Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 188: Line 188:
Why exactly are 1) Her father in law 2) Her father in law's company 3) Her father in law's estimated net worth 4) her brother and 5) her brother's company "key details" that have to be put into the lead? None of those are things
Why exactly are 1) Her father in law 2) Her father in law's company 3) Her father in law's estimated net worth 4) her brother and 5) her brother's company "key details" that have to be put into the lead? None of those are things
DeVos did, nor are they made her notable. She is notable in her own right. Further, the claim that LEAD says "key details" should be reiterated..... most of this gets a single sentence each in the article. How "key" is that really? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
DeVos did, nor are they made her notable. She is notable in her own right. Further, the claim that LEAD says "key details" should be reiterated..... most of this gets a single sentence each in the article. How "key" is that really? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
:Your removal of content from the lead edit was reverted because you supplied an invalid reason for the removal, stating ''"again, already well covered in the article and not needed in the lead"''. [[WP:LEAD]] states: ''"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."'' So, clearly, your rationale for the removal on the basis that the detail was already mentioned in the body text is invalid. [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red|talk]]) 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:07, 16 December 2016

Severe issues

This article has serious issues in regards to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V / WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:COATRACK, etc., etc. At least 3/4 of the material – all this pointless detail-mongering and name-dropping – in this piece could simply be deleted. Start with all the organization details that do not pertain directly to the subject of the article, then the biographizing about descendants (I deleted the granddaughter's name for privacy reasons), all the non-notable organization namedropping (redlink? throw it out), and so on. Then move on to the WP:PEACOCK wording and other puff-piece junk, like dwelling on how many homes they have, etc. This article on minor notables in the business world is longer than many of our articles on major figures of world history but provides only about 10% as much encyclopedic value, and is mostly sourced to primary sources, and low-quality news sources like local newspaper and their websites and blogs. The article is being treated like it's the personal webpage of Besty DeVos, and it's pretty clear there's WP:COI editing going on here.

All of the above pertains to her husband's article, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. The career section is filled with trivia and one-sided peacocking. The board memberships section is completely unreferenced -- a tedious resume-like list. The article also seems to be completely lacking in coverage of the more controversial aspects about DeVos, like the criticism she has received for her efforts at school privatization; for example, All Children Matter was found to have broken campaign finance laws in 2008 and had not paid a $5.2 million fine levied against the organization. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for starters. I only encountered this page while WP:GNOMEing, and am pretty appalled at both the promotional trivia-mongering and studious avoidance of any critical material, though lots of it is instantly findable via Google. Ditto for the husband's article too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I reverted one edit, whose aim was to remove the "personal life" section, as it would have been non-standard layout for a Wikipedia article. Her philanthropy on education reform is philanthropic, not politics, as far as I can tell...Moreover, I think her residences should be added back, as that is standard information on Wikipedia, unless there is a clear safety issue (which we would understand).Zigzig20s (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also dewikified the red links, which brought nothing to this article. I don't think the article needs further trimming. If you do, can you please give us specific examples where you'd like to trim? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the removal you reverted was mine - but my removals were bold, and I have no problem with people putting stuff back in if they think it was removed in error. That's assuming you're not going to re-insert all of the fluffy quotes and resume style lists, of course! Fyddlestix (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history and we don't need fluffy language about her residences; just where she resides and the name of her yacht I suppose. Again, we can remove them for safety reasons if they ask (even though Wikipedia is not censored).Zigzig20s (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fyddlestix: Just added them back without fluffy language. Does this sound OK to you?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks fine to me Zig, like I said don't worry about reverting me if you think there's something that needs to go back in. That's fine! Fyddlestix (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Betsy DeVos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

She is not a successor to John King. She is a nominee, she has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The same for any other head of a federal agency named by Trump. Please correct all such entries, including this one with Nominee 2601:14F:4402:F1D9:E8CD:EFFA:74A9:7BD5 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 2601:14F:4402:F1D9:E8CD:EFFA:74A9:7BD5 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article says she is a nominee. RudolfRed (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

