Talk:Michigan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

A call for help, Michigan regional articles (including the two peninsula articles) (a modest proposal)

Dear Michigan Wikipedians:

I note that there is a lot of talent being spent on the Michigan article.

I note that there are eight regional articles for portions of the Lower Peninsula.

Without unduly tooting my own horn, as I came in later and rejuvenated an article that had some good elements in it already, the best article about the Lower Peninsula is the one on

  • Northern Michigan. I respectfully suggest that it is the standard against which the others could be judged and modeled. Parenthetically, I'm sure it could improved, too; but I think it's a lot farther along than the other articles.

We also have separate articles on Upper Peninsula (which is fairly comprehensive and better thought out) and Lower Peninsula that is less comprehensive and thought out.

The list just keeps on getting bigger. We're up to eight subregions just in the Lower peninsula.

We have a bunch of other articles that aren't up to speed at all. You (individually and collectively) have the knowledge and expertise to correct them and beef them up. They need your help.

We also have another regional article, namely Metro Detroit that is being developed on its own.

That's my special request for your attention.

Additionally, the Michigan article ought to be modified to at least note the existence of these other articles (and reference them in the text when appropriate). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Stan 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Stan


Why was the facts and trivia removed?

Why was the facts part removed? It was a good addition to the article and actually gave it life....161.150.2.64 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would whoever restored the facts section at least remove the portions that are verbatim duplicates elsewhere in the article? Thanks.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the section on state facts. Wikipedia tends to frown on trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA), but a fair amount of work went into this list. If you want it removed, then make a proposal on this talk page.------Asher196 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or another whether a trivia setion exists, but the portions of the trivia section that are duplicated verbatim on other portions of the article should be removed, either from the trivia section or the rest of the article.Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I simply restored the section. If there is redundant information, then by all means remove it.Asher196 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Done using this diff. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The trivia section has been restored, but now only contains 3 facts. Is this what it was like before? Because this seems too sparse to overturn the trivia policy. Somerut (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Michigan and the Thumb

I would submit that you do the readers no service by isolating the Michigan article from the regions. As you will see if you go to the discussion page of Michigan, there are lots of regular contributors to the Michigan article who were largely unaware of the regional articles. While there are those who spend a great deal of time and effort on the Michigan article, there are those who have spent lots of time on such articles as Northern Michigan, Central Michigan, West Michigan, Southeast Michgian and the Thumb. Not to mention Michiana. Blithely getting rid of the internal links is unfair both to our readers and to our contributors. I hope you will see my rationale. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

You should probably place that on the talk page of the user who removed the article, not necessarily here. -- dcclark (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I did before I posted it here. However, it is an important issue, which should be at least thought about by the people who are editing the Michigan article. I've written here before, inviting those of you who are contributing here to spread out, and share some of the work. We need you. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Etymology

2 Questions:

1) Both this article and the article on Lake Superior claim that the Ojibwe name mean nearly the same thing, even though the Ojibwe words are Gichigami (big water) and Mishigami (large water). Are both these definitions right? The words, although similar, don't look close enough to have the same meaning (although they're closer than "big" and "large). --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

2) The article on the Mexican state of Michoacan (with its strikingly similar name) claims it means "place of the fishermen." Does anybody know more about a possible connection between the names Michigan and Michoacan? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) It's not only (just) European languages (tongues) which (that) have several (many) words (lexemes) for approximately (roughly) the same (identical) thing (object).

2) No way. The number of linguistic coincidences world-wide is astounding, and such a one. Michoacan is Nahuatl (with a typical Uto-Aztecan ending), and Nahuatl is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family. Ojibwe is Algonquin - and so far there is no evidence that the two language familiies are related, and they are in fact generally treated as separate phyla (though Algonquins ***much*** further South must have had some contact with the Aztecs), and the grammatical formation of the words is completely different, as are the meanings of the source words. Just one of those things. 41.241.111.58 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"1800s" vs "17th century"

I understand the point of the recent edit to the captions and take as given its technical correctness, but "century" designations for dates always seemed a bit self-consciously formal to me (kind of like Roman numerals) and never quite as obvious as the straight-up years. I'm inclined to change it back; thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Longer_periods supports spelling out the century: Because expressions like the 1700s are ambiguous (referring to a century or a decade), they are best avoided. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'm still not real nuts about the change (or the policy!) but it's always easier to swallow things when a considered decision has already been taken on it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John, I think you could make a case for your point using Wikipedia:Ignore all rules----Asher196 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah, no doubt! I think I'll save the argument for something that really rankles me though. In this case I'm willing to accept that it is just my enfeebled brain that finds it such a chore to make the one-digit adjustment from "X century" to "X-100" span of years. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Which, it figures, is a calculation I managed to do the wrong way in the caption to my comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sister States?

Just browsing the page of my home state, I noticed someone seems a little geographically challenged, because whoever edited it seems to believe Michigan shares a border with China and Japan. I can't edit pages because I'm at a high school and we're blocked from doing so, but if anyone feels like changing it that'd be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that refers to those (silly?) little arrangements where some state or city in one place in the world arranges to become the "sister" of another state or city in a much different part of the world - promoting international relations, gives you something to put on the Welcome signs on the highway, that kind of thing. Essentially meaningless, but essentially harmless too; in any case, presumably accurate here (though come to think of it I have no idea what the source of the claim is). JohnInDC (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.162.254 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoreline length

The claim of ranking second was removed But it seems pretty solid that Michigan has 3288 miles of shoreline, and I found a large number of sources (of various quality levels) asserting the "second only to Alaska" bit. Perhaps putting the length in, minus the claim, might be good? The edit summary said "thoroughly covered on talk"... I didn't see it here, does someone who remembers have a link into the archives? Else I will go search I guess. ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here. Similar language was removed several years ago. By NOAA measurements, Michigan is 9th. Another source shows the state as 3d. Another says 2d. This discussion tailed off these different sources were laid out, I think because the sources were in conflict, and also because the strongest ones appeared to be NOAA's, and "9th" didn't sound particularly noteworthy. (By the same token, while "longest freshwater shoreline in the United States" appears to be true, it's kind of a 'duh' point.) That is surmise on my part, however. In fact the discussion simply ended without the shoreline claim being restored. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I'm a big fan of "teach the controversy" so I will take a cut at a change in the section that cites the 2nd claim, and also states that other sources have differing claims, citing the NOAA site referenced showing 9th, and showing the "largest freshwater" claim too... let's see what you all think of that :)... ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think in this case you'd more accurately be "teaching the confusion", because there is surely a way to reconcile all these different numbers somehow. Indeed *that* is what would be interesting to understand. How can NOAA say that Florida has 8400+ miles of shoreline, for example? I just don't get it. Figure *that* out, and then maybe you have something to say. ("Michigan has the second longest shoreline after Alaska. NOAA places Michigan at 9th, cite, but NOAA's measurements include blah blah blah" - that sort of thing.) Interestingly, if you go to the DEQ website (showing on your Google result page), they have Great Lakes measurements that seem to jibe pretty well with NOAA's. It's the seacoast that seems to be screwy. I do think that'd be better than putting up three contradictory sources along with what amounts to a shoulder shrug saying, in effect, "well, no one really knows what the truth is." That's not particularly informative, and of questionable relevance to an article that is, finally, about Michigan. JohnInDC (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the source quoted makes the claim that Michigan has the longest freshwater shoreline in the world, but I suggest that this may not be a meaningful claim. The longest shoreline of what? Compared to any country, continent, or sub-national entity? There are also problems with how you measure a shoreline, and how large any lake has to be before its shoreline is counted. Does it really have a longer shoreline than all countries with a lot of lakes e.g. Canada, Finland, Russia? PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

