Talk:Jennifer Granholm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Michigan Jennifer Granholm is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Regarding "Controversies" and Article Quality

This article represents all that people bash Wikipedia for. It has so much opinion and bias (both ways) that it is useless as a factual resource. I would undertake to edit but as it has become a partisan battleground, I know that would be a futile waste of time.

Editors! Is there not something you can do about this?

aka andrew mcfarlane - farlane.wordpress.com 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active Neutrality

I believe in this edit to be for more reasons of non hate, However, Granholm has many broken promises// But thats now why we are here, According to http://www.redstatenetwork.com/blogs/saul_anuzis/2006/oct/21/mi_morning_update_michigan_gop_fired_up_granholm_tries_to_play_both_side_on_abortion_new_ads

1. She swings both ways on abortion. 2. She lied / got rid of school programs according to

http://www.redstatenetwork.com/blogs/saul_anuzis/2006/oct/17/mi_morning_update_granholm_lies_again_democrats_on_the_attack_ground_game_serves_as_fire_wall


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wisecup200411080913.asp

as states "This showed remarkable hypocrisy on Granholm's part, along with a heavy dose of political stupidity. Granholm, like most Democrats, is not pro-education. She's pro-teachers' unions. Early in her tenure as governor, she rejected an offer from a philanthropist to donate $200 million to open 15 new charter schools in Detroit, a city with some of the nation's worst schools. Granholm didn't dare cross the state's powerful teachers' unions or the recklessly incompetent Detroit City Council, who attacked the philanthropist as a white suburbanite who didn't understand Detroit. Instead of standing up to the anti-reform forces in her party and doing the right thing for the tens of thousands of Detroit kids who are trapped in a failed school system, she told the philanthropist and his $200 million to go pound salt. "

This is not the place to post your anti-Granholm rant. Also, using an IP address instead of a username and not signing your post is an easy way not to be taken seriously. Steelbeard1 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur that this is not the place to post a rant. However, I would like to see the more senior members of the Wikipedia community look into possible sources for these claims. I would also like to see a hyperlink to a critical site, preferably one with factual information rather than empty complaints. However, as I rarely ever edit Wikipedia, and as I cannot trust my own point of view to be neutral, I leave these decisions to the more experienced.

[edit] MEAP money

"In March 2005, Granholm sought to withhold awarding scholarships earned through the MEAP scholarship program in order to trim an estimated $9 million off the state budget. The program awards $500 college scholarships to 11th-grade students that perform well on the MEAP standardized test." I'm almost 100% sure the program awards $2,500, not $500. That's what they put on /my/ financial aid, anyway. Archtemplar 06:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Legislation

Why, exactly, is this taking such a prominent stance in Granholm's "bio"? Surely her jobs package or ANY other economic plan would be more noteworthy? Novaya havoc 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

After mulling it over, I've taken out the video game subset. Seems to be irrelevant to her term as a whole, and is just a "candy" topic for dissenters of the legislation. Revert if necessary, but it seems wildly out of place. Novaya havoc 16:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to Lt. Governor John Cherry currently links to an Australian politician. This should probably be changed.

Why does it seem that a different standard exists when compiling and editing Jennifer Granholm's article than the treatment of her opponent Dick DeVos?

[edit] counties won in 2002

The text that Scrabbleship (talk · contribs) wants to be incorporated is:

Granholm's four point margin of victory was met with some criticism as she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties in the state, Wayne and Washtenaw counties.

The source for election results by county: CNN shows that she won 11 counties of the first twenty five. Of those eleven she won nine unanimously 51% or more of the vote). She got 60% or more of the vote in four counties Genesee, Ingham Wayne and Washtenaw. So first, what does Scrabbleship mean by "she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties "? I'm confused by the criteria used to arrive at this number. Second, this looks a lot like original research. If this is such a well known criticism there should be a quotable article out there somewhere. David D. (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrabbleship said that, I didn't. I was the one who deleted that statement originally. Check the article history. I also added the CNN source. An apology is due, David D. Steelbeard1 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Steelbeard1 I totally messed up. I must have confused a deletion with addition. So now the question is directed at Scrabbleship and Barwick, who seem in favor of this statement. Why does the data not fit the sentence? What am I missing? David D. (Talk) 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrected above statement replacing Steelbeard1 with Scrabbleship. Apology accepted. Steelbeard1 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A few comments on the above:

  • My understanding of the word "unanimously" would not include any kind of divided vote whether it be 51% or 99%. If someone won a county "unanimously", that would mean with 100% of the votes. There is surely no such county in America. Maybe the user meant the word "majority"?
I assumed the user meant not just a majority but over 50%. Not sure what the correct term is but the point being that any coalition of the other people in the election would still be in the minority. I agree the use of the term unanimously is very confusing in the context used. David D. (Talk) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Michigan's 83 counties are generally around the same geographic size, but vary widely in population. A handful of urban counties make up more than half the state's total population.
  • In Michigan, Democrats tend to predominate in urban areas, Republicans in rural areas. Typically, in any election where both parties are competitive (regardless who wins), Democrats carry just a few large counties, Republicans carry a lot of small counties. This is geographic reality, and only a partisan would find it grounds to complain. Kestenbaum 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that the rural counties will go to reupblican so complaining about not winning the majority of the counties is really a moot point, especially when the margin of victory was four points. The partisan nature of the comments are also revealed due to the apparent claim that she 'only' won two counties. This is not born out from the facts at all. David D. (Talk) 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for limited access from 2, October

That day will be my state's 1st of three debates on 'the issues' and I humbly request that access to this page be limited to those of us with accounts so we can update this article with factual info siphoned from the debates. After the fact, the article is likely to get even more traffic, and purhaps the best thing for the article is to remain limited until November. I made the same request for DeVos' article as well. -Biokinetica 01:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I also made a request in the Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 page. Steelbeard1 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Limited access? How about an unbiased page! It's clearly not balanced at all.Mikestilly 04:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More facts needed on the page

How about an unbiased page? It amazes me to see the bias when reading thru the listed page for Granholm. It seems to only be pointing out postive "feel good" items with the same "economy" excuses in her campaign. It seems to have purposely left out tons of facts on how poorly this governor has performed. Someone needs to correct this ASAP! I'm in the process of gathering highly sourced fact lines to insert in the page. I will be coming up with a long list of items this weekend. This page needs to be fair and balanced which it is obviously not.Mikestilly 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your updates with linked citations so we can read the sources directly. I deleted all passages not backed by linked citations. Steelbeard1 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the Education section as well...very heavily biased against her, needs to be fixed.trivialbass619 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivialbass how is introducing facts on the state of our state based on Granholms policies bias? These are facts point out to us where they are not. Mikestilly

I had to strip the comments from the article but I listed the facts of what has taken place over the past 4 years with education. And from an unbias source might I add. There are reasons why this state is 49th in the US. The facts should be listed.Mikestilly

I will be putting in more balancing facts in as well. I've already started introducing those facts Mikestilly

I wouldn't call the citation of one round-up article (from the notably conservative Detroit News, at that), a good example of "balancing"--particularly when items of cooperation between the legislature and the executive are omitted. Furthermore, it's generally a good idea to use proper grammar and an encyclopedic style of writing. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness, then no newspaper could be used. After all, the Wall Street Journal is "conservative," and the Detroit Free Press and the New York Times are "liberal." These aren't politically-operated papers, but they inevitably have a slant. If the PFAW can be cited for DeVos, then the Detroit News is certainly no issue. I do agree on encyclopedic style, however, but I wanted to respond to the dig against the News. Zz414 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is a political round-up, not straight news (which would be preferable). It's not a dig against the News, but just something worth remembering under the circumstances (just as any round-up from the Free Press would need to be taken with a grain of salt). Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that this article is fully protected, I think the person who needs to do the most explaining is Mikestilly who only started as a Wikipedian on October 27, four days ago. It's his activities which got this article protected in the first place. Steelbeard1 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm Next time you might want to let me put the entire update in the page before you start deleting and berate my updates. I only was able to put in 1/4 my updates until people started deleting it. That was extremely obnoxious. FYI Mr steelbeard1 I've been doing this for years I only decided to register recently. You can point your finger elsewhere. It's the people that deleted while i was updating the page that caused it to get locked. Mikestilly

You have a lot of learning to do, Mikestilly. For example, signing with four tildes. I've already mentioned verifiable citations of critical material in biographical articles. Editorial statements must state in the article the source of the statement. As mentioned above, it would explain the editorial slant of the source of the material. Steelbeard1 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Steelbeard. Most of the information I had a chance to post were sited perfectly and information from nothing different then what is now in the Devos page. Very little facts of Granholms policy impacts are on her page. I WONDER WHY? Isnt her policy and their effects relevent to an biagraphy?

