you to unlock this article so it can be freely edited if you're going to be very obviously biased in what's included. 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:AD35:4B0B:8165:CDC3 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit Free Press is WP:RS. As is The Guardian, but not WP:NYPOST. I assume GOPHouse.org is reliable for facts but not analysis. I don't know Catholic News Agency.
It doesn't matter whether you consider a TikTok to be notable, or not worthy of due weight, what matters are the reliable sources which have reported on the incident and the resulting large backlash from a significant population of people (in this case, Catholics). While I strive to assume good faith, it feels a bit disingenuous to try to use a DUE argument against this while there are currently two paragraphs explaining why the article subject is "Big Gretch." Here are additional sources which hopefully pass your review. And I don't care whether or not they assign shame or blame on the subject, rather that they show the incident was notable for the backlash that was generated to a sufficient degree that they reported on it.
Fox News (I usually just call them "Faux News" or "fake news") can not be used on any Wikipedia article covering politics. On Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it has been rated as unreliable on both politics and science. Unfortunately, we have not banned their coverage of other topics, such as crime. Newsweek is considered marginally reliable following 2013, because it "focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism" under the then-new ownership by the International Business Times. The Hill has been rated as "generally reliable for American politics", but it is typically of little use to us when outside their area of expertise. The Detroit News has no current rating among Wikipedia's sources. Per its main article, it is a thoroughly conservative newspaper with a long-running affiliation to the Republican Party. It has endorsed nearly every Republican presidential candidate since the 19th century, with the notable exceptions of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Dimadick (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies and essays that explicitly say that just because something happened and is sourced doesn't mean it belongs on a page. WP:RECENTISM is the key one here. It looks like this story had one 24-hour news cycle and that's it. She made a TikTok, some people were offended, and she apologized. Again I ask, so what? Why does this matter? Why should it be included? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly trying to refrain from questioning someone's good faith, so instead I'm going to request mediation, or at the least an uninvolved other party to consider this. There is no possible way that this incident is not relevant to the article subject but two paragraphs are needed explaining why she is "Big Gretch." This incident was notable enough for Trump to reference it at the Al Smith Dinner:
Please include the incident where Gretchen Whitmer fed a Doritos chip to an influencer, and the subsequent fallout. The idea is to highlight that she was heavily criticized for this, especially by Catholics. I am only including sources that are already used in the article.
My conclusion is that you want to add a nothingburger to this article because you want to highlight that she was heavily criticized for this, especially by Catholics, not because it's encyclopedic content. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already tried this spiel above at Talk:Gretchen_Whitmer#Unlock_this. Hate to break some harsh reality to you, but few people here value the opinion of a ranting IP editor. Make an account, contribute to the Wikipedia project as a whole, not just your hyper-narrow political beliefs. Then we'll talk. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant. I have provided reliable sources - sources which have been cited multiple times in the article regarding other aspects of the subject. If a politician receives significant criticism for an event, that makes it notable. I did not invent notability, but there you have it.
Attempting to gatekeep this article against an IP editor, when I have followed procedure in requesting an edit on the talk page and providing multiple sources, is in extremely bad taste.
Gatekeeping this article for political purposes, in that you intentionally leave in nonsensical positive coverage (Big Gretch) but refuse to include relevant, well-sourced negative coverage (the Doritos incident) makes this a rather blatant NPOV problem. 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:346E:AAF0:7763:4C07 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sealioning drive by POV pushers are unlikely to get their way, and this incident is so trivial that it boggles the mind to think about including it. Come back when you are prepared to uphold the Neutral point of view instead of grinding your ax. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the article? Here's just one line: "She is known for wearing deep magenta lipstick, which a Detroit makeup store, The Lip Bar, released as a product called "Big Gretch"."
So yes please, tell me why that statement is apparently not trivial, and is completely worthy of inclusion in the article, but not an incident that had such a backlash that all local and most national reliable sources reported on.
Here from the BLP noticeboard. If a politician receives significant criticism for an event, that makes it notable. – This is incorrect. Wikipedia explicitly does not include isolated criticisms per the balancing aspects rule of NPOV, especially if they're only heavily covered for a brief period of time. Sometimes people sneak them into articles, but they should be removed if this happens. I agree that the "public image" section could be cleaned up a little bit and made more concise, but that's an unrelated issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸02:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, though I would say in practice, every politician's article is filled with a criticism section. In this one, there is a "public image" section. I would say that a rather heavily covered incident that was referenced by Trump at the Al Smith dinner and drew deep criticism from Catholics in particular would be relevant to someone's public image. If the public image section was significantly cleaned up, and the "Big Gretch" fluff piece was removed completely, it would weaken my argument for inclusion of this incident. However, as long as that is in there, there is no credibility for anyone to say that this incident is not sufficiently notable or encyclopedic. 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:346E:AAF0:7763:4C07 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we need quite the level of depth we have now for Big Gretch but I'd suggest you're inadvertently making an argument for inclusion of Big Gretch. Big Gretch seems to have long term significance since as you yourself are demonstrating, it's been covered in numerous ways over the 4-5 years since it begin so seems to have long term significance. By comparison you haven't demonstrated that for the Catholic thing. While it's somewhat recent it's still been nearly 6 months, can you find any reliable secondary sources which aren't Catholic church focused which still mention this now? All of the sources you presented above some of which aren't even WP:RS (at least one's an opinion column) seem to be contemporaneous with the initial controversy. Even Trump's politicking during his campaign for president was fairly that. Has there even been a 5-6 month period since it begun where Big Gretch wasn't mentioned on at least one and probably several RS? Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
