Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Nbauman (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
12,296 edits
Line 559: Line 559:
:*You're being answered. You don't like the answer. Stating that it hasn't been responded to is a <s>flat out lie</s> false claim. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
:*You're being answered. You don't like the answer. Stating that it hasn't been responded to is a <s>flat out lie</s> false claim. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
::There is also the question of how significant the viewpoint actually is.[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
::There is also the question of how significant the viewpoint actually is.[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
:::[[User:Niteshift36]], calling me a liar is a violation of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], despite your sarcastic strikeouts. If you make another personal attack, I'm going to complain to the appropriate admins. --[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 00:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:12, 21 January 2017

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]

  • "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 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]

The discussion ended with "you're right" more than a week ago, and now the text in question was simply deleted without further comment. Not cool. The text has been restored. Please don't fork the discussion by starting a new thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (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[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]
User:Niteshift36, could you please cite some WP:RSs that you consider reliable which have reported on Kim Kardashian's nude selfies? --Nbauman (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you restarted this dormant discussion to ask me to do something that you know full well I can do? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail [45], People Magazine [46], US magazine [47] [48], HuffPo [49]. Now that I've wasted 2 minutes answering your pointless request....Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be going nowhere. Let's drop any talk of celebrity selfies and instead focus on specific content proposals for this article, shall we? Marquardtika (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions?

Should the lead of the article include the net worth of Betsy DeVos's father? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:52, 25 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,[50] 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.[51] That makes every one of them members of a very select group (by comparison there are 1,696 players in the NFL).[52]
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]
Again, you're changing the subject after your point was proven wrong. You claimed that Devos' father-in-law wasn't notable for being a billionaire/his net worth, and that's simply untrue. Now you're devolving the discussion to infantile Dick jokes. None of this serves any purpose so just chill out. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"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."
For the record, that's yet another straw man argument. The argument you are attacking is one I never made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're unable to grasp the notion that someone can actually have more than one point because when I mention a second one, you become confused and think I abandoned the first. I didn't. Nor have you proven my point wrong. Yes, I do claim he isn't notable because of his net worth. He was notable before he made $5.0 billion dollars, so clearly it wasn't what made him notable. If he went bankrupt today, he'd still be notable, again showing that his notability isn't derived from his net worth. Can you factually dispute that he was notable before he made $5.0 billion? I made no "infantile" jokes. I didn't name Dick, so it's not my fault and if it hurts your feelings that I pointed out how much time you spend thinking about Dick or how much Dick you should see, there's nothing I can do about that. And yes, you've stated repeatedly that the reason to include is because it's in RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is WP:TE and not constructive. For now, I'm going to tune you out and await comment from outside parties that can approach this article in a more healthy and constructive manner. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you actually believe the adding wikilinks to things that experienced editors already know somehow makes you more convincing. It doesn't. Perhaps if you avoided talking about your opinions on my conduct and actually answered the simple and direct question I asked you, something constructive would happen. Instead, you transparently dodge it and deal in a little passive-aggressiveness. At least you're consistent. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Include -The details of the finances of the father in law is fairly relevant to the article.Light❯❯❯ Saber 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask what that factoid contributes versus the suggestion Blue Boar makes below? Dick DeVos was notable before $5.0 billion, so that's not what makes him notable. Betsy attained notability in her own. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include - As a bit of information, it seems overly specific for the lead. On reading the lead, a reader want's to know: "why" is his net worth being mentioned in an article about her? Why are we being so specific about his level of wealth? Would it make any difference to the subject's life story if her father-in-law's net worth was one billion less, or one billion more? These questions are not answered by reading the rest of the article, and so I (as a reader) have to come to the conclusion his net worth is irrelevant and should not be mentioned in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the key points mention in the rest of the article). I could see mentioning her net worth in the lead... that would be directly relevant to her story without further explanation... but mentioning his net worth without any further explanation strikes me as being unnecessary - it is a level of specificity about him that is only secondarily relevant (not directly relevant) to her. The place to mention Richard's net worth is in the article about Richard, and I note that it is mentioned there... that article is linked to here, so anyone who wishes to know his specific net worth can easily find that information by clicking on the link. Now, I can see that it might be directly relevant to indicate that her father-in-law is a very rich man, but this is can be achieved without going into specifics as to exactly how rich he is, by saying: "... and is the daughter-in-law of billionaire Richard DeVos, the founder of Amway". To sum up... I think that Richard's net worth is an overly specific factoid for inclusion in the lead of the article about Betsy, and should not be mentioned at all unless the article expands on that factoid and explains why his specific net worth is directly relevant to Betsy. It may be a verifiable factoid about Richard, but (as our WP:Verifiability policy notes) "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in Blueboar. I had also suggested, as a potential alternative, to refer to DeVos in the lead as a "billionaire" rather than listing his exact net worth. That might be a reasonable backup compromise, depending on what other editors who weigh in think. Let's wait and see and keep that in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or "Amway CEO Dick DeVos"? Since his net worth can fluctuate (even to the point of no longer being a billionaire), omitting it would have no effect on identifying who he is or why he is being mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing POV, but he's 90 years old and worth $5.1 B. Odds are overwhelmingly high that he'll live out his last days as a multi-billionaire, but in the unlikely event that the bottom were to fall out on his empire, the text could be edited simply enough. No reason to exclude the billionaire part. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad that you're amused. Chances are he won't lose his money, but we don't deal in predictions, do we? I didn't say that the maintenance is an issue. I said IF he lost it all, he'd still be notable. Once again, he was notable before 5 billion and that is what we should be focusing on. I see several other experienced editors are holding the same view point, so I wonder why you continue to act like this is just something I dreamed up. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include - This RfC does not say on what comments are being requested, but the comment above seems to be answering the question, "Should the father-in-law's net worth be included in the lead of this article?", so that is what I am answering. My answer is based on exactly the arguments given by Blueboar. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include - There really should be an RfC statement for editors to read. That being said, her father's "finances" should not be included on her BLP. As Niteshift36 noted, she "attained notability in her own" so including this information has no relevance as is borderline WP:COATRACK. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't; summoned by bot. I agree with Blueboar and Meatsgains. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. Blueboar sums it up pretty well. Too much financial info about DeVos's family and the paragraph ends up reading somewhat axe-grindy, i.e. non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude is this article about the father? No. So do not include information that has nothing to do with the topic. (RfC participant) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 14:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - The arguments directly above are well-stated. The current article seems only include the information to insinuate she was a "rich girl," without more substantive commentary or actual facts about Ms. DeVos herself. And even if her family's wealth is extremely relevant, saying "she came from a wealthy household" would suffice quite fine, in my opinion. Yvarta (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More POV

Once again, we're discussing why items about Betsy DeVos family belong in the LEAD of her bio. In this case, an IP added "controversial" to characterize the company founded by her brother. [53]. Whether or not some source(s) call the company controversial really isn't relevant. Betsy has never had any part of the company that I'm aware of, so I can't see any reason why we need to characterize the company her brother founded in the opening paragraph of the bio about her. Why not leave the POV characterization out and people can learn all they want about the company by clicking on the link. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Nightshift. This article (and especially the lead) should focus on Betsy - not on things she has nothing to do with. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift36, I just saw you delete a bunch of stuff from the "Early life" section--stuff about her father and husband's family, which seems--at first glance--relevant to me. At any rate, I don't see why you'd remove them but leave a note about the brother and some security firm (and I think the link with Blackwater, if there is one, needs to be made explicit. Toodles and have a great new year, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually a long discussion about that above. Betsy had nothing to do with the donations made by other family members. Nothing has tied her to it. By the time that happened, she was 25 years old, out of college and already involved in politics. Trying to tie her to the donation is an attempt at guilt by association. Actually, if you wouldn't mind reading the discussion, I'd like your take on it Drmies.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but why leave the brother? Srsly in general we leave general sort of stuff in there--if her father had been an astrophysicist we would say that. It's all in the balance, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, are you talking about the billionaire thing? Sorry, but I see no reason why we wouldn't mention that. Even "millionaire" is worth mentioning already. We cannot go around pretending that such enormous wealth doesn't matter one way or another. I mean, we list astrophysicist and bar pianist and what not. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The "billionaire" discussion was about mentioning an exact amount. We did mention why he was notable and that he was a billionaire, just no need for a specific amount. The other discussion was in the section about early life. Her father made a donation to start a group after she was already grown and away from the house. There is no evidence she was connected to the donation, that she ever gave money to them or anything like that. That's the discussion I was referring to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a quick look at that and it does smack of SYNTH, but I didn't look that closely. As you know I'm a big fan of not including every single thing that's related to a BLP subject so I'm fine with it. BTW I don't entirely agree with this edit--the lead was not overly long and it seems important enough. I see it's back in, though. Take care, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SYNTH is my issue on that. As for the edit you linked to....I think we've pretty much come to a consensus on that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blackwater Has Been Characterized as Controversial (and Notorious) According to a Multitude of Reliable Sources

An editor added the term “controversial” to describe Blackwater. The term was deleted with the claim that it is "POV" (I’m assuming that the commenter meant that it is not NPOV rather than POV). However, that claim is without validity as there are a myriad of sources that refer to Blackwater as controversial. There are also many that refer to it as notorious, but I’m OK with using the more benign term controversial. Kindly do not delete this again, as it is well supported. The following is a short list of examples ...

