Talk:Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

See also - organizations mentioned

Several organizations are mentioned in the "See also" section but only one of them "Michigan Militia" is explicitly mentioned throughout the article references. I've added a citation needed template to links to the organizations not mentioned. Baltakatei 18:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate if Love of Corey would explain

why a NYT ref supporting a sentence in the lead is POV

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot&diff=982567063&oldid=982567029

Love of Corey? soibangla (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh. It looks like you undid an unsigned user's edits in the process of implementing that NYT reference, and I was only paying attention to those. My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we stick to WP:NPOV and drop the infobox for now? There is no requirement for articles to have an infobox, as per WP:MOS, and an infobox can act as a crude framing of the article's narrative. The current infobox portrays events in a particular way that is, at best, premature. To characterise events as involving "Belligerents" is to cast a criminal act as a war, implying some equality between sides and implying the plot had some real success of being carried out. Let's get more details, develop the article and then consider what an appropriate infobox is. Bondegezou (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. I'm not sure if I totally agree with the NPOV argument, but there's certainly one that it's not giving any more information than the two sentences in the lead. I'm also not sure if readers are really being well-served by a long list of charges levied against those arrested right up top. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump's direction to "liberate Michigan"

Nothing found in this article concerning Trump's tweet directing his followers to "liberate Michigan". Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be mentioned? He posted it on April 17 ([1]) but the plot began in March. ([2]) TomCat4680 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The source says "the FBI learned of the alleged plot to violently overthrow parts of the government and law enforcement in March" - not the kidnapping plot specifically. According to multiple sources, the plot to kidnap Whitmer began in June. Some people might accuse you of lying in your statement here; I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying you're incorrect. Wes sideman (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It may have been an infamous tweet, but per TomCat, this certainly doesn't put two and two together, at least not just yet. Love of Corey (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Every major, reliable media source on this incident mentions Trump's tweet in two ways: one, in relation to the initial Covid lockdown protests involving militia members, and two, in relation to Whitmer's reaction to the attempted kidnapping. We don't have to put the two together, the sources have already done it. It's part of the historical timeline. And finally, it doesn't matter at what point it occurred. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to blame Trump whenever a right-wing person/group does something illegal but in this case the timeline just doesn't fit. He said it around a month after the investigation had begun, and more than a month after the pandemic hit Michigan (March 10). ([3]) Also the protests in Michigan didn't start until April 15. ([4]) Obviously the media was quick to point fingers before actually getting their dates straight. Whether or not anyone from the group was inspired by his tweet hasn't been proven either. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. We don't get to do our own original research. RS are discussing this, so so should we. But we can contextualise what RS say using other RS. Indeed, we should do this! So if there are RS making these points, e.g. around the timeline, then we can use those. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Article name/scope

Horribly biased and lacking sourcing, primary sourcing, from the suspects are available, but not cited here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.110.116.157 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Also, this article is named "Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot". The investigation that began in March was an investigation into a more general "plot to violently overthrow parts of the government and law enforcement". The specific Whitmer plot didn't start until June, according to the Guardian and other sources. Wes sideman (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, Wes sideman, but I've split your comment off into its own subsection as it seemed like something of a separate point, and a very important one!

The events we're covering do go more broadly than a plot to kidnap Whitmer. We definitely want to cover these broader events. So is the article name correct? In its defence, "Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot" is kinda the shorthand everyone's using at the moment. I think it's worth considering alternate titles and it may also be that a more appropriate name becomes apparent as news coverage develops. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As the kidnapping plot is the main focus of the news coverage, and it looks like it is the only part of their "government overthrow" that went past the the nebulous stage into specifics, I think the title is fine for now. I do like your addition to the first paragraph to note that they were planning a government overthrow and the kidnapping was a part of that overall "plan" Wes sideman (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

While it looks like it started out as a coup plot, most coverage frames it as a kidnapping plot. As it stands, the title seems appropriate. We can always discuss a rename later if more sources appear that point things in a different direction. It's a wild year, and we're trying to document history while it's being made. Whatever we come up with will be very imperfect. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Telegraph source

[5]