clearly cited official source. It stays.209.26.38.158 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this official source (NOAA) doesn't bother to address the pertinent question: longest shoreline of what? Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. The claim is indeed somewhat imprecise (sourced or not). That said, I don't have any problem with it as a practical matter, because whatever it is actually supposed to be saying, it is, by and large, consistent with our common sense of the thing. Michigan has, in effect, two *huge* beaches that, when you add them together, total more miles than anyone else's huge freshwater beaches. Maybe the shoreline of Minnesota's tens of thousands of lakes adds up to more (though I doubt it) but even if it does, the claim seems kind of hypertechnical by comparison. Plus, when you get to that level of measurement you are probably talking about things that no one has ever tallied up anyhow, which means all you can say then is, "no one knows", and how interesting is that? JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the offending clause. What about saying that "Hungary has the most money in the world", by comparing Hungary to all of the world's people individually? Though I take the point that coasts are quasi-fractal in nature, I don't think that's really relevant. It is still possible to define a practical 'shore length' by considering the smoothest curve that approximates its curve to an order of 10 metres (or whatever). But the clause is stupid anyway. It certainly can't be compared to other countries (it has a much smaller freshwater coastline than Russia), and since most countries do not subdivide in the same way as the USA, it can't be the subdivisions either. The problem mainly comes in when considering mini-lakes. Of course, the USA IS the world, so the question is moot (as made evident by the term 'World Series'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.111.58 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to mention that the United States has a longer freshwater shoreline than Michigan. Therefore, Michigan's is not the longest in the world. 121.117.180.240 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

tiger stadium

caption says commerica is home of tigers. isn't that the former home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.192.141 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the former home of the Tigers was Tiger Stadium. Since 2000, they have been playing at Comerica Park. --The Last King of Brush Park 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Edit

Moved from the signpost by User:Ravedave

Hi, I recently made an edit to the page of Michigan. I received a rebuke from an admin for "disruptive editing"/vandalism. I would like to apologize, because there was a misunderstanding: what I edited as 'total area' I thought was actually 'land area'. The change I made was because I recognized that the number was way off for land area, and the numbers I used in my edit were from the United States Geological Survey website for Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by idawriter (talk • contribs)

It appears that the page contains the land + water figure. However the figure on the michigan page does not match the one at List of U.S. states by area. Also Idawriter was correct about the rank being 22, not 11 as listed. -Ravedave (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it really is 11th in total area. Rmhermen (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ranking depends on whether the area in question includes only land area or total area. It appears that according to the figures I used, Michigan is the 22nd largest state; however those figures are only based on land area. The figure that is on the Wikipedia Michigan page is for total area (land and water). And because a significant portion of the total area of Michigan includes the great lakes, the figure for total area is much larger than the figure for land area. And in that context it appears that 11th is probably the appropriate ranking. -Idawriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idawriter (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Water and politics

I think there should be a new section named Water and politics or something like that, especially about the Nestle story. Do you agree?

City photos

I think whoever placed the city photos of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Lansing and Ann Arbor was brilliant; good idea and nice photos. Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor are clearly culturally significant and major economic contributors to Michigan. These are the cities known by those outside Michigan. But is a photo of Royal Oak even appropriate? Southfield, Troy, Dearborn and Auburn Hills are more noteworthy and significant on the global scale, but I don't think they'd be appropriate either. Westland, Taylor, Warren, Sterling Hts and Livonia have more people and probably an greater number of non-resident visitors/workers each day, but I wouldn't include photos of them. I wouldn't delete it because I'm not a regular contributor. Others here have done such a good job on this page, it makes me a little more proud to call myself a Michigander. However, I think removal of Royal Oak's photo is worthy of consideration as a housekeeping measure. mp2dtw (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Before going back and looking at the photo I was composing a response in my head along the lines of, well, Royal Oak may not be so significant but it's really very pretty in parts, a great example of early expansion up Woodward Avenue, and the photo illustrates it - but then I saw the photo, and I agree. It's altogther nondescript. Maybe a photo of a vibrant Main Street, showing how the older buildings have found new life, something along those lines - but not that. I took it out. JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Population figures etc. at Lansing, Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan

The edits on this page by user Calebrod3294 are part of a larger pattern. He has changed many articles. The figures on these two are so screwed up by his many apparently vandalizing edits that they need to be undone -- reversion would help. This user needs to be warned, blocked, etc. This is above my pay grade. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Stan

I believe Calebrod3294 is also the person operating under the IP addresses 99.0.66.181 and 99.0.66.4. Phizzy (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Future Problem Solving

Maybe we should include a section about Future Problem Solving? The International Conference for FPSPI is usually held in Michigan. // Ge6m09 - troubled waters 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Inland Lakes

The sections referring to inland lakes are confusing, one reference states there are over 60,000 inland lakes and another 11,000 inland lakes. They both may be correct; but the study referenced "Compilation of Databases on Michigan Lakes" classifies a lake as anything over 0.008 acre as a lake, a mere 338 sq ft which may be useful for GIS purposes, but may mislead the average reader. Maybe a clarification? Not a big Wikipedia person, so im not sure how to address. BigDan

After editing, this theme currently contains 64,980 lakes and ponds down to 0.008 acres (31.4 m2, 338 ft2). Because lake areas can be estimated from digitized polygons, area measurements are more precise than earlier specified with more precision when determining counts of lakes. There are 62,798 lakes ≥ 0.1 acres, 26,266 lakes ≥ 1.0 acres, 6,537 lakes ≥ 10.0 acres,

1,148 lakes ≥ 100 acres, and 98 lakes ≥ 1,000 acres, and 10 lakes ≥ 10,000 acres.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.237.161 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New section

Hello I believe the square miles for the State of Michigan is inaccurate. Could anyone fix this. I saw a report from the state of Michigan and the sq miles was 56,803.8. Who ever edited this page the said the sq miles was 97,990 sq mi, and this is not possible. My state has not allocated any land or expanded its borders so there is no way the State of Michigans sq miles can jump approximately 40,000 square miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.95.74 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • That would be correct, except the field is 'total area', which includes water area:
• 58,110 square miles of land
• 1,305 square miles of inland water
• 38,575 square miles of Great Lakes water area
That totals about 98k. DP76764 (Talk) 02:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you much, I was very confused im new to this internet encyclopedia. Kcgs1989 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It has the longest freshwater shoreline in the world

This is not only not nonsense, it is true. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