It makes absolutely no sense to include that the subject's MOTHER supported Proposition 8 under the Early Life and Education section. It also makes no sense for the author to go on to define Proposition 8. Obviously the author is making a biased statement about the subject by linking her to a position that may or may not have been held by her mother. It certainly has nothing to do with "Early Life" and "Education" as the Subject was in her 50's when Proposition 8 was an issue. Please remove this statement entirely. Doniboy71 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Please remove this statement entirely." This sort of request is what happens when red linked editors start showing up. Who do you think you are writing to? Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Pppery 20:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Even though DeVos is controversial, this entry is completely laudatory and ignore her critics, which are permitted under WP:BLP and required under WP:NPOV. Here are two WP:RS that include criticism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/23/betsy-devos-trumps-education-pick-is-a-billionaire-philanthropist-with-deep-ties-to-the-reformed-christian-community/
Betsy DeVos: Donald Trump’s education secretary pick shows school vouchers are at the top of his agenda
by Libby Nelson
Washington Post
Nov 23, 2016

Her appointment was met Wednesday with concern from Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, said her support for vouchers raise church-state concerns.

“Americans are always free to send their children to private schools and religious schools, but raiding the public treasury to subsidize private businesses and religious organizations runs against the public trust and the Constitution,” Moline said. “It suggests that he has little regard for our nation’s public schools or the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.”

Julie Ingersoll, professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida. “It’s been a long-standing goal of the Religious Right to replace public education with Christian education,” she said. “The long term strategy of how to change culture is through education.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/betsy-devos-trump-education-secretary-common-core-choice-2016-11
Meet Betsy DeVos, the polarizing charter-school advocate Trump has tapped as education secretary
Michelle Mark
Nov. 25, 2016

The Michigan Democratic Party released a statement calling DeVos a "dangerous and ill-advised pick" and an "anti-public education activist," accusing her of attacking the state's public school system and its teachers for the sake of profits of investors in charter schools.

"Here is someone, in Betsy DeVos, who has made it her life's work to channel her family's massive wealth toward destroying Michigan's public education system," the party said in a statement.

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called her school-vouchers advocacy "misguided" and urged the Senate to consider her record before confirming her.

"She has ardently supported the unlimited, unregulated growth of charter schools in Michigan, elevating for-profit schools with no consideration of the severe harm done to traditional public schools," wrote the chapter's executive director, Kary Moss.

Teachers unions across the country, too, have been highly critical of DeVos, arguing that despite her years advocating charter schools and vouchers, she lacks firsthand experience working in or with public schools and sends her own children to private schools.

--Nbauman (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get used to it. Since she was named there have been about half a dozen red linked editors showing up and sanitizing it. Some of them have 4 or 5 edits to their wikipedia careers and already seem to know all the rules. Assume good faith if you must but this is going to happen again and again and again in the near future in this article and others like it. Carptrash (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betsy_DeVos&type=revision&diff=751572290&oldid=751567784 --Nbauman (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess the WP:SPAs won't let us use WP:NPOV articles like this either:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/betsy-devos-trumps-education-pick-has-steered-money-from-public-schools.html
Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education Pick, Has Steered Money From Public Schools
By KATE ZERNIKE
New York Times
NOV. 23, 2016

Michigan is one of the nation’s biggest school choice laboratories, especially with charter schools. The Detroit, Flint and Grand Rapids school districts have among the nation’s 10 largest shares of students in charters, and the state sends $1 billion in education funding to charters annually. Of those schools, 80 percent are run by for-profit organizations, a far higher share than anywhere else in the nation.

The DeVoses, the most prominent name in state Republican politics, have been the biggest financial and political backers of the effort.

But if Michigan is a center of school choice, it is also among the worst places to argue that choice has made schools better. As the state embraced and then expanded charters over the past two decades, its rank has fallen on national reading and math tests. Most charter schools perform below the state average.

