This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. United States C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Marketing & Advertising C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Michigan C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110201142444/http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org:80/AboutUs/ to http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/AboutUs/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• How is it not SYNTH? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 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]

• "I don’t “keep on saying” anything." Fine, I'll rephrase: "Those who want to include this say..." Now that we've passed that semantics dodge, can we move along?

• "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."

And if this were an article about the Prince or DeVos family, that might matter. You're pinning what some other family member did to this individual.

• "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."

Nothing for me to tread lightly over. Just because you haven't expressly opined about the org doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about your apparent position. I also see an apparent issue with MLM's and Amway in particular.

• "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 SYNTH when it is clearly not."

One part of your response has nothing to do with the other. Yes, I missed the mention of Betsy in the Salon piece. I've clearly stated that. It STILL, however, doesn't connect her to the donations. That fact didn't change. And yes, this is SYNTH. It's interesting that you completely ignore the fact that 2 of yours sources actually don't mention her at all, but choose to harp on the one that I missed the mention of her in.

• "Synthesis would be if we drew a conclusion about Betsy DeVos with respect to the donation"

Not necessarily. Linking her and the donation gives the implication that she has something to do with the org or is acting in concert with it.

• "no different than if a source said that he was CEO of Exxon or invented the lightbulb "

Being the CEO of Exxon or inventing the lightbulb would be highly notable in the life of just about anyone. It could be argued that either of those, in and of themselves, would get a person past GNG. Making a donation to an org doesn't get you past GNG, nor is it what made Prince notable. So your example really doesn't fly.

• "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"

Again, what may (or may not) be relevant to the family doesn't make it relevant to the individual. So yes, trivial in how it relates to Betsy DeVos.

• "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"

That is how he attained notability.

• "although I agree with the OP that the auto-parts detail is less noteworthy than his founding of the FRC"

Of course you agree, because you apparently have an issue with the org. Regardless, that's an absurd statement. First, he didn't "found" the FRC, he donated money that helped someone else found the org. Second, can you sit here an honestly tell me that you believe that Edgar Prince's bio would survive an AfD if the sole "noteworthy" point was that he donated money to FRC? I have no doubt his bio would survive based solely on his business career. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:TALK says, "talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Your discussion of your personal views on whether her father's political contributions are notable doesn't matter to Wikipedia. What matters is Wikipedia policy as defined in WP:NOTE: Topics are notable when they have gained attention in WP:RS independent sources. Let's limit the discussion to whether her father's political contributions meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Nbauman (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a complete mischaracterization of TALK. If you think you can actually make that nonsense stick, I invite you to open up a complaint at ANI that I'm using this as a platform for my personal views. I'll be here when you get back from being told you're wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course you agree, because you apparently have an issue with the org."

I have said nothing whatsoever to even vaguely suggest that I have "an issue" with FRC. It's simply a fact reported by WP:RS, and one which several editors believe merits inclusion. It would behoove you to stop speculating about the personal feelings of other editors towards the subject matter and focus instead on content and abide by WP:AGF. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is absolutely no policy or guideline that says that just because something is printed by a RS that it is a free pass to inclusion. I'm not the only editor that feels it doesn't belong. I'm assuming good faith, but AGF isn't a suicide pact either. You know where ANI is located. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Regardless, that's an absurd statement. First, he didn't "found" the FRC, he donated money that helped someone else found the org.”

No one specifically suggested that he should be identified in the bio as a "founder" -- I was merely using this as a convenient term for the purpose of our discussion, although it would not be unreasonable to use that term or something akin to it in the article, given that his role in the FRC's inception was clearly significant. Your claim -- which appears to be WP:OR -- is not supported by the WP:RS I already cited previously:

• “Edgar Prince, was a founder of the Family Research Council. (Betsy's brother is Erik Prince, the ex-Navy SEAL who founded the infamous private security company Blackwater.) Together, Dick and Betsy formed Michigan's new Republican power couple.”[7]
• “Auto-parts magnate Edgar Prince, was instrumental in the creation of the Family Research Council”[8]
• “Thanks to the generosity of the DeVos and Prince families of Western Michigan, a home office was established in the heart of a revitalized Washington, D.C., and a dynamic distribution center was opened in Holland, Michigan. This strategic presence distinguishes FRC and its intention to make a lasting difference for timeless values across our land."[9]
• “The elder Prince was a close friend and supporter of Christian evangelists, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, as well as a contributor to the Republican Party. He was an early benefactor of the Family Research Council.”[10]
• "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..."[11]
• "Edgar Prince, a wealthy and influential Michigan Republican who helped found the Family Research Council in the late 1980s."[12] Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see all those quotes and I don't know why you're bothering. Nobody disputes that Prince made the donation. Nobody disputes Betsy is related to him. What IS in dispute is the need to try to link something he did to his adult daughter who was already making her own way in politics. You're wasting time proving what isn't in dispute and I strongly suspect that it's because you can't actually produce any source that makes the case linking her to the donation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bothering because you took issue with my casual use of the word “founded” with respect to Prince and the FRC. My explanation was crystal clear, and the sources presented indicate that Prince played a major role in the FRCs inception. That was the only point. Now you are simply changing the subject. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Linking her and the donation gives the implication that she has something to do with the org or is acting in concert with it.”

Not even the slightest bit. It merely describes the background of a family member. If a bio said that someone’s father had founded Exxon, would one draw the conclusion that the bio subject also founded Exxon? That would simply be a wildly faulty conclusion on the part of the reader. Again, WP:SYNTH involves combining two sources to reach a novel conclusion, and that is not the case here -- except for the novel conclusion that you drew, but no one is proposing including anything that would even vaguely imply that Betsy founded the FRC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we describing the "background" of the family member in the BLP about her? It's HER article, not his. If people want to know about Edgar's background, they can click on the blue wikilink and learn much more. That is why we link them, isn't it? You know, the article also mentions she is involved with Mars Hill Church. (she is involved, not a relative.). During most of that time, it was headed by Rob Bell (a notable person). Maybe we should mention Bell and how he drew a lot of criticism for his views that were accepting of gay marriage. I mean he is notable, it's in RS's, so it must be ok to include it, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, missing the point. You claimed that mentioning Prince and the FRC somehow implies that Betsy herself donated to the FRC. That claim was baseless, and now once again, you are changing the subject. Your argument now seems to be that the detail is not notable. On that we can simply agree to disagree. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 wrote: "What Wikipedia rule says that something belongs if multiple RS's say it?"

WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

--Nbauman (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an interesting strawman you've built. NPOV does say what you quoted, it just doesn't apply the way you're claiming. There's no significant viewpoint claiming that she made the donation. So again, while that's perfectly appropriate for Edgar Prince's bio, you've shown now reason why it belongs here. Most of the sources that even mention her don't mention the donation in the same paragraph, let alone connect her to it. Perhaps you should consider opening a discussion at NPOVN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nbauman, would you care to add whatever text you feel is reasonable to sum up the FRC detail. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you decided it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia policies and guidelines require that we follow WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and because multiple WP:RS about DeVos have made that connection between her and her father's contribution to the Family Research Council. --Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, they haven't made the connection. A single opinion piece attempted to. The rest didn't even make the attempt to connect her with the event. Again, NPOVN may be the best next step. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s make sure we don’t get sidetracked with strawman arguments and be perfectly clear that no one is implying that Betsy herself donated to the FRC but rather that multiple sources have discussed Betsy in the context of the family’s funding/founding of the FRC, which establishes notability and a precedent for inclusion of the details in this bio. The "single opinion piece" (i.e., NYT) that you refer to was by no means the only source to make the latter association; there are many: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Politico source again connects Edgar with FRC, but not Betsy. It connects her to Focus on the Family, but that's a different org. The partisan Blade source again states Edgar made the contribution, but doesn't link Betsy. Ditto with MSN. Same with the PBS source. And the USA Today. If there's an actual source in there that makes the connection, please point it out. Why are you spending all this time proving what is not in dispute? Nobody has disputed that Edgar donated money to found the FRC. If that isn't already in his bio, it should be. Not one source has linked that donation with an adult Betsy DeVos, so there's just no reason to force the mention of it into the lead. Now, A couple of the sources give sufficient coverage to her positions on gay marriage etc and her contributions to groups opposing it (such as Focus on the Family) that I wouldn't oppose (reasonable length) mention of that in the section about her politic positions. That, to me, would be appropriate because it's about something she actually did or was involved with. It's not a connection being created by a Wikipedia editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are still persisting with a straw man argument that the intent here is to claim or imply that Betsy was directly connected with the FRC. I explained already that this was never the case. All of the links I posted mention Betsy and the details about the familial connection with the FRC. It's cut and dried. The precedent for inclusion is established overwhelmingly by numerous sources. Now, why not chill until someone makes an actual text proposal? Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is cut and dried is that her father made a donation. What is not cut and dried is why it needs to be put in this BLP. There is no precedent for inclusion for this, let alone an overwhelming one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there's just no reason to force the mention of it into the lead."