  • A couple of additional sources (not sure of their quality) regarding this: first source is unreliable — it seems to say its "longest" factoid is from 50states.com, which doesn't mention it (and would not itself be reliable anyway). Also, as I noted on your talk page, the second source is reliable, but only supports the claim of longest in the continental US, not the world. This has been discussed previously (see above), without clear consensus; I'm of the opinion that the "longest in the world" claim is sufficiently unqualified and should be changed to the claim supported by the MSU link: "Michigan's 3,288-mile Great Lakes shoreline is the longest freshwater shoreline in the continental United States and rivals the entire U.S. Atlantic seaboard." Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We should stick with what the sources sensibly give us, and the most is that Michigan's shoreline is the longest freshwater shoreline in the continental US. The broader claim of "longest shoreline in the world" makes no sense without some additional qualification such as, "... of any political subdivision", and at the moment we don't have any source for that assertion anyhow. JohnInDC (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The key to this discussion is "fresh water shoreline" which is a rare commodity. The only relevant contender/pretender is Lake Baikal, which has the largest volume, but not the greatest surface area; or Lake Tanganyika (which is divided between four countries. Both are one lake, which limits the amount of shore line. Because of its salinity, the Caspian Sea is not "fresh water" and is not relevant. Indeed, because Michigan has two peninsulas, Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes, it has a vast amount of shoreline that makes it unparalleled. It is rather like having two Florida peninsulas surrounded by fresh water. This makes the whole system unique Off hand, although lacking the peninsulas, the only place that comes close is Ontario, Canada, which borders three of the Great Lakes, and has a large amount of coast line on Georgian Bay. We need a source for any conclusion, but it is out there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

If we are to count multiple lakes, why would we ignore internal lakes? I wonder what the total lake shoreline of Canada might be. Greater than that of Michigan? Plazak (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
True, this is where it gets difficult to determine who has the longest freshwater shoreline. For example, Saimaa, a lake in Finland, is the 4th largest lake in Europe, but much smaller than any of the Great Lakes. However, it is very irregular in shape and has a very long shoreline - approximately 8,500 miles. Phizzy (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Michigan has 11,000 inland lakes. Excepting perhaps Alaska, the only two states that are close in that number are Wisconsin and Minnesota (which I think has 13,000).
Comparing countries gets very murky. Canada would be up there (It has the northern edge of the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence (assuming you count rivers). If you start counting islands there are lots of them in Georgian Bay. But the United States then would have all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. The former Soviet Union encompassed a great many lakes.
Saimaa presents an interesting challenge, assuming the figures are correct.
Assuming we all agree that we are only taking a bout fresh water shore line, then the main question is the definition of "shore line", and the relevant political subdivisions being considered. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
Well, yes and no. Keep in mind the NOAA reference states "coastline" not "shoreline", so we're talking about a bordering shoreline, not an internal one—therefore Saimaa, Baikal, and Michigan's inland lakes are not relevant either. Regarding political subdivisions, the State of Michigan (and U.S. statehood in general) lacks precise analogues in other countries, so it makes no sense to compare its coastline to that of other entities (countries, provinces, etc.). The NOAA reference appears to stand alone in making the "world's longest" claim, and as illustrated by this discussion it does nothing to qualify its grand statement. This is why I'm arguing in favour of changing the claim to the lesser, but uncontroversial, "longest freshwater shoreline in the continental United States" per this reference. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin. Let's confine the claim to what is 1) sourced and 2) coherent. The unadorned phrase, "world's longest freshwater shoreline", is just goo! JohnInDC (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we never made this change and today an editor revised it to say that it was the longest freshwater shoreline of any "state or province" in the world. I just changed it to "of any political subdivision in the world", reasoning that "states and provinces" might, or might not, needlessly confine the comparison to particular countries. (Doesn't Switzerland have cantons?) As noted previously, the source merely says "longest in the world" so anything we do involves a bit of interpolation. I think mine is a bit better than "state or province" but I also recognize it's not literally supported by the source, so I'd be open to any suggestions about how to refine this phrasing further. (I also acknowledge that this edit goes beyond what I'd recommended a year ago but I now think my prior phrasing was too narrow.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, Michigan has recently begun advertising for tourism a lot (voiced by Tim Allen no less). One of the commercials specifically mentions "longest freshwater coastline in the US". Maybe there is something fresh on michigan.gov that could be used as a source? DP76764 (Talk) 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this, from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality? Phizzy 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, once again this source supports a claim of longest freshwater shoreline (presumed synonymous with coastline) "in the U.S.", not "in the world" or, as presently stated, "of any political subdivision in the world". I'm still of the opinion that the sources do not adequately support any worldwide "longest" claim, as I've explained above, but are great for a U.S.-sized claim. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't disagree. I think the assertion means more than that - is intended to mean more than that - but it's hard enough to describe that larger claim, let alone source it. (You can see I'm struggling with this.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the same page as you John (I think). (And the commercial might have said "shoreline", not "coastline"; that might have been a mis-recollection on my part). I think at this point I'd be ok with just using "in the US"; maybe someday a decent source will arise that explains the "worldwide" version. DP76764 (Talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The NOAA source is quoted accurately and its official. It should remain.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving an image? Help needed.

I would suggest that this image

Map showing largest Michigan municipalities.

be moved to the right of the Important cities and townships list (so it would be in the center), and to the left of the thumbnail pictures of the municipalities/downtowns. This is a mere format/layout issue. I tried to do this, but had no luck. If it were done properly, it could give a full page spread to the colleges. I would appreciate some maven's assistance. Best regards and thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Stan

I added the image to the current wikitable using my limited knowledge. I believe this is what you were going for. 69.215.198.249 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Jasonaltenburg (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Economy

Wasn't there some mention of the huge cereal industry in Michigan? I remember reading it, I think it should be reinserted, given it's essentially the birthplace of the cereal industry, the birthplace of Corn Flakes, arguably one of the most popular cereals ever created, and the headquarters of the two largest cereal manufacturers in the world, Kellogg and Post. Revrant (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelloggs is mentioned under the agriculture sub heading.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls, etc.

Is it really appropriate to discuss the derogatory nicknames (such as 'trolls' and 'citiots') that some Michiganders have for other Michiganders in the introduction of the article? I found this highly offensive when I first read it and can't help but think that Michigan has enough public image problems without its Wikipedia page highlighting infighting among its residents. I am taking it out soon unless I hear rational reasons for its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.172.4 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Trolls" is amusing, and not wholly an inappropriate counterpoint to the "Yoopers" tidbit, which is actually informative. I don't think either brings particular disrepute to the state (which wouldn't matter anyhow if the information were appropriately included otherwise). Perhaps neither is entirely encyclopedic but let's open the floor to that. "Citiots" is just kind of insulting, and "flatlanders" simply trivial. I'll take those both out. As for the other two, let's see what kind of consensus develops. I'm inclined at the moment to let them stand. JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I also found a place later in the article that seemed as good as any a place to put the revised material. Probably better there than in the intro anyhow. JohnInDC (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that "citiots" and "flatlanders" are relatively uncommon (as well as unimaginative). But Yoopers and Trolls seem a pretty well-established bit of lore. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Area figure way off.