And a federal review in 2015 found “an unreasonably high” percentage of charter schools on the list of the state’s lowest-performing schools. The number of charter schools on that list had doubled since 2010, after the passage of a law a group financed by Ms. DeVos pushed to expand the schools. The group blocked a provision in that law that would have prevented failing schools from expanding or replicating.

The Michigan law pushed by Ms. DeVos to establish charter schools 20 years ago allows an unusually large number of organizations to start such schools, yet established little mechanism for oversight. Even Republican supporters of charter schools say the law has allowed failing charter schools to expand or replicate.

Last spring, the DeVos-backed group was the chief force behind the defeat of legislation that would have established standards for identifying and closing failing schools, both charter and public, in Detroit, where a flood of charter schools in the past decade has created what even charter school supporters call chaos.

  • I've removed some of the excessive promotional content that was added before she was announced as the nominee. There was far too many quotes from DeVos praising her various programs. I've also added in some of the sources mentioned here. There's definitely a lot more than can be added to try to balance this out a little more. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe

that categories such as Category:Trump administration cabinet members and Category:United States Secretaries of Education should not be added until such time she, and other possible cabinet members are confirmed by Congress and are actually members of the Cabinet. As it is this is just wrong information. I will remove those if someone does not convince me pretty quickly. if there is a discussion about this elsewhere please point it out. Carptrash (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since she is neither at this point, I'd agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

I think this information belongs in the Early life and education section. The fact that her father contributed to the Family Research Council is as significant, or more significant, to her biography as the fact that he made his money in the auto parts business, considering that she is now in public office where her political and religious views will affect her policy decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/opinion/betsy-devos-and-gods-plan-for-schools.html
Betsy DeVos and God’s Plan for Schools
By KATHERINE STEWART
New York Times
DEC. 13, 2016

Betsy DeVos stands at the intersection of two family fortunes that helped to build the Christian right. In 1983, her father, Edgar Prince, who made his money in the auto parts business, contributed to the creation of the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as extremist because of its anti-L.G.B.T. language.

Her father-in-law, Richard DeVos Sr., the co-founder of Amway, a company built on “multilevel marketing” or what critics call pyramid selling, has been funding groups and causes on the economic and religious right since the 1970s.

--Nbauman (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you explain why you feel what her father donated to is needed in her BLP? This sounds a bit like some SYNTH, but I won't call it that yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay. its a bit like mentioning that Charles G. Koch's father was a founding member of the John Birch Society. It helps explain the origins of attitudes. Carptrash (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion in the Koch article, but on this one, we're making our own connection between what her father donated money to and what you call her attitude. Additionally, we're basing some of this connection on an opinion piece, written by the author of "The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.”, a name that clearly indicates an agenda of her own. If we're going to say "attitudes" are a straight line from parent to child, how do we explain children of Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Christians that come out as gay? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gay is, in my opinion something that you are born with, it has nothing to do with one's parents and their belief systems. And lots of children raised in fundamentalist families of any religion become moderates and liberals and atheists. However to deny that the ideas that a person is raised with and exposed to can have a profound effect on that person's beliefs is silly. Carptrash (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an example. Pick something else..... People who had Democrats for parents and became Republicans. Or that were raised Christian and converted to Islam. Whatever. The point here is that you're trying to "explain" something that doesn't need explaining. She's an adult and has made her own choices. As you stated, lots of children become different than their parents. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think that if someone's parent converted to Islam or tossed out a tradition of belonging to one political party, that this is significant? I guess that we need to agree to disagree

