Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Lujan Grisham/Archive 1

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Lujan Grisham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Lujan Grisham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Lujan" or "Luján"?

Does anybody know? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Some families or individuals use the diacritic, others, like Lujan Grisham, do not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luj%C3%A1n#People. Note that although Ben Ray Luján uses the acute accent, his page says he actually pronounces his name Anglicized, as does Lujan Grisham, with stress on the first syllable. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Much of the section on Lujan Grisham's political positions is sourced to OnTheIssues.org and VoteSmart.org. These are not reliable sources for this type of information. Better sources should be found or the material should be removed. I have tagged the article accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because some right winger doesn't like factual sources, that doesn't make them unreliable. -- 72.194.23.121 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Immigration?

Of the fifteen political positions listed, immigration isn't there. It seems this would be one of the most important, since this is the Governor of a border state (New Mexico). Does anyone know why it's not included?

Dga

She is the current chair of the Democratic governors association; why is that not in the infobox? SRD625 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yet another allegation of sexual misconduct

In Oct 30, 2018, a man named Eddie Dehart accused Luhan Grisham of gross sexual misconduct via this video on his Vimeo channel. Since then, a number of independent news media have cited/commented on his case/video e.g. pinonpost.com and nationalfile.com. Do these sources meet the WP standards that warrant inclusion of the allegation in the article? Other suggestions/requirements?

No, these are not WP:RS KidAd • SPEAK 18:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I see you made major changes w.r.t the previous edits on her alleged sexual misconduct towards James Hallinan. You claim/insinuate POV. Well, I don't think so. First of all, the lead section of WP articles customarily include a brief discussion on sexual harassment/misconduct whenever applicable. What exempts Lujan Grisham from the same treatment? Secondly, in the main section, you deleted a large chunk of material that was very pertinent to the allegation, and all sources used were from major news media: CNN, MSN, Washington Post, and the Albuquerque Journal. It seems to me like YOU are the one with an agenda and pushing POV. I'm open to discussion, but in the mean time, I am restoring the material you deleted. Miss Andry — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to gain consensus per WP:ONUS. KidAd • SPEAK 21:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Miss Andry, the content you added included a quote from an editorial written by a Republican running in the 2022 gubernatorial election, followed by another quote from a random Republican. You don't think that violates WP:NPOV? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, frankly I was modelling content to match the same rigor and vigor I perceive being executed in many other sexual harassment related sections of WP entries. But I think I see what you are saying: no "personal analysis". Specifically, I see the "attacks" by the Republicans have been deleted along with Lujan Grisham's "excuses" for making the settlement. No problem. I'm hoping to use this WP:NPOV as a guideline when editing other sexual harassment related sections of other WP entries. I see you are an admin. Can I ping you or something in the future as I go about editing other WP entries?
But why is there still no mention of sexual harassment or misconduct in the lead section as is customary with WP? This remains highly suspicious to me. What is the criteria for inclusion in the lead section? May I go around deleting the mention of sexual harassment, misconduct, or assault from lead sections of other articles?
(For the record, inclusion of the the second Republican, Will Reinert, wasn't "random", he was cited in the same CNN article article that discussed Lujan Grisham's settlement. But I see this reference has also been deleted). Miss Andry
MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADNO apply here. Specifically, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead and According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. KidAd • SPEAK 02:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
KidAd, honestly, you keep pointing to a lot of ambiguous rigmarole as if to distract or discourage. There is absolutely nothing in what you've cited that meaningfully answers the simple question "why is there still no mention of sexual harrasment/misconduct in the lead section as is CUSTOMARY with WP?" Is the mention of this topic simply "not important" enough in the case of Lujan Grisham? What? If anything, a brief mention of her alleged sexual misconduct is required so that the lead section "can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Miss Andry

New image

Proposed image

Seeing how her current lead image is a year away from being a decade old and it's an official portrait from her previous political office, perhaps she should follow suit as Bernie Sanders's and Beto O'Rourke's infobox image did. Her appearance is different than it was ten years ago (a justification used to change Sanders's and O'Rourke's infobox images). Thoughts on the proposed image? (Note: The proposed image is from an October 2021 White House photo op in which cropped versions of it have been used on Governors Kate Brown's and Dan McKee's infoboxes) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Lujan_Grisham/Archive_1&oldid=1174692371"