The figure given for the area of Michigan is 97,990 square miles, which is nearly double the accurate figure. I don't know the actual figure but this is a gross inaccuracy that needs to be corrected. Mal7798 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that. I didn't know the figure included water area. I was about to edit the discussion about the article on Wisconsin for the same reason but it is probably the same explanation. Mal7798 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GeoCoordinates

Any reason the coordinates given aren't simply the geographic center of the state? That seems like a pretty objective measurement to me. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me, and as you note it would eliminate most complaints about subjectivity or bias. (For those who can't be bothered looking, it would move the coordinates a couple of counties south, and a bit east, of where they are as of this writing. Near Cadillac.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that the Geographical center of Michigan] is in Wexford County, Michigan, putting it in as the single "coordinate" for the two peninsulas makes as much sense as anything else. Given he large water content (and Isle Royale is way north), and the fact that the two peninsulas are offset makes such a calculation somewhat problematical. But arbitrarily picking Traverse City, Michigan or its envirios as the appropriate locus for the 'state coordinate' makes no sense whatsoever. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Stan
I'll change it to the Geographical Center. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And what is so wrong with Traverse City? If you drew a circle around the state of Michigan (Lower Peninsula people should here be reminded to include Isle Royale as well as the Upper Peninsula), where do you think the center would be? That's right, if you guessed somewhere in Lake Michigan west of South Manitou Island you would be correct. The environs of Traverse City are just a compromise to satisfy those who want to keep it on land. Why do so many people think that Michigan is centered about Mount Pleasant or someplace like that? Backspace (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with Traverse City is the same thing that's wrong with Mount Pleasant: it's an arbitrary position. At least using the Geographic centers of the United States is verifiable. Although I do wonder how the other states' geo-coords are defined; I spot-checked a few others and their coords are not the same as their geographic centers. Which doesn't make sense to me, but there you have it. Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly right. Mt. Pleasant is arbitrary; Traverse City is arbitrary. The spot at the center of a hypothetical circle is not arbitrary but it produces results that are sometimes confusing - Michigan here, or - in the case of Florida, which you did this way as well - a location 50+ miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. A "center of the circle" geocoord for Florida is also at the center of another 100 mile diameter circle full of nothing but water - it's "accurate" in some sense for Florida, but it's not in the least bit helpful or illustrative for someone who doesn't actually know where Florida *is*. (I changed that state to the geographic center as well.) "Geographic center" is, at least in these two instances, sensible and it has the additional virtue of agreement between two Wikipedia articles. JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My solution answers one question, and it is a very important question: If you were to draw a map of Florida, Michigan, whatever, and put it on a single page without any insets and without showing any unnecessary extraneous territory, where would the center of that map be? The answer would be to draw a rectangle or circle around the relevant territory. So the center of Florida happens to be in the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot show a map of Florida without showing mostly Gulf of Mexico, unless you want to chop it up into several pieces. That is just a fact of life. I am just showing the entire state in one shot. Backspace (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it's appropriate to create an enclosing rectangle or circle for any political subdivision that is not already a rectangle or circle. We print on rectangular paper, so it's convenient to print rectangular maps of non-rectangular areas, but that's a printer's convention, not a geographic fact. If you want to find the "center" of a state, you should create a physical representation that corresponds to the state's actual territory (including water of course) and then find the center of that. To do this using an (arbitrary) enclosing circle or rectangle may yield patently incorrect results in some instances (e.g., a panhandle state - or for that matter any state with a concave boundary). I bet, for example, that the "center" of Maryland by this method is somewhere in Virginia or West Virginia; and if it's not, it's only by good fortune. JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment about 'people thinking the center is near Mount Pleasant' is because the Upper Peninsula 9including the Keweenaw Peninsula that juts way north and the western U.P., that goes so far west its in another time zone) didn't enter into their equation at all. And for that matter, all that water wasn't a factor. If one were looking for a 'natural tipping point' (however arbitrary that is), the Mackinac Bridge would be a good beginning. All of these discussions are plainly arbitrary. Trying to describe the locus of something as wide and long and multidimensional in one point is mainly silly. It is rather a battle of wits over Endianness, but with less meaning. Parenthetically, I meant that mainly in a Jonathon Swift/Gulliver's Travels reference. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

It is most certainly not silly. Our main objective is to get a good map of the state. If I were to say that Detroit is the center of Michigan, we would get a map of Michigan, to be sure. Then you would remark "but it's all askew. Most of the state lies to the west and north!" My reply would be "Is there more of Michigan beyond Wayne County?" Backspace (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


My personal preference would be to define the geocoordinates in the same way (or, at least, using the same set of rules) for all geographic areas on Wikipedia. Surely this issue has been discussed before, at some more all-inclusive level than a state talk page. So previous concensus was...? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Silly may have been the wrong word. But futile and without any overwhelming reason one way or another might be better. The geography of Michigan is so akilter and off center that using one point to describe it is plainly and arbitrary. You are certainly right that Detroit is not the center of Michigan, but neither is any of the other proposals. Having two points, one for the Upper Peninsula and one for the Lower Peninsula would give a better representation. This is a lot like Florida, but worse because of the distances involved. The off axis nature of the three peninsulas (four if you count the Thumb, makes this almowst like having Two Floridas. In sum, trying to reuce a two or three dimensional system into a single point won't help our readers much. But two separate coordinates might. That would be my Modest Proposal. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Stan
My preference is for something that is consistent, derives from a logically defensible procedure, and doesn't yield results that jar common sense. (If you have the first two the last should follow.) But if we're going to depart from that then I don't see anything particularly wrong with two geocoordinates (after all Michigan is the only state with two peninsulas). If at the end of the day we are going to stick with one geocoordinate *and* be arbitrary, then I think a point near the Mackinac Bridge would serve nicely as the single point. It may reflect a technical "bias" in favor of the UP, as well as the eastern parts of the state, but it clearly ties the two peninsulas together and gives the uninformed reader (that's the audience, right?) a fairly clear sense of the shape of the state. Any of these are preferable to a point in the middle of the water a few miles away from a neighboring state's boundary. JohnInDC (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am against the "two sets of coordinates" proposal. I don't want to click onto two different maps only to ask the question "How does Map A relate to Map B?". As I have stated, my main objective was to click on the coordinates and get a map that will tell me in one shot what "Michigan" looks like, and have it centered so that I don't have to move northwest, or some arbitrary compass direction in order to get the rest of it. That the actual "drilled-down to the center" coordinates are in Lake Michigan or the Gulf of Mexico are irrelevant to me. I'm just interested in getting a good map in one shot. After all, why do we even have a geocoordinates link, anyway? It's mainly in order to get to a map of the place, not to get to a map of Mount Pleasant or Marquette in particular. Backspace (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think of geocoordinates as a way of bringing up a map screen but instead as a useful tool to give a general idea where the subject of the article is located on the surface of the planet as well as a sense of what the thing looks like (though this latter function is a bit redundant given all the other maps on the page). And, seeing as the click on the geocoordinate link throws you to a page with literally dozens of different map viewing options available it would seem futile to try to select coordinates with an eye to having the "right" map come up. This is particularly so given the problem of "centering" a region as strangely shaped as the (collective) state of Michigan. I think the most sensible thing, if you're going to depart from the geographic center, is to pick a spot that is plainly and unequivocally within the state, positioned in a way so as not to completely draw the eye away from the more far-flung parts (as for example something centered on Lansing). The *most* important thing, I think, is not to locate the spot in such a place (i.e. in the middle of a lake to which 4 states can lay at least some claim) and evoke a confused "huh?" from the user when they first land there after clicking through. JohnInDC (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
On your last point, that would not happen, no matter where the center point was, if the map were preset at an appropriate scale, i.e., not drilled down to some guy's back yard on East Main Street in Owosso or something like that. Backspace (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The November 23, 2009 issue of Newsweek magazine (the one with Sarah Palin on the cover) apparently thinks that "Michigan" is only southern Michigan in a map from an article featured on page 64. Backspace (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of so-called "geographic center" here is interesting: [2]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Long page - spin off section?