“Beyond Blackwater -- An industry reinvents itself after the demise of its most controversial firm” (The Economist)[54]
“The real Blackwater controversy…The controversy over Blackwater's new training center in Otay Mesa has thus far focused exclusively on a notorious company.” (San Diego Union-Tribune)[55]
“Blackwater, the employer of the four Fallujah victims, is the most successful security contractor to have been in existence, but also the most controversial.” (Yale Review of International Studies)[56]
"The rise and fortunes of the company variously known as Blacwater Wordlwide, Xe Services, and Academi at different points in its controversial existence." (Imperialism and Expansionism in American History, p1476)[57]
“The controversial security firm Blackwater” (ABC News)[58]
“Last September, 17 Iraqis died in a controversial shooting involving the security firm Blackwater USA…Quite by accident, they find themselves in the middle of an international controversy.” (NPR)[59]
“Despite these efforts to outrun Blackwater’s controversial past…”(Private Security Companies During the Iraq War, p199)[60]
“Controversial contractor eligible for lucrative new Pentagon bids” (CNN)[61]
“Here's What Blackwater's Notorious Founder Has Been Up To” (Business Insider)[62]
“Notorious security firm known previously known as Blackwater that has changed its name to Xe Services.” (DailyMail)[63]
“Members of the notorious US security firm Blackwater, running through the streets of Donetsk in Ukraine.” (India Today) [64]
“Notorious Blackwater firm awarded lucrative Afghan contracts” (The Irish Times)[65]
“By the time four former Blackwater security guards were sentenced this week to long prison terms for the 2007 fatal shooting of 14 civilians in Iraq, the man who sent the contractors there had long since moved on from the country and the company he made notorious. Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater…”(NYT)[66]
"Erik Prince, recently outed as a participant in a C.I.A. assassination program, has gained notoriety as head of the military-contracting juggernaut Blackwater, a company dogged by a grand-jury investigation, bribery accusations, and the voluntary-manslaughter trial of five ex-employees…"(Vanity Fair) [67]
This content would all make a lot of sense in the article on Blackwater, but I don't see its particular relevance for the article about the sister of Blackwater's founder. She's not her brother's keeper, after all. Marquardtika (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one is proposing including "the content". Merely demonstrating that the term "controversial" is well supported by an abundance of WP:RS and should not have been deleted arbitrarily under the guise of vague charge of "POV". Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be odd to describe this company as "controversial" here, when the company's own article doesn't even say that at present. My point is that it's odd to fight a content battle about how to describe a company on the article of the company's founder's sister rather than on the company's own article. Marquardtika (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not odd at all. Notice that the section of the article in question is entitled "Family", so it makes perfect sense to include a few relevant top-line details about her family. It's irrelevant whether or not the Academi article mentions "controversial". The reference here is to Blackwater, and Blackwater is unquestionably "controversial" (and notorious) according to a trove of WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ran with "notable" to avoid this sort of pot stirring, family section sentence says what the company is/was, and why it's notable, that should suffice in the context of this BLP. Pandroid (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see why you would do that to be diplomatic and proactive, and I assume good faith, but "notable" in this context is a weasel word and WP:OR, as I was unable to find sources that describe Blackwater as "notable", while there are a plethora that describe it as "controversial" (and "notorious") -- so much so that it can be considered a hallmark characteristic. The inline sources cited describe it as "controversial", not "notable" Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
notable because of controversy surrounding activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, but primarily because of the 2007 incident (because that received widespread news coverage) and we provide a link to that in the sentence, that should suffice? no? Pandroid (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable because of controversy, then the simplest way to say that is to use the term "controversial", which in fact is the term that the sources cited above used (that and "notorious"). Not sure if you were proposing new modified text but the current version says: "a controversial private military services contractor that drew international attention in 2007 following operations during the American led Iraq War". That sums it up accurately and succinctly and is consistent with what the multitude of WP:RS say -- perfect! Blackwater is widely described as "controversial"; the reasons for that description are multi-fold. None of the sources I found describe the company as "notable", so using that term would be editorializing and inconsistent with the WP:RS; not to mention that it goes without saying that the company is notable, because if it wasn't, the article wouldn't be mentioning it (i.e., notability is a prerequisite for content inclusion). Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the sources I cited above do not refer to Blackwater as being controversial for one or two particular events . They refer to the company itself as controversial; i.e. they don't say something like "Blackwater, a...company that was controversial because of (Event x). So for us to frame it that way would be WP:OR and inconsistent with the sources cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was already a discussion above about the term being added, but I see you needed to start your own. So I'll repeat myself: Whether or not some source(s) call the company controversial really isn't relevant. Betsy has never had any part of the company that I'm aware of, so I can't see any reason why we need to characterize the company her brother founded in the opening paragraph of the bio about her. Why not leave the POV characterization out and people can learn all they want about the company by clicking on the link. What Academi/Xe/Blackwater is or is not has no bearing on the BLP of Betsy DeVos. And no, I didn't mean NPOV. I meant that the term is POV.... it presents a POINT OF VIEW. The entry should be NPOV. Get it yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are making completely invalid assertions. First, the content in question is not in the opening paragraph of the bio; it is in the "Family section" buried near the end of the article. After all this time deliberating, how can you not notice such a basic detail and assert something that's blatantly false as a justification for deleting the text? Second, the text does not imply that Betsy is part of Blackwater -- not even slightly -- it simply provides a top-line detail about a notable family member who ran a notorious company (Blackwater), which is entirely appropriate in the Family section of the article. Third, it is not a point of view -- it is a consensual characterization widely publicized by a variety of reputable news agencies across the political spectrum, as demonstrated at the opening of this thread. Fourth, there is no WP policy on POV; the policy is against using a non-neutral POV, and this is clearly not a case of non-NPOV. Fifth, it is not "contentious" as your edit summary claimed when you arbitrarily deleted the text.[68] It is a detail that has been well-established by multiple independent WP:RS, as WP policy requires. Since there was not even a remotely valid basis for deleting the text, your edit has been reverted. Please be more careful and thoughtful in the future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you declare is "invalid" doesn't make it so. You also claimed I was completely wrong for wanting to remove the net worth, but the RfC is showing otherwise. Since, as you admit, Betsy has nothing to do with Blackwater/Xe/Academi, there's no reason to include the incident. The notability of the company is already established and readers can click on the link to Blackwater if they want to know more about the company. In THAT article, the incident is properly covered. BTW, the notability of the company is not derived from that single incident. If we have to characterize the company, why aren't we mentioning that they're a large federal contractor instead of singling out a negative incident. I don't dispute that many sources have called Blackwater "controversial" and those sources would probably do just fine the article about the company, but this isn't about the company. It's about a person who has never had any affiliation with the company. I'm not sure why you feel like you need to force it in while it's under discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale was clearly invalid -- for 5 reasons, as outlined above -- but unarguably because you claimed falsely that the term "controversial" appeared in "the opening paragraph of the bio". In the ost benign scenario, it was a glaring error on your part, which warrants at least an acknowledgement if not a apology. Please stop muddying the water with nonsense. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was initially put into the opening of the lead. Then you opened a completely separate discussion of the same issue. I copy-pasted my response to it since it's the same issue. The fact that you moved it doesn't really change the reasoning but, if it makes you feel better and keeps you from diverting from the issues, I should have removed that part. There. Now can we get back to the actual issue? Thank you. The 5 reasons you outlined are all great reasons for including the material in the article on Blackwater, but they aren't really applicable here. Just you saying "invalid" over and over won't change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the push to describe Blackwater/Academi as controversial. I thought there was a Wikipedia essay about this type of issue, and I found it: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. It seems to me in this case that DeVos's article is being used to make a point about a tangentially related topic-her brother's company. DeVos's notability is surely derived from her Cabinet-level appointment and not her DNA. This isn't the only issue with this article. Edits such as these [69] do not inspire confidence in the impartiality of this article and really ought to be removed or else balanced with material less obviously hostile to DeVos. It's not exactly surprising that liberals don't care for a GOP president's nominee (or that conservatives do), it's par for the course in this partisan system of ours. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COAT doesn't apply. The description of Blackwater as controversial is neither "irrelevant, undue or biased material". If you have issues with other parts of the article, please start a new thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, because you say so? Just like you told me over and over how my opposition to including the net worth of Dick DeVos was wrong....until it wasn't. And you told me that SYNTH didn't apply to the FRC issue, and now an uninvolved admin took a look at it and said he sees SYNTH too. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that "single incident" garnered a vast amount of column inches and essentially put them on the map in terms of public awareness, such a notable aspect warrants mention and is of encyclopaedic merit. Pandroid (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, I read WP:COAT and it simply doesn't apply to what we're discussing. The purpose of these discussions is to explain in specific detail how a policy, guideline, or essay applies to specific text in the article; not to simply throw down a link to an essay and walk away. You never mentioned WP:COAT. Your rather hazy, ill-defined argument was that the term "controversial" is "POV". If you want to persist with that argument, show us the relevant WP policy on POV and exactly how it applies in this instance. Your argument was also predicated on an incorrect claim that the term in question appeared in "the opening paragraph"[70] when in fact it appeared at the end of the article, logically, in the family section. Also, it's counterproductive to re-litigate some other older editorial issue, as you did above, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about now. The case here is simple -- it's reasonable for the family section of the article to mention notable family members and what they are notable for. Prince is notable as the founder of Blackwater, a top-line detail which clearly merits inclusion. Blackwater has been described by news agencies and textbooks across the political spectrum as "controversial" and "notorious". On that basis, including the term "controversial"to describe Blackwater is compliant with all WP policies and guidelines. In fact, it would be an error of omission to not include it as per WP:WEIGHT. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Marquardtika and I read it differently. I didn't specifically say that COAT applied, but that doesn't preclude me from agreeing with the editor that it does apply. To simplify this: Mentioning that he founded Blackwater is fine. Characterizing it as "controversial" is an issue. The controversy aspect belongs in the article about the company. IF Betsy had ever worked for them or been associated with the company, this could be a different discussion, but she hasn't. Same with the incident being tacked on. The company was notable prior to the incident, has had plenty of coverage about other incidents and so adding it into the BLP of a person who was never affiliated with the company makes no sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not sure @Niteshift continually deleting material that is demonstrably relevant, and is of encyclopaedic merit in the context of this article, shows good faith. Pandroid (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with the summation above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to make an allegation, do it straight to me. Thank you. What may or may not be encyclopedic isn't the actual issue here. The incident in question IS unquestionably encyclopedic. It absolutely belongs in the article about Blackwater/Xe/Academi. What you have failed to demonstrate is why is it relevant to the bio of a woman who was never attached to that company in any way except by being related by birth to the founder. Simply being encyclopedic doesn't mean it belongs everywhere. The fact that Erik Prince graduated from Hillsdale College is encyclopedic. Why aren't you trying to put that in? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it belongs, added value, context, demonstrating to our readers why it's there at all; on the flip-side, if it was some irrelevant 2-bit operation that never garnered any media coverage of note, there would be no mention whatsoever of the company, or her brother for that matter. Pandroid (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“Why do we need "context" about a company she was never involved with?”
The answer is simple and you seem to be refusing to get the point -- a hallmark of WP:DE. Prince is mentioned because the section of the article in question is entitled “Family”; hence it provides top-line details about notable family members and their notable accomplishments. Naturally, it mentions Prince, because he is notable, and it mention the company that he founded – Blackwater – which is also notable -- for being “controversial” and “notorious”, as established by a veritable plethora of WP:RS. It would be an error of omission as per WP:WEIGHT to not include the term “controversial” in the top-line description of Blackwater. This case above is airtight and your argument is not an argument at all but rather a vague and ill-formed question; one that has been repeatedly and resoundingly answered. And again, it must be pointed out that you argued that this information should not appear in the "opening paragraph" of the article[71] when in fact it doesn't and never did -- it is at the end of the article. An acknowledgement of this glaring error on your part is long overdue. Your ever-shifting arguments strain the assumption of good faith past the breaking point. If you still refuse to get the point, then it would seem we are dealing with a user conduct issue rather than an honest editorial disagreement. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no IDHT going on. You seem to think that your interpretation is always correct and we've seen that it's not. You keep arguing a point not in contention. You've never demonstrated a reason to connect "controversial" or that incident to this woman. It's not IDHT. I'm hearing you, the problem is, you're wrong. As for your "acknowledgement of this glaring error", you need to actually read my responses. I already acknowledged the minor error. I also asked you to move on afterwards. So either you missed it, or you refuse to move on. So are you sloppy or stubborn? Which one of these admissions are long overdue? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"You've never demonstrated a reason to connect "controversial" or that incident to this woman."