Once again, how is this not SYNTH? You're making a connection on your own to "explain" someone's view, as if you have insight into the topic. For all you or I know, her views could be based more on her husband's POV or maybe an influential college professor. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions that Betsy DeVos' father has made should not be placed on her BLP. Insertion would be a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Meatsgains (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a "clear case" because I find at WP:COATRACK " but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself". We are talking about one sentence here, hardly the focus of the article and certainly not "entirely" anything. Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not SYNTH because we are not making the connection; the New York Times reporter made the connection, and the New York Times is a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The author, who published a book about "The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children", quite a non-NPOV, wrote an opinion piece. It's not a NY Times reporter, nor is the NY Times making the claim. The Op-Ed piece is not news, it's the opinion of a reader. The NYT IS a RS for news, but opinion pieces aren't news. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.... The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.... If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces." --Nbauman (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you're basing this entire alleged connection on the opinion piece written by a person peddling a book on the subject of religion and schools. That doesn't strike you as slightly self serving? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:RS. That's the way Wikipedia works. And it's not an "alleged" connection. Edgar Prince is her father, and he did contribute to the Family Research Council, according to WP:RSs. --Nbauman (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something is in a RS 1) Doesn't make it relevant 2) Doesn't give it a free pass for use 3) Doesn't even make it true. The weather for Dallas is printed in USA Today, a RS. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article about Dallas. Yes, her father is Edgar Prince and he did contribute money. The connection you're making is that his contributions have formed her actions later in life. One major flaw in this is how you keep talking about how children follow parents. His contribution happened in 1983. She was 25 years old, had a college degree and was already involved in politics by the time that donation was made. You're making a connection between the financial contributions of Prince and his adult daughter and the only connection is that they're related. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If something is reported in multiple WP:RSs, that establishes WP:WEIGHT, which according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies is why we include that something in Wikipedia entries. In Wikipedia, truth isn't an issue. We're not supposed to establish "truth," we're supposed to establish WP:VERIFIABILITY.
I don't "keep talking about how children follow parents." I keep saying that we should follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines, which say that something belongs in Wikipedia if multiple WP:RSs say it. You're trying to make the argument that we shouldn't put it in because you personally don't think it's important. That's WP:OR. It doesn't matter whether you think it's important or makes sense. What matters is whether multiple WP:RSs think it's important enough to publish it. --Nbauman (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Wikipedia rule says that something belongs if multiple RS's say it? I can find you 10 sources that say Dallas weather was X today. What rule says we now have to put that in the article? I can cite one that says everything in the news isn't necessarily notable. Second, you clearly don't understand what OR is, but me having an opinion about whether something belongs or not is not OR. What, exactly, have "multiple RS's (notice how you can do that without pointlessly wikilinking every mention) found important enough to publish? We already have in the article that he is her father. And so far, we've only seen a single opinion piece, not "multiple" sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other sources, from as far back as 2007, that prominently identify Prince (and/or the Devos family) as an early founder of/contributor to the FRC, like NPR,[1], Grand Rapids Press,[2], Salon,[3] Mother Jones,[4] and even the FRC's mission statement webpage.[5] Seems perfectly reasonable to mention this detail in the text proposed for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It makes sense to mention it in the article about Edgar Prince, but can you show anything that says she was involved in the donation or the decision to make it? There should be a connection beyond the fact that she was related to someone who donated to something. Again, she was an adult, a college graduate, getting married and already involved in politics when the donation happened. She was making her own decisions in life. How is she connected to the donation? Remember, this article is about BETSY DEVOS, not Edgar Prince. Why are we talking about what he did? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The M Live source doesn't even mention Betsy, so how does it make this connection? The NPR source mentions Betsy as being related to Erik Prince. It makes no connection between her and this donation. The Salon source never mentions Betsy, so again, the connection isn't made. The FRC site doesn't mention Betsy, so again, the connection isn't made. The mother jones source says she is related. It makes no connection to the donation. Your sources prove Edgar Prince donated money. That's not in dispute. Your sources don't show any connection with the subject of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“can you show anything that says she was involved in the donation or the decision to make it?”

No, but that’s not the issue at hand. No one is proposing including text that says DeVos herself was involved in the donation or decision to make it. The main issue at hand is whether it is reasonable when mentioning Prince to also mention that he was a founder/key donor to FRC. Based on the sources at hand, including the NYT article, and given that the fact itself is neither contentious nor derogatory, it is reasonable to include it. Nor is it a trivial detail, as it is part of the Devos family story with respect to political/philosophical leanings and associated organizational funding.