The very first sentence of this thread says "I think this information belongs in the Early life and education section." Your thoughts on the lead are duly noted but not relevant at this point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. The other discussion is about the lead.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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[30] was reverted[31] 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]

Relevant to lead summary, per WP:LEAD. Additionally, clearly all notable and relevant associations: 1) notable father in law; 2) notable company; 3) notable amount of money; 4) notable brother; 5) notable company. If the rest of the lead was fleshed out accordingly this material would appear less prominent, so maybe we could address that matter and start fleshing it out instead of deleting relevant content? Pandroid (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale isn't invalid. Merely because something is notable doesn't mean it is now relevant to this person. She is notable in her own right, so doesn't need this to explain her notability. These aren't particularly important points because, again, she is notable on her own. Nor is it particularly controversial that she is related to them. The claim that it's a "notable and relevant" association is not that convincing. When we do a BLP of an actor, we list a couple of their most prominent roles. We don't list every role they've had in a notable film. So the claim that a notable association mandates it goes in the lead is not completely accurate. It's also worth noting that we link to Academi, but insist on calling it Blackwater in the article. Fairly transparent on what is being done. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale you provided for removing the text from the lead was that the details "were already well covered in the article". That is not a valid rationale according to WP:LEAD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The short edit summary said that. The rationale is clearly laid out in the discussion I started. Stop avoiding the actual issue. And YOUR rational is only based on your opinion that these are "key details". Stop acting like it's a fact that they're "key" to her notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly transparent on what is being done." are you accusing someone of bad faith editing here? Pandroid (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a POV doesn't have to be bad faith. Academi hasn't been named Blackwater for years. It has made 2 name changes since then. But we pick the corporate name that has the most controversy attached to it and force it into the lead of a BLP for a person whose only connection to the company is that she's related by birth to the founder. Much like trying to tie her name to the FRC when the connection is by family and not necessarily her directly. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so why don't you simply change it to Academi instead of making accusations against other editor's intentions? that has been in the lead for some time, but you are only now taking issue with it? Seems disingenuous. Pandroid (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " that has been in the lead for some time, but you are only now taking issue with it? Seems disingenuous."

No, you put it in 4 days ago. Don't act like it's been there for a long time. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“The short edit summary said that. The rationale is clearly laid out in the discussion I started.”

Your edit summary said that the material was deleted because the details “were already well covered in the article", which as I pointed out, was not a justifiable reason per WP:LEAD. The discussion you started provided a completely different reason, related to WP:NOTE. Forgive my confusion over your confusing change of direction. You’re entitled to disagree about notability; duly noted. Rhode Island Red (talk)

• "Your edit summary said..."

I know what my edit summary said. Aside from the fact that I wrote it and I can see it in the history, you've repeated yourself plenty of times. There is a limit to how much can go into the edit summary. That's why I started a discussion. Got it yet?

• The discussion you started provided a completely different reason, related to WP:NOTE. Forgive my confusion over your confusing change of direction."

You'd find yourself less confused if you didn't keep going back to a point we passed already. We're past the edit summary. We're here in a discussion. Please catch up.

