Talk:Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Need more about the threats made at the armed protests

Reading through the article (which has been on my watchlist in case it needs protection again, but I haven’t been following it closely), I have a couple of reactions that I’ll list separately for discussion.

Under "Background" I found only a passing mention of the armed protests at the state capitol, without mentioning the nooses and the signs comparing her to Hitler and saying “Tyrants get the rope”.[1] [2] Surely that is relevant to this article. I trust no one will object if I expand that information a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thanks — I agree this is relevant and hope you will add it. -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Support Seems relevant to me. Goes to their motives. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done That took a while; it turned out that we didn't have anything about her actions that led up to the protests either. Now we do. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@TomCat4680 and Darouet: So User:Love of Corey promptly reverted [3] the background I added,[4] where I summarized what she had done to incur the enmity of the protesters and plotters, and reported the threats that were made against her at the capitol protest. Their edit summary: "We don’t need this level of detail". You two had supported adding at least the threat information. I’d like to see if there is consensus for me to restore it, and also if there is consensus for my adding information about what the protesters were protesting against. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know this was being discussed on the talk page beforehand. I do think we should try and summarize the background of these events as succinctly as possible. I don't think the threats are really relevant, since the defendants here have mostly talked about kidnapping Whitmer and trying her for treason. While there has been some documented talk of "cap[ping] her" instead, it's apparently not enough to convince federal and state authorities to file murder conspiracy charges, and we should reflect this per WP:BLPCRIME. Therefore, threats to kill, or hyperbole about killing Whitmer go against this. Love of Corey (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So we shouldn't bother to explain what she had done to incur their enmity, or to show how drastically the opposition to her was talking, but we should include a complete detailed biography of each suspect? I find these priorities rather strange. Waiting for comment from others. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think the biographies are going a bit too far at this point as well. Per WP:BLPCRIME, I don't even think we should be naming these men. I originally tried removing the names while this article was in the beginning stages, but I eventually gave up after one too many reversions. Love of Corey (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What she's done, as well as the resulting lawsuits and protests, is explained in thorough detail in COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan. A brief summary with a link to that article seems sufficient. The bios of the suspects and their motives and other beliefs and backgrounds helps explains who they are and why they did what they're accused of. Their names have been made public in numerous sources so I don't see why we can't name them too. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I just added the word allegedly several times when referring to the crimes they're accused of too. TomCat4680 (talk)

RE: the comments I do think we should try and summarize the background of these events as succinctly as possible and A brief summary with a link to that article seems sufficient. Right now our "summary" consists in total of due to her early response to the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan, in which she enacted strict mitigation measures such as a lockdown of the state. IMO that's way, way too brief and needs more of an actual summary. A couple of sentences would be a service to our readers, and would hardly be excessive in a 75,000 byte article which includes every possible detail on every other aspect of the subject. I disagree with the philosophy that "if people want to know what this is actually about, let them click on a link and go to another article." -- MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I liked the way you had it but Love of Corey feels the need to revert everything without discussing it on the talkpage and reaching a consensus to do so. I'm beginning to feel he thinks he owns this article. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Because we really don't need to use every news article that comes up about this matter. Love of Corey (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Every other one of your edits on this article is a reversion. Most of them large ones. The protocol is if you disagree with content you're supposed to discuss it on the talk page not just revert it. You're making it hard to build the article and frankly it's becoming disruptive. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this large? Love of Corey (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I said most not all. Most of your reversions are several hundred characters. [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10] just to name a few. They should have been discussed and left untouched until a consensus is reached. I don't know why you think the rules don't apply to you. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I already said why in the edit summaries. WP:BOLD, anyone? Love of Corey (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You should have discussed it on the talk page instead! Reverting entries that big isn't being bold, it's being counterproductive and disruptive. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

None of it is notable, and it is simply excessive detail. Love of Corey (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's just your opinion but yours isn't the only one that matters here. You need to quit reverting and start discussing. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Love of Corey (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Love of Corey (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. Repeating yourself doesn't help your argument. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Then there's nothing else to say. Love of Corey (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A real comedian, are you? Love of Corey (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I like to think so. :-) TomCat4680 (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

>:( Love of Corey (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of something I was wondering about earlier - should the bios of the suspects be at the top of the article, above the timeline, or would a more natural place for them be under "legal proceedings"? I think it would make more sense lower down on the page? And does the appearance of the Null brothers in the Capitol, and onstage with Dar Leaf really not belong in the background? Sure, while we don't want too much detail about the protests here, we probably should have information about the participation of these guys in the protests. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems better to describe who these guys are and what their motives were first. Just like a good movie or book. Build some character development first then tell the story of what they (allegedly) did. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why can't we say "domestic terror" in the first paragraph?