I suggest converting the sports teams and colleges sections to a couple sentences each and adding links to that material in stand-alone list articles. They take up too much space here and their layout looks bad too. Rmhermen (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Good point...hm...you could...nah... I'm Arceus493 (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC), and don't get in my way!

Government

"Michigan is governed as a republic..." How is this unusual or notable in any way? I thought all 50 states were governed as republics. — CWesling (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah...how is that out of the ordinary? Huminuh...Arceus493 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a description of a basic fact - why would it need to be extrodinary? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Shoreline Rank

I found the claim that Michigan has the second longest shoreline of any state (after Alaska) to be a bit off base. The claim was also made in List of U.S. states by coastline where the claim was based on the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management My State pages. The numbers taken from each states' page there actually support the ninth longest shoreline claim. Of course coastline measurements are notorious for measurement difficulties: see Coastline paradox. Datandrews (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UP

I've always wondered why the UP is part of MI rather than Wisconsin, anyone know the origin of these two states? Guess the French declared both parts as theirs, not knowing the southern boundaries. Just wondering if anyone knew.--Paddling bear (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You should read about the Toledo War. That has the info you want. -- dcclark (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture

Given that Agriculture is a very major economic sector in Michigan, it would seem to warrant more than just two short paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could write more. (Hint) Just remember that we have a maximum page size to stay within! Rmhermen (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.216.40.83, 20 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


65.216.40.83 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a detailed request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lowest point question

I did see the USGS link but I wonder how lake Erie can be a lower point in the state than Lake Superior. From my understanding just off he coast of Munising is the lowest point in North America but I have no citation for that. Does anyone know how lake Erie is lower than Superior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wylmc (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing the depth to the bottom of the lake. Lowest point refers to the lowest surface point (in this case, the beach where it touches the surface of Lake Erie). Rmhermen (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Trolls

Something should be added regarding the fact that those who live in the lower peninsula are referred to as "trolls" as they live below the Mackinac Bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackrevan (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoreline length (again)

A while back, here, we discussed how Michigan's shoreline length ranked among states; we stuck with 9th because that's what the NOAA source said. That source seems to have disappeared, leaving us with no source at all. (I could not find it again in a very quick, have-to-get-to-work search.) I've restored 9th because that's our last sourced figure, and now throw the contest open to anyone who can find a source again.

I thought about changing the text to reflect what the NOAA website also says, namely that Michigan has the "longest freshwater coastline in the world" but remembered another Talk discussion, which I can't at the moment locate, where that assertion seemed kind of incoherent - longest freshwater coastline of *what*? A nation? A political subdivision of a nation? If / when I can find that discussion I'll toss in a link here too. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's that other discussion - Talk:Michigan/Archive_2#Shoreline_length JohnInDC (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A link to a Michigan.gov FAQ that puts Michigan second, here. It's pretty attenuated as an authority, and contradicts the earlier NOAA listing - but that one's gone now so this is it for the time being I think. Editing the article text and adding this ref. JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
NOAA version of Great Lakes shorelines including islands. This would seem to make it the second longest shoreline of any state in the United States behind Alaska, as claimed in the World Book Encyclopedia. One could also fairly deduce that it is the longest freshwater shoreline in the United States. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Stan
Yeah, but here for example NOAA assigns more than 8,000 miles of shoreline to Florida. I suspect that if we went state-by-state through the NOAA articles we'd wind up right back with Michigan at 9th. (However in the world NOAA is measuring shoreline.) These discrepancies were the source of the earlier discussion. Now that the NOAA summary is gone, we may as well cite to Michigan.gov and leave it at that (for the time being). JohnInDC (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Michigan.gov FAQ which cites to World Book encyclopedia, with another line; and [http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3677-15959--,00.html Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Length of Michigan shoreline. The Florida claim seems dubious, compared to Michigan, as there is but one peninsula (and the Florida portion of the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico), compared to two peninsulas (Upper Peninsula]] and Lower Peninsula, which also have within them the Keweenaw Peninsula, the Leelanau Peninsula, and Old Mission Peninsula, and the Thumb. Having driven all of those coast lines at one time or another (not counting island, or course), I have my personal opinion (I know, WP:NOR. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Stan

This may be helpful: List of U.S. states by coastline. The NOAA link there redirects here, and the state pages listed there give the NOAA figures. --Avenue (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The table here doesn't include lake shorelines, but does explain the difference between the two Florida figures. --Avenue (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article on Great Lakes levels

Lynch, Jim, November 08. 2010 Low Great Lakes levels prompt new call for action: U.S., Canada look at options to slow flow out of Lake Huron Detroit News. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

2010 population

The new census data is out. I updated the table in the demographics section. But not the main infobox because I haven't seen a full list of state populations and I don't know if Michigan is still the 8th most populous. Rmhermen (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Governor elect"

This is a status, not an office. Rick Snyder will not hold an office with the state government until he takes the oath of office in 8 days. He can be listed once he's taken that office. Not that I expect anything to happen, but there's always the possibility for some untoward circumstance that prevents him from taking office, which would mean that listing him now is premature. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

First there is an official office here are articles that list him meeting with people. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There are just a few news stories, it is his office and it is noteworthy for wiki. Also he as many government (elect) people nationwide do hold a lot of power between transitions. Also, the only thing that would stop him from taking office is his death. He is without question the newly elected governor of Michigan. I request you revert your own change at this point to avoid a edit war, this edit was made because some people do not understand why he is not listed, as a pol sci major this is the way to show the transition. Something that American politics has over some other countries is the peaceful transfer of power.Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:50,