Does anyone else besides TomCat4680 think that we should dismiss this source? It seems reliable to me. Wes sideman (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the actual source, it says they're two separate groups! One is called Michigan Militia Corps Wolverine and the other is called Wolverine Watchmen. MMCW disavowed WW. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: The Telegraph article is from yesterday before WWCW disavowed WW. Please read the updated WJRT source. What happened was WJRT apparently did their own research and found the MMWC website and assumed WW was the same group so MMCW had to clarify that they weren't. The MMCW statement wasn't there last night when I added the source but now it is. The Telegraph article is outdated. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not taking the word of a militia group seeking to distance itself from the suspects over an actual news source. YOU BETCHA they're going to disavow the suspects - those guys just got arrested! Wes sideman (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

They're two separate groups. The WJRT story says so. The article needs to reflect that. Saying otherwise is a disservice to readers. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Offshoot" is pretty clearly saying that they are not the same group. Are you a member of the Michigan Militia or something? Wes sideman (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not! I'm only here to report the facts per the sources. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Telegraph source: "The Wolverine Watchmen is believed to be an offshoot of another Michigan militia, known as the Wolverines."[6] Wes sideman (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. There is/was a subgroup called "Michigan Militia Corps - Wolverine". But they have nothing to do with "Wolverine Watchmen" per WJRT. They're two completely different/separate/unaffiliated groups. The only thing they have in common is similar names and the fact they both call themselves militias. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

YOU are saying that. All the WJRT source says is that the Michigan Militia made a statement that disavows the Wolverine Watchmen. Meanwhile, the Telegraph source points out the offshoot link. Wes sideman (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying what WJRT is saying. It's not "my opinion" or "original research", it's what the source actually says, pretty much word for word. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. WJRT is not saying the groups are unaffiliated. Nowhere. All they did was reprint the statement that the Michigan Militia made. Wes sideman (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

We should reprint it too because they claim to be two different groups: "Michigan Militia Corps Wolverine" and "Wolverine Watchmen". One's members were charged in this case and the other wasn't. This needs to be in the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia's job to amplify the claims of a paramilitary group that's seeking to distance itself from one of its offshoots? Wes sideman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Its job is to report information based on what's in the sources, not sit here and basically say "they're lying, I don't believe them." TomCat4680 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not what's happening. One source stated that one group was an offshoot of the other. The Michigan Militia released a statement, AFTER that, disavowing the group doing the plotting. WJRT isn't saying that the two aren't related. They merely reported that the Michigan Militia released a statement disavowing the group. WJRT didn't do any research to say the two groups are unrelated, they reprinted what amounts to a press release. Wes sideman (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What they did was find a website they thought was Wolverine Watchmen's but was actually Michigan Militia Corp Wolverine's. They appear to be two different groups based on the press release. Unless you have a source that definitively confirms they're same people, we shouldn't say they are. There doesn't seem to be an actual official, confirmed Wolverine Watchmen website. They appeared to communicate and recruit exclusively on a private defunct Facebook page and afterwards an unnamed encrypted app per other sources in the article and court documents. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How many times are you going to repeat "they're not the same people" - no one is saying they are! The Telegraph source says one group is an offshoot of the other. That's not the same as saying it's the same group. And your first sentence in your last comment is entirely your own original research. There's nothing anywhere in that article that even approaches what you're claiming. Wes sideman (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What the press release is saying is Michigan Militia Corps Wolverine IS the offshoot of the larger Michigan Militia, it's one division of a larger group with other divisions (its article says there's nine total divisions divided up geographically ([7]). The press release also says Wolverine Watchmen is NOT/never has been part of Michigan Militia, they're a separate, independent, statewide group. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're arguing to include in the article at this point. Are you satisfied with what's currently in that section? If not, what do you want to add? Wes sideman (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just remove "offshoot" from "The day after the suspects were arrested, the Michigan Militia issued a statement disavowing the Wolverine Watchmen offshoot" (since Wolverine Watchmen isn't an offshoot, it's independent).TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a reliable source that states the Wolverine Watchmen is an offshoot. You're looking to take the word of the Michigan Militia, who obviously have their own self-interest in mind when distancing themselves from the Watchmen, over that of the news report. Are you kidding me? Wes sideman (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the press release was to explain MMCW and WW are two different groups. WW are not part of MM. They're separate. MM has nine divisions. WW is not one of them. MMCW IS one of them. God why is this so difficult for you to understand????? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that you want the press release from the Michigan Militia to carry the same weight as an actual news report from a reliable source. No matter how many question marks you use, that's still a ridiculous notion. Wes sideman (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is outdated and inaccurate. One, it was written yesterday, before the MMWC's press release; and two, its reporting wasn't independently verified. It says "The Wolverine Watchmen is believed to be an offshoot of another Michigan militia, known as the Wolverines." Keyword believed, as in they didn't confirm it themselves, they just went off what other sources said. The press release from today disproves their statement, therefore it is no longer reliable. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything you just wrote is original research. Wes sideman (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not it isn't. It's all factual. I listed my sources and told you what they said and when they said it. Your claims about MM lying to cover their asses are original research. There's nothing anywhere that proves they're lying. You just don't trust them because of who they are. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper source is infinitely more reliable than a statement from a militia group that is seeking to distance themselves from another militia group that was just arrested for planning domestic terror attacks. That's indisputable. Also, you said "The Telegraph article is outdated and inaccurate", and that's absolutely original research and just your opinion. Wes sideman (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement about the WW being part of the MM was written yesterday and was disputed by a press release written today. That's literally the definition of outdated. Whether or not MMCW and WW are the same group or if WW is an offshoot of MMCW or whatever hasn't been proven or disproven. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that part. This discussion is becoming dizzying. I give up. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the prior relationship between accused kidnapping plotter William Null and Dar Leaf, the sheriff of Barry County, Michigan; and Leaf's statements in support of their legal right to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Wes sideman (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Prior relationship, yes [8][9]. Legal right to kidnap her? I don't think so. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw a source where Leaf claimed the brothers were planning to conduct a citizen's arrest on Whitmer and not a kidnapping, but I forgot where it is now. Love of Corey (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