I added it. The category "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2020" is already at the bottom of the article. Someone else removed it, citing BLPCRIME. I added it back, because nowhere does it say these men have been convicted already. It says the FBI "announced the arrests of 13 suspects involved in a domestic terror plot". Suspects. They are suspects in a domestic terror plot. That is fact. Wes sideman (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured in german WP

I translated this article to the german WP [11], there it is today (February 14)featured on the Main Page in ″Do you know...″ [12]. Thanks to the authors. - Big Virgil (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Great job! TomCat4680 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that! -Darouet (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Some charges dropped

Terrorism charges dropped today against Joseph Morrison and Pete Musico. Request for additional charges declined for Paul Bellar. Pkeets (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Added. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Order of events reversed

Whitmer, the main target of the plot, had seen her political profile elevated over the preceding months due to her early response to the outbreak of COVID-19 in Michigan, in which she enacted strict mitigation measures such as a lockdown of the state, which she was widely praised for. However, she also became a target of criticism from far-right groups, and her measures triggered protests in April and May, including one in which armed protesters stormed the Michigan State Capitol. President Donald Trump had offered his support for the protests, derisively calling Whitmer "that woman from Michigan" and tweeting on April 17: "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!"

This is not what happened. Trump tweeted on April 17 to "Liberate Michigan!" and armed protesters responded in kind by storming the Capitol on April 30. Forbes (and dozens of other sources) covered this in detail, and it was entered into the official government record in the Senate impeachment trial for former President Trump in early 2021. If this isn't fixed by someone else, I will eventually fix it myself. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead, no objections here. Just make sure whatever you add/change is supported by reliable sources. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anything need to be added other than changing the order of events? For example;

However, she became a target of criticism from far-right groups, and her measures triggered protests in April and May. President Donald Trump offered his support for the protests, derisively calling Whitmer "that woman from Michigan" and tweeting on April 17: "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" Two weeks later, on April 30, armed protesters stormed the Michigan State Capitol.

Thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me if you have a reliable source to back it up. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, but since I haven't changed anything other than the order, what part do I need a source for? Happy to provide whatever you need. Here's a NYT article on the subject that covers just about everything, and a lot more. And here's an Associated Press article with more details, and another AP article from the day of the event. Let me know if you need anything else. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Let me know if there's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! TomCat4680 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ohio governor also allegedly targeted

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/08/09/accused-whitmer-plotters-mulled-attacking-ohio-gov-dewine-feds-say/5544873001/, among other sources Mapsax (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No clear consensus to support move Mike Cline (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot → Gretchen Whitmer alleged kidnapping plot – Per the recent trial results as referenced on the current events page from this article https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091748401/whitmer-kidnapping-verdicts-michigan-governor , two of the accused have been acquitted of conspiracy to kidnap, while the other two have had a hung jury. Since this is a reliable source (reliable enough to be summarized on the current events page) claiming that the accused are legally innocent of a plot to kidnap, the title should be changed so as to not imply something reliable sources now claim legally didn't happen. Cf. not naming an article "murder of so-and-so" if the accused was acquitted of murder, but titling it "killing of so-and-so," or changing the title the other way from "killing" to "murder" when murder is legally declared, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd . "Alleged kidnapping plot" is the best I can come up with to not contradict sources on the legal verdict, but any other title that indicates that a conspiracy to kidnap was alleged but not legally sustained would also be acceptable. 2601:405:4400:9420:D186:DA47:4709:7EBB (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: One of the accused pleaded guilty though and several others haven't went to trial yet so let's keep it as is for now. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Hung jury in practice means that the case will be retried for the two defendants where the jury could not decide. I understand your reasoning fairly well, but given that a) not all people stood for trial, b) not all of those who have already had their trials were acquitted by the jury, c) the fact that two of the alleged conspirators were not convicted does not invalidate the whole premise that there was plan, it's that just the jury could not determine that they were guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt (or that the jury was convinced that, as the defence attorneys argued, the FBI engineered the plot and simply manipulated the otherwise innocent guys into following it until the FBI busted the suspects. It doesn't seem to me that the title change would be better, though I'm not particularly opposed to any changes. Neither side denies the existence of some sort of plot, it's just the prosecutors argued that there was an actual plot while the defence said (and won in two cases) that the plot was an FBI ruse. I'd say "Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot plan" but I wouldn't put "alleged"/"supposed" into it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: a hung jury means the defendant is innocent of all charges, and that the prosecution can opt to retry them—it doesn't mean that "in practice it will be retried", and often such cases are not retried. ElleTheBelle 06:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment No, it means the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. It doesn't mean not guilty, that has to be unanimous. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'll also add that I suspect (with all the WP:CRYSTAL and that sort of caveats) this will be retried given the profile of the case, and particularly since one of the guys who ended with a hung jury was the supposed leader of the gang.