• "You’re entitled to disagree about notability; duly noted"

Thank you so much for allowing me to disagree. Now that you're done talking about edit summaries, how about if you actually address the issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"you put it in 4 days ago," 4 days is "some time," it took you that long to object. Can you take it easy withe the bullets? it's making the thread really messy to read. Pandroid (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I wasn't aware I had to work on your timetable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“I know what my edit summary said…There is a limit to how much can go into the edit summary.”

Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. Using an edit summary saying that you deleted material from the article’s lead because it is already in the body text is completely different from objecting on the basis of non-notability. It seems like you are throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something will stick.

"Now that you're done talking about edit summaries, how about if you actually address the issue here."

I already did. Your argument for deletion now boils down to non-notability, and it appears that several editors disagree with you on that point. So, as I said, your stance is duly noted and we can simply agree to disagree. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Using an edit summary saying that you deleted material from the article’s lead because it is already in the body text is completely different from objecting on the basis of non-notability"

So instead of addressing that, you keep going back to complaining about the edit summaries.

• I already did. Your argument for deletion now boils down to non-notability, and it appears that several editors disagree with you on that point."

Actually you didn't really address it and what "several editors" are those? I see you and Paranoid. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the material from the lead initially on the basis that it was "already well covered in the article";[32] I addressed that -- it wasn't a valid reason according to WP:LEAD.[33] Your next argument was that even though the details are notable, they are not relevant.[34] I addressed that too -- I said we could agree to disagree.[35][36] Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Will you move on past the edit summary? Neither diff actually addresses it. You simply say "duly noted" and then 'I already addressed it'. You've not addressed it in any substantive way. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it that you fell warrants further discussion? You opened the thread by stating a subjective case as to why you feel key details about family members should not be in the lead.[37] Pandroid responded by stating a case as to why the material merited inclusion and proposed making some additional modifications to the lead,[38] which I supported.[39] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so start small: The claim was all this belongs because they are "clearly all notable and relevant associations". What relevant association is the net worth of her father in law so that it needs to be in her lead? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether I think it's notable that her notable father-in-law is a multibillionaire? If so the answer is yes. Apparently, you disagree. What purpose would it serve to engage in back and forth exchange of "yes it is", "no it isn't". Ultimately, it's a subjective editorial judgment; and in my judgement, given that it's a detail often mentioned by WP:RS, it's relevant. I'm not wedded to necessarily mentioning his exact net worth, although I'm not averse to it either, but referring to him as a multi-billionaire would certainly be reasonable too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't misrepresent what I said. The question isn't whether or not it's relevant that he's a billionaire. The question was what is the relevancy of the association that he is a billionaire in the lead of her BLP? His notability isn't derived from his net worth, it's derived from his occupation. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's relevant that she is the daughter in law of the 88th wealthiest person in the USA (we could state that too) this has been widely reported across multiple reliable sources, we are not making this connection in isolation: [40], [41], [42], [43],[44]. Our readers would find this both relevant and of encyclopedic merit. Pandroid (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you find it interesting doesn't make it relevant. And I'm not saying they aren't connected, so why are you "proving" that. The question is why the net worth needs mentioned in her BLP lead? He is notable for his position. If he went bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still be notable wouldn't he? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t say that he found it interesting. He said that the detail has been widely reported by WP:RS and is therefore relevant and of encyclopedic merit. You disagree apparently. Noted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, way to be overly literal. Again, you have the mistaken impression that just because something is in a RS, it has a free pass to inclusion. Hundreds of news sources report it when Kim Kardashian sends out a nude selfie, but it doesn't automatically go in her BLP. Once again, nobody disputes he's a billionaire, but that's not what makes him notable. If we're forced to mention him in the lead, we should mention why he's notable, not his net worth, which is a fluid "fact". And just saying "noted" isn't "addressing it", so don't try that claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And I'm not saying they aren't connected, so why are you "proving" that." I find your tone unfortunate. A more balanced editor would identify this as cautiously avoiding WP:SYN. I've said what i have to say on this topic, it's getting circular at this point. Pandroid (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I find your inability to demonstrate the relevance unfortunate. And how on earth you think this is avoiding synth...... just wow. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) how about addressing related content deficiencies in the main body of text? or are you too busy bullet pointing your opinions and exclaiming "wow" at everything you disagree with? Pandroid (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed the content deficiencies. "Exclaiming "wow" at everything you disagree with?" Yes, that one time I did it..... in response to your edit that was more about discussing my "tone", what you think a "more balanced editor" would do and falsely declaring you've said all you're going to say. In other words, my response wasn't much about the content deficiencies because it was responding to your post that was more about the editor than the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I find your inability to demonstrate the relevance unfortunate."