THe real issue is maybe if you had a chance to see my entire addition you would have seen a better flow. But unfortunately it kept being removed before I could even add the entire thing on the page. Looks to me like GRANHOLM people are trying to keep out those facts. Oh and whats wrong with 4 tidles dont you read what Wikipida asked users of this board to do? Mikestilly

--->On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes.<--- Guess you werent reading the bottom of the screen Mikestilly 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social issues

This discussion is carried over from the Talk:Dick DeVos page. Can we develop a consensus about social issues in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign? There is a social issues section in the DeVos article about the campaign and a similar section should be developed in this article. Steelbeard1 05:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. Mackensen or myself could add material as it was developed and consensus achieved. Or if consensus is reached amicably taking protection off again would be even better. Do we have any citeable sources on what Granholm positions on social issues are? This area is a huge part of the campaign in West Michigan, we must get a half a dozen phone calls a day from one campaign or the other... ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

Is there a reason that her handling of education is given its own header? As it is now, 1 out of 4 sections of this article are devoted to a single Detroit News editorial, which, incidentally, is quoted without the use of quotation marks. Triphook 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Protected edit proposal) Remove UE, non-NPOV statement

Some NPOV issues in this article need to be addressed, and since it is protected, only an Admin can perform these edits at this time:

  • "But she managed to find the city in time to jump in front of the cameras when the settlement was announced. She couldn't figure out a way to show leadership in this crisis, but at least she can read a map."
  • Yes, it referenced an editorial one sentence back - but it still is opinion and is being presented as neutral factual information. While the statement "she can read a map" may be factual (wink), it's UE.
  • "Jennifer Granholm and the Republican-led state legislature are cutting per-pupil grants for K-12 education by $55 per student and revising the formula for counting pupils in schools, in order to slash another $43 million from state spending for schools."
  • Would be factual if reworded in a neutral way (such as... "Bill 73, introduced by Republican... proposed that a new method of counting pupils be observed in all public schools"), along with citations. We also do not speculate on Wikipedia; the statement of "in order to slash..." is a conclusion (based on an opinion) reached by an editor.
  • "In the proposed state budget, Detroit could also lose another $15 million it has been receiving since the state took over the district in 1999."
  • Nothing much here, but should be reiterated that it is Granholm's proposed budget, instead of leaving the vague "the".
  • "Because of stagnating or falling revenue school districts throughout Michigan are facing budget cuts and layoffs."
  • Not applicable to the article of Jennifer Granholm, unless there was criticism that Granholm or her administration was the reason for it (in which case, there is a lot - but we must cite and attribute everything, especially if it is questioned by NPOV).
  • "According to Tom White, executive director of the Michigan School Business officials, 90 percent of state districts are planning to lay off staff or not fill open positions."
  • Same thing as above, yet this is a statement that was added in by a user to coincide with their conclusion of Granholm's performance, which is not acceptable unless it was attributed to an encyclopedic and relevent individual.

Please address these issues. --Mrmiscellanious 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The most important point in addressing these issues is that the material MUST include verifiable and clickable citations from bonafide journalistic sources and NOT from partisan sources such as campaign web sites. If the journalistic source gives an editorial slant, the newspaper and the writer's name (if given) must be included in the text of the article. Letters to the editor DO NOT COUNT as journalistic sources. Steelbeard1 11:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] She Won.