"The Salon source never mentions Betsy..."

Yes, it clearly does.[6] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The connection is exactly the issue at hand. You keep saying we need to mention it when we talk about him, but that's far from the thing that made him notable in his own right. The man immigrated to this country and made a billion dollar. The only thing you feel worth mentioning about him when you mention his daughter is a donation to an org you apparently don't like. Hmmmm. It would be like writing a bio about you and when it lists your mother, saying that he habitually cheated on your father. That really has nothing to do with you and now starts making a false connection that you may be the result of an illicit affair. Now, had Betsy served on the board of the org or something like that, it may be a different conversation, but you're making a connection of father+donation+belief of org= something she had a part in. And yes, I missed the paragraph in Salon that mentions Betsy..... and makes no connection to the donation. Again, wonderful sources to prove a donation (that's not in dispute) at the Edgar Prince article, but nothing showing where it touched Betsy at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“The connection is exactly the issue at hand. You keep saying we need to mention it…”

I don’t “keep on saying” anything. I have only posted two brief comments on this Talk page to date and have stated only that it would be reasonable to include the information; not that “we need to”.

“But that's far from the thing that made him notable in his own right.”

The point is that other sources that discuss Prince and the DeVos family mention the detail about founding/funding of the FRC as a topline detail; ergo there is precedent for doing so here. Even the FRC's mission statement webpage mentions this detail.

“The only thing you feel worth mentioning about him when you mention his daughter is a donation to an org you apparently don't like.”

Tread lightly please. I have expressed no opinion whatsoever about the organization, so don’t make veiled accusations of non-neutrality when you have no basis for doing so.

You are making scattershot attempts to exclude the information from the article without a valid basis; for example by saying that the Salon article didn’t mention Betsy DeVos when in fact it clearly did, or saying that this is a case of WP:SYNTH when it is clearly not.

This is not a case of WP:SYNTH, as you suggested because SYNTH is drawing a novel conclusion from two sources when neither source makes such a conclusion. There is no novel conclusion being drawn here. The relation between Prince and Betsy DeVos is well-sourced and indisputable, as is Prince’s founding of/donations to the FRC. Synthesis would be if we drew a conclusion about Betsy DeVos with respect to the donation, but that’s not the case here; it’s a simple statement of fact, no different than if a source said that he was CEO of Exxon or invented the lightbulb without necessarily tying that fact directly to or mentioning Betsy DeVos – in such an instance, it would not be synth to include the detail that DeVos’ relative was the CEO of Exxon or invented the lightbulb, regardless of whether or not the source mentioned DeVos.

The only other theoretical basis for arguing to exclude the detail would be if it were WP:TRIVIA, but that’s clearly not the case here either. Multiple sources mention the detail, establishing precedent, and on a commonsense basis, the family connection with the FRC seems relevant and noteworthy.

Additionally, no one suggested that the detail about the FRC is the only detail that should be mentioned about Prince. I don't think anyone would object to mentioning that he is also a billionaire, as other sources have done, or that he made his money in the auto-parts business (although I agree with the OP that the auto-parts detail is less noteworthy than his founding of the FRC). Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Key details"

Why exactly are 1) Her father in law 2) Her father in law's company 3) Her father in law's estimated net worth 4) her brother and 5) her brother's company "key details" that have to be put into the lead? None of those are things DeVos did, nor are they made her notable. She is notable in her own right. Further, the claim that LEAD says "key details" should be reiterated..... most of this gets a single sentence each in the article. How "key" is that really? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of content from the lead edit was reverted because you supplied an invalid reason for the removal, stating "again, already well covered in the article and not needed in the lead". WP:LEAD states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." So, clearly, your rationale for the removal on the basis that the detail was already mentioned in the body text is invalid. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABetsy_DeVos&type=revision&diff=755170533&oldid=755169832

Leave a Reply