As far as I know, there is no WP policy on relevance. When multiple WP:RS present the same key fact or details, that establishes a basis for inclusion. By what other means would you suggest that relevance should be demonstrated? Sounds like you are placing undue onus on other editors to prove something which may ultimately be subjective. Let's flip the coin -- how can you objectively demonstrate that the material is not relevant, beyond merely stating your opinion that you don't think it's relevant? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus for inclusion is always on the editor adding it to a BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds of news sources report it when Kim Kardashian sends out a nude selfie, but it doesn't automatically go in her BLP."

That's a red herring of an analogy. We're not talking about anyone in DeVos's family sending out nude selfies. We are talking about net worth and billionaire status, and in that sense, you picked an example that goes against your argument as Kardashian's bio reports her net worth ($ 53M) as a top-line detail. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's an analogy that is simple to see, to demonstrate that this notion of "it was covered in reliable sources" somehow means it is automatically included. And yes, Kim Kardashian's bio does state HER OWN net worth. It should, since it's HER bio. Are you listing Betsy's net worth? The Kardashian lead also mentions Paris Hilton (a millionaire), without mentioning her net worth. It mentions Ray J (another millionaire) without mentioning his net worth. It mentions her husband Kanye (a millionaire) without mentioning his net worth. It also mentions her family without listing them individually or listing their net worth. So tell me again how my example goes against what I'm arguing? Looks like it supports my argument quite well. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply responding to what you stated. You weren't referring to someones else's bio. You specifically stated that if Kim posts selfies, they wouldn't automatically go into her bio. But we are not talking about selfies; we are talking about net worth, and that detail is reported in her bio. The fact is, your analogy was wrong; her net worth did in fact go into her bio as a top-line detail. Rather than conceding that point, you are simply moving the goalposts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No goal posts are getting moved. I correctly stated that just because something is published by a RS, it doesn't automatically merit inclusion. I used an example of a Kardashian selfie. This is a matter of using an obvious analogy to demonstrate it. At no time did I bring up her net worth. YOU, however, did bring up her net worth and I don't disagree that it belongs in her lead. It is HER net worth and in HER lead. But you're not putting Betsy's net worth in here, you're trying to put someone else's net worth in. So since we were already using Kardashian, I pointed out that her lead doesn't list her notable family members by name, nor does it list the net worth of the 3 other notables listed by name in her lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs some outside help since the two discussants here seem to be talking past each other. Kdammers (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kdammers, what discussion? Please provide a short description, as neutral as you can - see wp:RfC#Statement, for guidance - and point us to the previous discussion(s) (presumably it is the section just above this one, but it does not hurt to point it out). 2016-12-26 21:21:32‎ Nabla (talk)

It seems most of this page has been about whether the subject's father-in-law's finances are appropriate in this article.Kdammers (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The father-in-law's finances are not germane to an article about Betsy DeVos unless he is currently, or has in the past, provided sizable financial support for her. Grammarphile (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC) — Thegrammarphile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The reliable sources about Betsy DeVos, cited above, negate that argument, since they do mention her father-in-law's "finances" (i.e., citing his net worth and noting that he is a multi-billionaire) and thereby establish that it is germane. Also, let's be specific about the content dispute; the issue is not "finances" in general but rather net worth and/or billionaire status and whether it belongs in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again with the "reliable sources said". Reliable sources say many, many things, but they don't belong in every article. If the sources mentioned his place of birth, would that belong too? As I demonstrated using another BLP, notable rich people can be mentioned without listing their net worth. Additionally, his notability isn't derived from his net worth. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Again with the "reliable sources said".”

Yes, because that is how relevancy is established as per WP policy.

“If the sources mentioned his place of birth, would that belong too?”