Somebody might as well get started with the edits in the morning...-Biokinetica 04:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

She Won


Granholm & Cherry Jr, D 2,093,791 56% DeVos & Johnson, R 1,566,162 42%

[edit] Editors should be embarassed

First, there's no excuse for the 2006 election results to not be posted here already. Even worse are the clearly biased statements that make up sections of this article. I've read and contributed to many articles and this has to be the worst case of bias I've seen. I'm sure there are others but the people who have contributed to this mess should be ashamed of themselves. If you can't keep your personal biases out of the articles, then strip it down to the facts. Unsourced and irrelevent comments about whether she can read a map have no place in such articles.

That's right. I think the article should be unlocked now since the election is over now and needs to be updated. --MrKing84 06:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Add a better source

I updated the election results, but I'm baffled by MSNBC/CNN/Etc's system of results, so if anyone has a better reference link, I'm sure it would be appreciated.--Revrant 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Try [1] from the Michigan Secretary of State web site. Steelbeard1 11:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, added to the article.--Revrant 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

After a few long discussions about this article, I went through news searches to find citations to controversies. I selected three of the most prominent ones: the Wayne County contracts from her primary (which one poll I read said that 18% of voters thought it was important to their decision); the Kilpatrick memo, which was one of the most prominent controversies of the 2002 campaign particularly because it arrived in late September and early October so close to the election; and the budget cuts with the Bible verse, because it did receive a fair amount of media and related directly to one of her most significant events over her first term, namely balancing the budget. There are several other controversies that have documented supported (e.g., lowering the flag for troops as an alleged protest to the war in Iraq; a statement regarding slave reparations; two Democrats petitioning Granholm not to hold a special election because they said their counties could not afford it; her appointment of Blackwell in Highland Park after firing Pearson; her dispute with Superintendent Tom Watkins; revealing that she failed to vote in a few local school board elections; her Christmas executive order barring the state from discriminating against homosexuals; her canceled visit to Marian High School, a Catholic school inviting her as a Catholic, due to her position on abortion; hiring 12 additional new lawyers in the waning days of her position as attorney general). I didn't think it would be appropriate to include every bit of minutiae, but I thought in case someone thinks that another one of these was worth placing on the page, I could finish the research on it and include it. Zz414 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Also.....what about getting her buddy into the Detroit Medical Center and the bailout...which seemed correct to do, but Duggan is one of her lawyer friends and is obviously at her beck and call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.82.144 (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use photo

User talk:Chowbok has earmarked the Granholm press photo for deletion. What should we do? Steelbeard1 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the dispute tag to the image and elaborated in the images talk page. --Jeff 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues at Image talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg. Steelbeard1 03:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Chowbok added a speedy delete template to the page. I removed it because Speedy Deletes are required to be obvious or non-controversial. This situation is neither. Chowbok, if you wish to nominate it for deletion, please follow procedure at WP:IFD and post appropriate notices. --Jeff 06:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessary to go through IFD for fair use images that are replaceable. All that removing the tag from this page accomplishes is that now less people will know it's being considered for deletion. —Chowbok ☠ 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I'm irked by the photo replacement on the main page, but I'm not changing it yet. I still believe in the fair use of the previous image.

Jennifer Granholm.jpg

Who could possibly argue that the 2 are equivalent? This really really irritates me to no end.--Jeff 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please at least try to understand the reason for the policy. —Chowbok ☠ 15:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Both images are of the subject. But one is fair use, the other is free. The free image may not be quite as nice as the fair use one, but it is adequate to the task. Certainly a better one could be obtained, and in fact Steelbeard1 is seeking free permission for the original image, but as long as the free one is adequate, under our fair use policy, it is the one to use. That's our policy now. Chowbok might be faulted for not being quite as gentle in statements to users as might be possible, but cannot be faulted for policy interpretation. No less than Jimbo himself has said this is how things ought to be going forward, fair use images that can be replaced should be removed. Fair Use images complicate things for forks and downstream consumers. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's patentely ridiculous the anti-fair use brigades are after this photo, and perhaps this is the most defensible case I've seen yet of WP:IAR, which, it should be pointed out, is a "policy," thereby trumping other "guidelines" such as WP:FU. Jenolen speak it! 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I thought Granholm's official portrait from the state of Michigan was an appropriate image for her page on Wikipedia. It is inconceivable to me that there are Wikipedians and admins who think that the spirit and intent of Wikipedia policies mean that we should use poorly cropped federal photos and random, blurry snapshots to illustrate this page. However, a "libre-content absolutist" admin has deleted Governor Granholm's official portrait, for what I guess is "forever." It should be pointed out that the updated version of her official portrait was summarily deleted without debate or discussion, even though I spent plenty of time trying to jump through every licensing and fair use hoop. I disagree that in cases where libre photos exist, they must be used to the EXCLUSION of fair use photos -- and this is perfect example of why. But it is Wikipedia policy to delete even photos as innocuous as the governor's official portrait. Whether or not this leads to Wikipedia being seen as "the Amateur Photo Encylopedia" remains to be seen. However, the admin's unwillingness to seek consensus, and refusal to use any sort of independent thought or contextual determination seems to have brought this "debate" to an end. This remains, to my mind, the single most glaring example of the idiocy of blind adherance to current policy. Jenolen speak it! 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Journal article