24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for got to list official government sites [10], [11]Also Michigan Law holds that Governor-elect and lieutenant governor-elect as offices, planing for the "devolution of powers and duites" Thus this makes it an official office under the State of Michigan Constitution[12]. MCL 168.67 Offices of governor and lieutenant governor; vacancy; death or failure to qualify of governor-elect or lieutenant governor-elect; devolution of powers and duties. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(wwrhfl552xvruu55k02n1n55))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-168-67.pdf]. Here are some offical Michigan.Gov sites that are issuing press releases from the office of the governor-elect: [13]Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
You are both right. There is no "office" but there is a status or simple statement of fact. There is no United States "President elect" either, but can anyone seriously say that Obama wasn't such between November when he was elected and January when he took office. Certainly the fact of election and the transition are reportable and notable. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
I would point out that there is an office and title under the Michigan Constitution, this does make it a government office in Michigan. Under the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Const. Section 3 it also establish the office of President and Vice President Elect. Once an election is certified this people are placed in the line of succession to form an orderly transition of power. I do agree listing them as the gov. is very inaccurate but listing both is appropriate. Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no "office of president elect". Obama is the first to ever use the status as a title. There are no duties to being anything elect, except to wait until it's time to take the oath. As a matter of courtesy, the Senate will hold hearings for cabinet secretaries for an incoming administration. They can't confirm them though. What's unseen is that the new president after the oath slips inside the Capitol and signs the appointments so then the Senate can vote in the subsequent days to confirm. Michigan's governor is the same. Short of Granholm implementing actions as a courtesy to Snyder, he is powerless to do anything in our state government until noon on New Year's Day. "Governor elect" is a status and a title of courtesy to reflect the fact that in this case, Rick Snyder will be governor. The quoted section of the constitution only provides for a line of succession should the winner of the election die before taking office, but it does not establish an actual office. Imzadi 1979 → 21:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an office in the federal government more than in the state of Michigan. President Obama was not the first person to use the transition time before taking the oath, he did do it more publicly with a use of the title on his post elections signs. Here Clinton did it [14]. Most president from 1960 forward have used that title. Also overall you should look at President-elect of the United States. Important facts are outlined that United States presidential transition act of 1963 amended in 2000 the act provides that "he Act as amended directs the Administrator of General Services to provide facilities, funding of approximately five million dollars, access to government services, and support for a transition team, and to provide training and orientation of new government personnel and other procedures to ensure an orderly transition."
This is not done because there is no office, this is done to insure that newly elected Representatives have some time to get up to speed and run an orderly government, not a government in anarchy. Also as president-elect(s) they are provided with security briefings just as the prescient is, they are provide the level of presidential secret service. In Michigan the Michigan State police start their protection shortly after the election process. One could say that the term "elect" is similar to the that of office of the vice-president. Under the US Constitution the Vice president has no power, (Other than tie breaking votes in the senate), and to stay alive. An "elect" official in the 51 highest level (President and 50 governors) of government have more a role than does the vice president in office.
You are correct that under the laws of Michigan, that a governor-elect holds not "official power" to use the power of governor. However, there is more in a democracy than the official power given, The income governor in every state is busy with the process of a peaceful transfer of power. You have given no fact(s) to support this in not for wiki, that it should not be used to document the status of the state of Michigan, you not supported with other than opinion of yours. The office is in the Michigan Constitution as a title given to a person who wins the election until taking office. There are sever other Michigan Law that talk about the preparations and refer to "governor-elect." While there is no-official duties, the Michigan Constitution creates the title following the US Constitution and its creation of the President Elect. Thus it is currently appropriate to list him, and his running mate with the titles granted under the Michigan Constitution. I am sorry you do not agree, but Michigan had a change to hold a Con-Con (Constitutional convention) as required under the 20 year rule, but they did not. Unless you have another reason to leave them off the page, I will be restoring the edit, as it reflect the Constitution of the state of Michigan, and the laws of the state. Just because they is not "official office" there is an official title, and it is given by State Constituting.23:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoodrich (talk • contribs)
All of that is fine and dandy, but there is no office of "President elect" nor "Governor elect". There are funds and support made available to help ensure a smooth transition, and there are contingencies in place to ensure a succession should the winner of the election fail to qualify or die before assuming office. That does not confer an "office" with specific duties and obligations. I also agree with leaving it out for exactly the same reason as Mr Z describes: the "title" and name were squashed into a space designed just for the name, screwing up the formatting of the infobox. In 7 days and just over 12 hours (as I write this) the entire discussion will be moot when Snyder and Callie takes their oaths. Just leave if out. Imzadi 1979 → 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I would advocate leaving it out just because it looks awful in the infobox. On my monitor, the version with the "-elect"s widens the infobox by nearly 50% because it tries to cram the title and name in an area designed for just the name. Just because the title is defined in the constitution does not mean that we have to include it in the infobox. One does not logically follow from the other; the Michigan constitution is not a Wikipedia style guideline. Mr.Z-man 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
First I do not disagree that it does add to the infobox, not the best way to do it. I agree that in 8 days it will be moot, but the idea of having this part of the infobox over all for articles that have these dual heads for 2 to 3 months should be there. There were several edit wars flagged as vandalism where a person assuming good faith (was trying to add information in the only way the wiki state info box would allow them). Here in applying the WP:5p I tried to come up with a creative way to do two things. Under the WP:EP I was trying to fix a problem, the on going edit wars listed as vandalism that another person may not have understood when the new governor takes office. Second was to add information to the article: "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide ... the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by ... adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable. "
Here this edit or add to the page, did both it solved an ongoing problem with an edit war, and also gave people more information. In response to Z:man the Michigan Constitution is not a style guide it does however equal a "verifiable" source. Near of of the most verifiable you can find. WP:EP help to support why it should be there. I am looking into a way to add to the info box or make it look better. However, there have been no reason why not just for Michigan, but for the future to have this title which is a honor for any of the people who make it thus far in a state or national election for 51 seats of government to be credit. In making wiki more reliably this will do it and help to avoid vandalism or repeated edit wars for people that do not understand that just because your elected does not mean you are Governor/President yet. Thus helping educate people and provide reliable information. Jsgoodrich (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me counter with a few comments. The anonymous editors weren't "trying to add information in the only way the wiki state info box would allow them". They were out and out placing the wrong name as the governor of the state, going so far as to state that Granholm is a "living former governor". Now if they were genuinely mistaken over the fact that she hasn't left office yet, that's one thing, but the proper course of action, when reverted, is to discussion the reasons for the reversion, which they didn't do. One editor went so far as to leave insulting personal attacks on the reverting editor's talk page.
Second, Michigan doesn't have two heads right now, we have one. There is only one governor in this state, and there is only one lt. governor. That we are days away from their successors taking their oaths doesn't mean we need to clutter up the article's infobox. There is no "Office of Governor elect". In my Google searching, the press releases that pop up for various states and years use the phrase "The office of Governor elect X announced today..." with a lowercase "o" on office. The office of Imzadi1979 could release a statement, but that just means I'd be lucky enough to have a secretary to release the statement on my behalf. Our state's constitution does not set up an office or an official position of governor-elect. In fact, the only mention in the constitution covers the case of who becomes governor at the start of the new term should the governor-elect die before assuming office. That's hardly the creation of a position or an office since there are no duties, rights or responsibilities attached.