Quite possibly. If multiple sources that write about Betsy DeVos discuss his place of birth, it’s most likely because it’s relevant to the story. But we aren’t talking about place of birth or a hypothetical scenario. The reality is that multiple WP:RS about Betsy obviously consider her father-in-law’s net worth and/or billionaire status to be relevant to her story.

“Additionally, his notability isn't derived from his net worth.”

Straw man argument! No one said that it was, but regardless, his notability is in part based on being a billionaire, and it is routinely mentioned by WP:RS. He is the 60th richest person in the US and this fact appears prominently in the lead of his bio,[45] so obviously it is notable in the eyes of other WP editors. It is estimated that there are a mere 540 billionaires in the US.[46] That makes every one of them members of a very select group (by comparison there are 1,696 players in the NFL).[47]

Also, for the purpose of building a consensus, we don't typically look to WP:SPA editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not a straw man, but nice try. You list Erik Prince and his reason for notability, but not his net worth. Same with Edgar Prince. Dick DeVos is the only one you list. Again, as I've shown, many notable people get mentioned in BLP leads and their reason for notability is mentioned, not their net worth. You keep talking about the "obvious", yet it's really 2 of you talking about how it belongs. BTW, it looks pretty lacking in good faith to call Grammarphile a SPA. I count about 17 different topics he's edited about. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quintessential straw-man. You advanced an argument (“his notability isn't derived from his net worth”) that no one else proposed, and then proceeded to attack it as though it was refuting an opposing argument.

I have no problem with listing Erik Prince’s net worth as well if that’s what you’re getting at, but that’s tangential to the issue of Devos’ father-in-law. Nonetheless, I notice a pattern of you honing in on a particular angle to support your argument but abandoning it and changing the subject the second it gets refuted. Your clear and specific argument was that Devo’s father-in-law’s net worth isn’t critical to his notability. The facts clearly negate your argument. He is a multibillionaire (once among the 10 richest people in America; now the 60th) —a detail which has been widely reported in WP:RS -- and his net worth and billionaire status figure prominently in the lead of his bio, thereby clearly establishing that other WP editors consider this detail to be notable. This fact is not altered in the slightest simply because you changed the subject to Erik Prince. Your argument was misplaced. Accept that and move on in good faith.

Grammarphile has been a WP editor for all of a week and has yet to edit a single article. Not exactly the kind of experienced editor whose advice would be sought to resolve a content dispute like this. Nor were there any policy or guidelines attached to their opinion. This isn’t a forum to simply say “I don’t like it” but rather to discuss issues in the context of WP policies. The same applies to your arguments. Additionally, the purpose of the RfC was to solicit input from uninvolved editors. It serves no constructive purpose if you keep throwing the same old refuted arguments at me over and over again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you're not paying attention, just yelling "straw man". What I've demonstrated is that if other articles mention a notable person, they either mention the source of their notability or why they're significant enough to this person to be in the lead. Saying things like "facts negate...." ignores the reality that your argument is based on the notion that just because a RS said something somewhere, it is automatically included anywhere the person is mentioned. That's a load of poppycock. Anything in this BLP should be to help understand the subject better. The subject here is BETSY DeVos, not Dick. It's obvious you like Dick and spend a lot of time thinking about Dick, but this article isn't about him. Knowing the net worth of her father in law doesn't really help us understand her better. Net worth is temporary and fluid. If we have to talk about Dick in the lead, we should simply say he is the founder of Amway and move along and no dwell on the size of Dick's nest egg.

Just telling me "accept that and move on" is not only smug and condescending, it's hollow because your just keep avoiding the actual issue by saying "straw man" or dismissing anything said to you. Being louder doesn't make you right. Perhaps if you actually addressed the point with something more than "it was in a RS" and actually explain why your interest in Dick belongs in the article about Betsy, particularly in the lead. And just because I use other people as examples doesn't mean I'm changing my position. I'm trying to find an illustration that you can grasp because you're missing the obvious point. In the end, Grammarphile's opinion here is worth as much as yours. Of course I'll respond to you here when YOU throw your same old refuted arguments out. He actually explained why he didn't feel it belongs. You just repeated your same old refuted argument and (improperly) labeled him with a SPA tag. That serves no constructive purpose either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]