“Because you can still, in Michigan, if it’s a felony, you can make a felony arrest . . . and it doesn’t say if you’re in elected office, that you’re exempt from that arrest. So I have to look at it from that angle, and I’m hoping that’s more of what it is." Gonna add to the article shortly. RexSueciae (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good catch! Love of Corey (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

State House or State Capitol?

Transplanted from User talk:Love of Corey

It appears we are reading two different sources. This is what you're editing:

In an October 11 interview with Face the Nation, she said security threats against her still existed and that extremists like the Wolverine Watchmen are "finding comfort and support in the rhetoric coming out of Republican leadership from the White House to our state House."

The source in question is a Michigan Live article talking about Whitmer's reaction to the possibility of election violence in the wake of the foiled plot, and the quote is about how Republicans from the executive branch all the way down to the state legislature are making statements that appear to implicitly encourage violence. There is a Michigan House of Representatives, the state equivalent of the United States House of Representatives, which is also called "the House". You say in your edit summary, "MULTIPLE sources say they wanted to 'storm the State Capitol', including the court papers. how do you know she meant House of Representatives? it was a TV interview not a pre-written speech so the transcript is irrevelant." If she meant to talk about all of the state capitol, she would've actually said so, unless this is some Michigan lingo that I'm unaware of. Also, you mention a PDF link, but I don't see any such links anywhere in the article. Love of Corey (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't see this: [10] federal complaint embedded into the article? What device are you using to read/edit the article? On my widescreen desktop monitor it's to the right of both the Legal proceedings section and the Reactions section. It's one of several sources that say the suspects wanted to "storm the State Capitol". Nowhere does it say anything about the House of Representatives. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what's happening now. It looks like you're using the Wikipedia article, specifically the image of the PDF file, for your argument about the quote and not accessing and consulting the actual Michigan Live article in question. I thought we were both talking about the Michigan Live article. Anyway, if you read the Michigan Live article, you'll realize that's where the quote in question originates from, hence why "House" is being capitalized and why I'm confident Whitmer is talking about the state House rather than the entire Capitol. Love of Corey (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

She didn't explicitly say House of Representatives so we shouldn't "assume" that's what she meant. Also btw it's now called MLive Media Group. They haven't called it Michigan Live since 2012 (see Booth Newspapers). TomCat4680 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