In short, and in general for any applicable article, I'm opposed to inserting information into the infobox that gives the false impression that a state has two heads when it does not. The text of the article, in discussion the current governor can and should be updated to list the elected successor, but not the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 12:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that there's a blog out there somewhere that has urged its readers to insert this information into the Michigan articles - the edits are so persistent, in the face of requests to stop making them, and from so many different IPs, that any assumption of good faith may be abandoned. (FWIW, similar edits are still being made to other Michigan gubernatorial-related pages for which I didn't seek semi-protection.) The infobox edit was a creative compromise, but I do agree that because "Governor-elect" is really nothing more than a name bestowed on the person waiting in the wings, the notation doesn't belong there. JohnInDC (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Again you are so hung up on "Official office" you are over looking it is a "title" given as JohnInDC points out it the title given to a person who won and is waiting to take office. However the MI Const has placed that person in the line of succession for a reason. Thus they do hold a position in government just with no responsabilites but to stay alive like the vice president until they take office. Again, I ask for some proof other than your opinion. Your comment about your press release is just that. The MI Constitution along with the US Constitution give the title. IF you can find a way to have Imzadi1979 wrote in to a on of the 51 recognized constitution then I would be more than happy to advocate to have you added to what ever needed info box.
You are also hung up on that in 8 days this is over, but I would point out that we have a chance to build an ungoing method to avoid these edit wars during any election process for state governor in the future Michigan is not the only state that have edit wars like this. Thus overall building a method to give credit to the title granted under Constitutions for a few months in an infobox I see as the best way, Unless someone else has something else.Jsgoodrich (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I also question whether it makes sense to adapt the infoboxes to include a position or designation that will appear but for three or four months every 4 years. It's not like Michigan, or any other state, always has a "Governor elect". Official or not, it's a fleeting thing, not a fixed characteristic or description like the other items that appear in state infoboxes. The more I think about this, the less I like it. JohnInDC (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Jsgoodrich, "governor-elect" is not in the line of succession in the constitution. There is in the Michigan Constitution a provision, similar to the US Constitution, to provide for who becomes governor should the governor-elect die before taking office (which would probably also apply to a posthumous candidate whose name couldn't be removed from the ballot in time for the election.) This is the only mention of a governor-elect in the entire document. Such a provision doesn't make this position important enough to list in the article's infobox, sorry. Engaging in an edit war is a bad thing. Inserting false information into an article is a bad thing. There are policies and procedures to deal with that. We don't need to clutter an infobox to do that. Changing the infobox won't stop people from changing the dates on tables in other articles. We've seen the expected date for the end of Granholm's term inserted in articles, and her name listed as a "living former governor". Many things could happen in the next week to change those expectations, and the articles should not be updated until something actually changes. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Your semi-right it is not in the traditional line of succession, it is important enough to have it is own line of succession in the Constitution. However, the Governor-elect is in the line of succession see MCL [15] Wiki unlike a paper encyclopedic has the big advantage of being able to list "temporary office/title" to help people have a better understanding of transitions in American government. Also under MCL it is stated that "Before presenting final budget proposals to the governor, the state budget director may hold departmental hearings at which officials of the department may be heard on the proposals. The chief executive officer of a department, or member of a board or commission, or their representatives shall attend the hearings if requested by the state budget director. A governor-elect shall be invited to attend and participate in the departmental hearings."[16]
Michigan Law and the state Constitution grant more than an Honorary title a special line of succession is setup to cover the death of Gov.-Elect, Lt. Gov.Elect-, Secretary of State-elect, and Attorney -General Elect. Agian you have nothing other than your opinion to support your thought. While others have offered some support of your argument most have been about look of wiki, which I agree with. However, as far as I know you are not government subject mater expert, you have not knowledge of working in the government. It is like me saying the sky is red at night. With no way to support it or having any training other than a liberal arts requirement of two science classes. You have given nothing to back up your statement. I have asked four times for you to prove your statements and using other edits that people do not understand when we should edit wiki provide more justification for creating a category to help people understand what a transition period is. While a Gov.-elect has limited power, it is a title that the both Michigan Law and the Michigan Constitution Grant the title. So Michigan Law has held it important, also in wiki you can see we list honor title of "sir" and "doctor" these titles are not real with office, but we show respect. I would ask is there a political reason you do not want it listed? I will state and in full credit, the current Governor Elect of Michigan I did not vote for but do think he should be granted the respect given of winning th election. I am more in support of educating people about how government power is transfered. Again please support your statement. Jsgoodrich (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm just finding it hard to convince myself that the holder of this transient and intermittent office (or position, what have you) of little (closer to "no") immediate impact or authority, merits inclusion in State infoboxes, which are intended to convey only the most basic information about a state. I'm sure that the outcome of the election is covered in the article text, as well as on the winner's article, so it's hardly like he's being *dis*respected by the omission - and, even if he were, I'm not sure how "respect" enters into the decision whether to include a particular fact in a particular place in an article. Whatever formal or pro forma authority or importance the position holds during this period, it's really very little when it comes to the operation of the state and on that basis alone should be omitted. JohnInDC (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR. You ask for proof that "governor-elect" is not an office. If it were an office, it would be mentioned more than once in the entire state constitution. In your last reply, that first MCL citation has been superceded. That's a law from 1846, and the Constitution of 1963 has established a similar provision. There is another similar provision from a 1954 law. Neither of these three provision set up a "line of succession" to an "office of governor-elect". They prevent a constitutional crisis if the governor-elect dies or fails to qualify for office (i.e. an individual is too young to take office at the start of the term but will be old enough after the term starts). A search of the Michigan Legislature website for "governor-elect" only lists one other provision related to a governor-elect, and that's to invite him to budget meetings. That's it. There's not even a provision to supply the winner of an election with office space, a budget for transition expenses, or the multitude of other things that could be expected. As of this moment, Rick Snyder has no power in state government beyond the courtesy to be consulted ahead of taking office. I'm sorry, that's not sufficient to be listed in the infobox, in my opinion. The infobox should be a summary of the most important information in the article. With no actual power and only a requirement to be invited to budget meetings, the position, while important for the long-term, is not important in the short term. I fully agree with John on this. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sick of proving this to you, this is why editors like me start working hard and then for a simple change or fix we have to fight for days with an opinion. Then we just give up, and stop editing for months. Are you a political sci., government expert, do you have a college degree or something than your own opinion to back your self up. You site the same law that I cite above to support your argument. Which fail. They are listed not once, if you would do a full code search you would see more. There is a line of succession setup to deal with elect officials. Because it is important information. If you have ever been in an political meeting or office where an incoming person was elected (at any level), you would know that the new incoming person holds a lot of power, even with out it being official. No one wants to anger the new boss just yet. So in a budget meeting they get a lot of say. The state of Ohio has had some interesting transitions which actions of a governor elect in dealing with some laws that should have been signed but did not get signed right by the current governor. If you have a problem with the Michigan Constitution or U.S. Constitution go change them. I am sick of arguing, the title (Not office) is given under the highest authority in the state, I am sorry you disagree with it. And you want to fight because you want to fight. Tell me the title is not in the Michigan Constitution or Law, and I will back down. But you know you can't because they are their they are given a transition team and money, the pick a cabinet and start working on setting up the new government on day one of the term. Do you think the new governor has not been meting with the heads of both parties, and taking political meetings, seating the direction from the day after the election was over. The Gov-elect start govenring (unofficial) so that on day one in three days he can have a working government. In the Presidents office, the first (This year second) document that the incoming US president as to sign is a document that gives him a cabinet a document that the president elect has to work with congress on so we have a government on the day of his takes office. These things in states also have to be done. This year like almost ever year in history when an incoming and out going president or gov. leave they order a halt to pending changes in fed./state law. Obama did it this year[17], and I bet the incoming michigan gov. will do the same. For an interesting history in transition time in American Government go read the full opinion of Marbury v. Madison. This is why it is important to education people and have people under stand why two people are semi battling for power of an office. I am not pushing an agenda I am trying to clear up people misconceptions about how power is transitions. Save editors time on needless edits and removal because people do not see the elected person name in an article for Michigan or understand. These side argument are the worst part of wiki. It is a title NOT AN OFFICE as stated above a number of times. Nothing says an info box need to have an official office. If you want to go that way, we should list the State AG, and SOS. Those are office in the state, the AG is the head lawyer of the state. They are not their, but they are offices. My point is simple to solve a simple problem a two line fix is added to grant the title, respect, and honor due to the incoming Gov. and to help people understand that while they see the new Gov-elect in the paper that he is in prep and working unofficial to make sure the government does not fall apart while he learns to walk in office. We list him/her as they are the future of the state (unless they are struck by lighting and killed).