    As TomCat4680 says correctly, the guys are so far not under arrest (innocent until proven guilty) but they have not been cleared of the charges against them, either. I'd advise editors to prepare some popcorn and watch the second trial unfold. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – two defendents pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping, so adding "alleged" to the title is moot. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 09:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a right-wing talking point currently making the rounds on Fox News and the like. It’s a false, artificial narrative based on the premise that Democrats are making stuff up about conservatives and waging a witch-hunt against Republicans. It has zero evidence supporting it, but that’s never stopped MAGA before. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is an incredibly biased take on this discussion. 73.187.95.138 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Far-right Republicans push conspiracies after Whitmer kidnap plot acquittals". Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Not one of the four defendants to face a jury was convicted and all four are innocent. The fact that two others pleaded guilty in order to receive reduced sentences in the face of enormous government pressure doesn't establish that there was "a plot"—simply that two people pled guilty to being part of one. Wikipedia must scrupulously use "alleged" in criminal cases that are unproven—the fact that two people testified does not make the people they testified against guilty and it is a major BLP violation to suggest they are, especially after a jury has affirmed the innocence of all four of them. If the article were about an actual "plot" that only the two people who pled guilty were involved in, fine, but writing of an actual "plot" in which the perpetrators have been found not guilty is absurd and not a "right wing talking point" (as if that has any relevance). Thanks! ElleTheBelle 06:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Fourteen men were charged not just four and the rest haven't been to trial yet. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I'm not a right-winger, nor do I have any sympathy for the goal of this plot. But the fact that two of the men involved have already been acquitted, along with the allegations that this plot was an entrapment scheme makes me want to err on the safe side. Following WP:NPOV, I believe this article should be renamed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 07:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment One man has pleaded guilty though and the other ten have NOT been to trial yet. Why is everyone overlooking these facts? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per TomCat4680 and JayCoop. Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's actually amazing that this is even under discussion. This should definitely be changed to add the word alleged (OR the word "case" at the end), until a jury convicts these people. Even the OJ Simpson murder's page says "OJ Simpson Murders CASE" (emphasis mine), instead of the word "alleged", and we all know OJ murdered those people. Johnandrus (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder. Ten of the accused here have not been to trial, and one has pleaded guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Somebody has pled guilty to this already, and court proceedings are not yet over. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ditto: there was a guilty plea, so it legally happened. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prosecutor drops out of Gov. Whitmer kidnapping plot case.

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/prosecutor-drops-out-of-kidnapping-case/69-2defab2d-df01-40ce-bc82-f2717acac58b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:8E41:3000:24FA:145D:AE09:8A6C (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

title change

this hasnt been substantiated in any way shape or form in court. it should read "Alleged" before the current title, until these people are proven guilty or not Jaygo113 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

We already discussed this. A man pleaded guilty (and got six years in prison) so legally it in fact did happen, not "allegedly". TomCat4680 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit: now two more men have been found guilty. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

And two found innocent. 66.38.91.177 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Found "not guilty". EvergreenFir (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@66.38.91.177: @Jaygo113: Three people are in/going to prison (so far), so it isn't "alleged." It actually happened in the eyes of the law, accept it and move on. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Title is fine as is. Bondegezou (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

juror dismissed for alleged flirting

Perhaps article could include a sentence about a juror being dismissed for allegedly flirting with accused Paul Bellar? NBC News, USA Today, Washington Post etc. EarthFurst (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant. They let her go and got someone else to take her place. It didn't result in a mistrial or hung jury. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)