She said "state House", and that was exactly how the article chose to write it. I can't imagine what else she or the article's author would mean by that if Whitmer didn't use something like "Capitol" or "Legislature". My impression of the quote is that she was talking about how statements apparently encouraging violence are coming all the way from the highest levels of the federal government (the executive branch) to the lowest levels of the state government (the lower house of the Michigan Legislature). Love of Corey (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Plus, Whitmer's the governor. There's no way she would use "state House" in any context other than the lower house in question. Love of Corey (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's your interpretation but in my opinion she was implying State Capitol but said state house so it would rhyme with White House. Add that to the fact that multiple other sources say they wanted to "storm the State Capitol". TomCat4680 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Now how would you know she was trying to rhyme? It's not really an effective rhyme if that were true. Plus, those "multiple other sources" have no contextual bearing on this quote in particular. Here, Whitmer is just talking about statements encouraging violence coming from politicians from all levels of government, not the original plan to storm the State Capitol building. Love of Corey (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that's what she meant, I'm only assuming. Just like you don't know she meant House of Representatives, you're only assuming. Why don't we just leave it unlinked instead? TomCat4680 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not assuming, I know. Once again, Whitmer said "state House", and that was exactly how the article chose to write it, unless you have another article that writes the quote a different way. I can't imagine what else she or the article's author would mean by that if Whitmer didn't use something like "Capitol" or "Legislature". I also can't imagine Whitmer misusing the term, intentionally or otherwise, since she's been the governor for almost two years now and should know by now the difference between that term and the others I've put forth. This is starting to sound like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Love of Corey (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes she obviously knows the difference, she's a career politician. But how do you know she said "house" not "House"? It was a TV interview. Unless there was a pre-written script of what she was going to say, I don't see how we can assume one way or the other. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Then why else would she say "house" in the first place if she's a career politician like you say? I have never heard of such a term being used to address any sort of legislature building or body that doesn't have "House" in the name. Love of Corey (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. This argument was pointless. I give up. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then. Love of Corey (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Biographical sketches and motives

Michael and William Null, ... William also attended another anti-lockdown rally in May, as well as a Black Lives Matter rally in Grand Rapids to pass out water, according to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf. They helped conduct surveillance on Whitmer's vacation home.[39]

This is not what the source says ! That sheriff said he attended in Grand Rapids "to keep things peaceful". And he passed out water in Flint. Thats cross misinterpretation. 87.185.53.193 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed "They helped conduct surveillance on Whitmer's vacation home" to "The Null brothers helped conduct surveillance on Whitmer's vacation home" to clarify that the sheriff had nothing to do with the surveillance or anything else illegal. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The source for William appearing at the Flint rally says nothing about him passing out water either. ([11]). TomCat4680 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Its still wrong. No one said anything about passing out water in Grand Rapids, that was in Flint according to the sheriff. And the sheriff said alongside BLM, which doesn't mean together with BLM. And he attended the BLM rally in Grand Rapids "to keep things peaceful", which means he was watching the rally, not participating. The source (the sheriff) is actually somewhat ambiguous, so it would probably be best to use a citation. 87.185.50.140 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The sheriff was actually an associate of them [12] so it's reasonable to be careful about his testimony. 87.185.50.140 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That link is behind a paywall. Please provide a free one. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I took out the part about them passing out water in Grand Rapids. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

For clarification, he did pass out water, but at a BLM rally in Flint, not Grand Rapids. Love of Corey (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs photos of the suspects

A photo collage of all of the suspects' mugshots with their names, ages and residences would be good. This site has most of them: [13] TomCat4680 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Are Michigan mugshots freely licensed? (Also, WP:MUG may factor here.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know they're okay. Half of the suspects are in federal custody though. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you guys like me to add them to wikimedia commons, or is it licensed by the Michigan government? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Federal mugshots don't need a license and Michigan ones just need a good justification. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add them. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(:)I cannot find the federal mugshots. It may be because of my own part in searching online, but hopefully someone else can find them and add them. Apologies. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose putting up photos of the suspects. They are merely suspects, not convicted of anything. And we do not usually post pictures of suspects. In fact I have never seen it done. In similar current cases I looked at - Shooting of Breonna Taylor, Murder of Patricia Alatorre, 2020 Knox County stabbing, Murder of Bianca Devins - there are no pictures of the perpetrator, whether alleged or convicted. I really think you all need to rethink this. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see that there are not actually any pictures of the suspects in the article, so apparently my comments here are out of date. I am glad to see that. Sorry to bother you. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the kidnapping plot?

Under “Background” I found

This put uncertainty over enforcement of the measures and forced the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services – and later, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration – to circumvent it by ordering similar measures.[10][18][19] On October 21, a Grand Haven chiropractor sued the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services saying that the Public Health Act of 1978 does not give it authority to issue face mask mandates.[20]

How is this relevant to this article about the kidnapping? I think it should be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Support It happened after they were arrested so I suppose it's not needed. Go ahead and remove it. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

On second thought I decided that the MDHHS actions are at least tangentially related. And the chiropractor item has already been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)