I know my posting is harsh but this is my biggest pet pev with wiki, and that one person who has his own view hold up the process of making it better. To me your are acting just like Colbert who tried to get people to say the number of elephants had doubled in Africa. If Gov-elect was just nothing it would not be in the Constitution, or in the laws. I will give credit to Jon above as he states "I'm just finding it hard to convince myself that the holder of this transient and intermittent office (or position, what have you) of little (closer to "no") immediate impact or authority, merits inclusion in State infoboxes" He state it is "I'M" he gave an opinion and he is right they have (close to "no" impact or authority" but they do have some. My fix was a simple two line 6 word fix that has now spread over 5 days because you did not like it. Which is sad. Because some where you think the wiki info box should only list an office for the state. Looking at some other info box(s) the information that are placed in these is wide ranging that gives people a quick look at what key facts should be known. The best part is that whole argument is that you are overlooking WIKI has no rules, yet you keep saying OFFICIAL OFFICE and we are suppose to be bold to solve problems over a 6 word fix you have fought over it. Jsgoodrich (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Mentioned in article is OK, and I think should be done.
However, no reason to crap up an infobox for something so transitory/ephemereal. As to Michigan, this problem will go away on Saturday. Happy New Year. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
  1. I also think mentioning Rick Snyder in the body of the article is fine (under "Politics" where both Granholm and Engler are mentioned), although it doesn't seem all that important to me, so in essence I don't care.
  2. I don't think mentioning Rick Snyder in the infobox or lede (until he's sworn in) really makes sense. Exactly four people are called out by name in the infobox, and I don't see why the name of a governor-elect is more substantially important than, say, the AG or SOS or house majority leader or any one of a dozen other people. Leaving it as-is seems the right balance.
  3. However, I could be persuaded if articles on other states mentioned their governors-elect. A spot-check of New York, for example, finds that governor-elect Andrew Cuomo is not mentioned in the article at all (even under his current title of AG).
  4. The argument that "governor-elect" appears in the Michigan Constitution is particularly unpersuasive. It appears just once, as does the "civil rights commission" (just to pick something that appears on the same page). I don't think the civil rights commission needs to be in the infobox either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I will jump in (and I have been following this discussion). I, too, as the other three editors, see no reason to add this to the infobox. This is not a two-person dicussion or anything like obstructionism or WP:OWN. We all fail to build consensus for some of our changes. I opposed setting up Wiktionary and failed moving the United States article to United States of America way back in 2001 - and opposed setting up Wikinews and failed to keep the article on Detroit at Detroit, Michigan more recently. You work the best you can, make the best compromises, take breaks from some battles and sometimes from the whole project. But it all moves forward. Rmhermen (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Jsgoorich, your replies on here are very long, so much to the point that I wonder how many others have not read all of them. You keep saying that this is a problem, and others disagree. If there are other provisions in Michigan law (let's skip all of these comparisons to Obama and the US presidency) than what I found above. There were 4 search results for the current state constitution and the Michigan Compiled Laws. Three of them redundantly talk about what to do in the potential circumstance that the winner of the election can't take office at the appointed time. The fourth is to make sure that the winner of the election is invited to budget meetings. (You do realize that as a matter of law and custom, Granholm will be submitting the initial budget proposals for 2011, even though Snyder takes office at the start of the year. That's why he gets invited and consulted because he's that one that has to govern with that budget.) I'm unpersuaded in my personal opinion that the infobox needs the additional lines to mention the expected next governor and lieutenant governor based on what is essentially two provisions of law. (Remember, the provision of the constitution you cite on succession is duplicated and triplicated with 1846 and 1954 statutes that only differ in wording, not substance.) You say that these 2 provisions mentioned a total of 4 time warrant inclusion, and I, and others, disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You keep using the "constitution" argument, but it still doesn't make any sense. You're missing some logical propositions between "The title is mentioned in the constitution" and "Therefore we should put it in the infobox." What the president does or what happens in Ohio is irrelevant (though for what its worth, the governor-elect in Ohio is not mentioned in the Ohio article). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; respect and honor do not factor into our editorial decisions. We're supposed to remain neutral. You do realize that, at this point, you are the one person whose view is holding up everything? Not counting the IPs that just showed up to edit war, there are 6 editors here who disagree with adding it to the infobox. You're the only one in favor of it. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep I agree that I have spend a ton of time trying to find a simple solution to a problem that looking back a few years at a sampling of state boxes have seen this happen a few times. I then looked to find a way find a creative solution. I grant that in 2 days this issue become moot for 4, 5, 6 years for the states that just had election depending on the states and how long their term is. I am trying to find a way to establish a simple fix for a problem. Also just because people have removed the governor elect name from an article, for same reason expressed here that it is not officially in office. There are a lot of things missing from wiki articles just because no one was willing to place it back in again is not a reason to remove it. If some one has a better way I am all ears, but looking at the whole picture I still think this is the best solution to solve two to three months of edit wars. BTW I have no reaon not to look at the us president and us Con. because the Michigan Law and Michigan Con is modeled on them like about 20 of the other states. 19:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoodrich (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia articles can't have everything in them. At some point one has to draw a line and declare that a particular fact is too trivial or evanescent to warrant inclusion. Based on what I see about the position ("title"?) of Governor-elect, it's simply too low-level for inclusion in the very high-level infobox. And, while I really do applaud your effort at a creative solution, I think the real "problem" here was not the exclusion from the infobox of this rather random factoid, but instead a series persistent, identical - and erroneous! - edits by a succession of seemingly unrelated anonymous editors. As I said above, I'm pretty convinced that either 1) they're in fact related or 2) were put up to the mission by someone with an axe to grind either against the current Governor or Wikipedia. Indeeed the troublesome edits seem to have ended, here and on related pages, with the semi-protection of the Michigan page, which tells me that there isn't even any longer a problem to be addressed with substantive edits. JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
JohnInDC, I agree someone most like had an ax to grind a supporter or a person who did not like the result. Having seen a few of these edit wars (not just here) a simple solution is what I proposed that covered a transition period which would be factually correct and refect what people see in the news. I have seen these edit wars in the past before I started to edit wiki. I am not the only person who has seen this talk:Infobox U.S. state user:Patrickneil also made this comment while not supporting the infobox "This is tough for me not to support, because it does drive me bananas each November." It is annoying to try and build something useful, when people have editwars over something simple to fix. Again the State info box is small now compared to other infoboxes Infobox university. Again adding two lines does not seem to fill the box. Plus it allows people on both side to see the names there. I see it like the office holder infobox that list two lines to (Preceded by Succeeded by). Here think of Michigan as the position we are adding who will take over. Thus a simple time saving attempt to fix political fights. Yet give the general public a full view of the state of state politics in transitions. Plus I think it is good when CNN, FOX, MSNBC have one of the elected people on and someone googles/bing(s) their name that the Main state article should come up to link content to. That was the goal of the edit and the proposal Jsgoodrich (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michigan/Archive_2&oldid=1154726366"