I just reverted for a second time quotes from an article in the Wall Street Journal considered to be of questionable neutrality:

(quote)

[edit] Treasonous

On July 7, 2005 an article was published in the Wall Street Journal by Rick Baxter titled "How to Skin a Wolverine." It cited the growing economic slump that Michigan found itself in and offered taxes cuts as the solution.[1] Granholm lashed out at the freshman Republican, calling him "treasonous."

One week later the Editorial board of the Wall Street Journal published a response to Gov. Granholm's remarks about state Rep. Rick Baxter going as far as stating "Ms. Granholm was born in Canada so maybe she missed this American history . . . that the first time an American was accused of "treason" for opposing high taxes was when New Englanders dressed as Indians and dumped tea in Boston Harbor. And it was America's most famous tax protester, Patrick Henry, who declared: "If this be treason, make the most of it."[2] (end quote)

Since we try to maintain NPOV and use citations from Michigan media outlets, should this be included? Steelbeard1 12:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The section heading is ridiculous. The actual content, at least of the first paragraph, *might* be worth mentioning in the criticisms section. The second paragraph is pretty unremarkable petty sniping. If it could be presented more neutrally and some evidence given that it had any notability beyond the WSJ, then there *might* be something there. Basically, the only sources are two opinion pieces. While being in the WSJ gives some degree of credibility, there really should be some note of this incident from another reputable source for it to have any significance beyond a bit of minor name-calling in a single publication. There's no need to limit reputable source to Michigan newspapers though. I don't think there is any basis for that. But something other than the WSJ would be helpful to establish that the incident rose to any degree of actual significance. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Politicalmichigan (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) is here for much other than material related to Baxter or Granholm. Reverting removal without discussion is not justifiable... That said I agree with Bkonrad, we don't have to limit to MI sources... the WSJ is a fine source in general, but I'm not seeing this incident meriting a section all its own. Perhaps a line item in the criticism section? ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect again

The budget battle in Michigan is getting this article vandalized too frequently again. Should it get semi-protection? Steelbeard1 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Like the article

I think this is a decent article. If you all can come to some agreements regarding the article and make the writing more consistent, this could go to GA status or higher. ludahai 魯大海 02:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New website for extrernal links.

Governor Granholm's leadership fund, the Granholm Leadership Fund, has a new official website at www.JenniferGranholm.com. This should be listed in the external links section as it is one of her two primary websites.

[edit] "Majority"?

In the 2006 vote summary, the number posted as the "majority" is the difference between the vote totals of the winner and the next runner-up. Isn't the "majority" the difference between the winning vote total and 50%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcampbell (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Exodus from Michigan

I am a born-and-raised Michigander. It is due to policies from Jennifer Granholm and other tax-happy, anti-business Michigan state leaders that we "alumni" all left. An average-sized house in Detroit has over ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in annual property tax with NO businesses entering the state to help with this. Please allow a little more additions to the controversy section of this article --especially to a native "Wolverine" such as myself-- to explore the roadblocks facing my former state and what many of us who left would like to see done about it. Alzuun 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Seal-of-Michigan.png

Image:Seal-of-Michigan.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)