Please stop making these straw-man arguments. No one is connecting Blackwater to Betsy. Betsy is connected to Prince – that is the connection. The rest of top-line detail just elaborates briefly on Blackwater but makes no attempt to tie Betsy to Blackwater. The reason to use the term controversial in describing Balckwater is that it was used by a multitiude of high-profile reliable sources in their top-line descriptions of the company and therefore belongs on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. I explained this clearly, and again, you are guilty of WP:IDHT.
"As for your "acknowledgement of this glaring error", you need to actually read my responses. I already acknowledged the minor error."
It’s not a minor error. If the description about Blackwater had appeared in the lead or in the opening paragraph, as you contended falsely, I might have been inclined to agree with you that it doesn’t belong, but it doesn’t appear in the lead or the opening paragraph; it is buried in the last portion of the article in the section about Family, where it's inclusion is perfectly reasonable. It makes it near impossible to reach consensus when you keep moving the goalposts, and that is WP:DE. The other argument you presented was a vague alleging that the details are "POV", and when I asked you to explain that charge in terms of actual WP policy and guidelines, you simply changed the subject and moved the goalposts yet again, digressing to a vague argument that the text in question ties Betty to Blackwater when it clearly doesn't. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support this description, because, as I pointed out above, it seems really strange to describe something on another article in a way that it's not even described on the article's own page. Why not go add this description to the company's article? Then it would make more sense to add it here. I would also recommend a cease-fire in the edit warring; if a stalemate is at play, perhaps requesting input from other editors would be advisable. Marquardtika (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Niteshift36 you have the cart before the horse, why is Eric notable here? because of the company he founded. Why is that company notable? largely because of the worldwide coverage of that one major incident (as you point out, there are other incidents), mentioning brother and company, in context, in this article, does not seem contentious to me, in fact, avoiding mention of something, because it appears inconvenient, is worse. Pandroid (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company was notable and well known before the incident. That negates your claims. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't support this description, because, as I pointed out above, it seems really strange..."
The purpose of this thread is not to take a simple yes/no straw poll but rather to provide detailed explanations for editorial points of view and how they relate to WP's policies and guidelines. "Seems really strange" is not a valid editorial argument nor is there any WP policy that governs perceived strangeness. You initially said it was a case of WP:COAT. I pointed out that it isn't and challenged you to specify any part of WP:COAT that would apply to this case. Saying it seems "strange" is not only an invalid editorial argument, it isn't even remotely true. There is nothing strange about this at all. The Family section of the article exists to describe notable family members and their notable accomplishments. Prince is notable for founding Blackwater, and Blackwater is widely (virtually universally) described as "controversial" and "notorious". Ergo, by WP:WEIGHT, the term controversial is completely legitimate and not including it would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Slam dunk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a slam dunk that Dick DeVos net worth be included....until more editors got involved and it clearly wasn't a slam dunk. Your declarations of things being obvious, closed or what have you seem to be premature and incorrect. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment on something that Rhode Island Red said above... that "The Family section of the article exists to describe notable family members and their notable accomplishments"... actually, no. The Family section exists to give the reader background details about Betsy (specifically, her family background). It does not really matter that some of her family are notable. It would be appropriate to mention them, even if they were not notable at all ... for example, in an alternate reality where none of her family were really notable, we might say:

  • Betsy's father, Charles Montgomery Prince, owns the Springfield Nuclear Power Company. Her husband, Homer DeVos, works as a safety inspector at her father's power plant, and also runs a local snow removal company called "Mr. Plow". They have three grown children, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. Lisa is an algebra teacher at the local high school, Bart (a former Navy Seal) now works for Blackwater USA, while Maggie is a housewife. Betsy's father-in-law, Abraham DeVos, was elected Town Supervisor of Holland for three consecutive terms (serving from 1972-1976).

The point of the above is to show that this article does not talk about deVos's family because they are notable. This article talks about her family because doing so give us a bit of background info about BETSY. In fact... because her real family is so notable... we can actually provide that background info while writing less about them than we would if they were not notable... since the reader can follow the links to their bio articles, and find out all about them. Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Eric Prince and Academi/Backwater description

  • in the Family section we have: DeVos' brother, Erik Prince, a former U.S. Navy SEAL officer, is the founder of Blackwater USA, a private military services contractor that drew international attention in 2007 following operations during the American led Iraq War.[1][2][3]
  • why is Eric notable here? because of the company he founded. Why is that company notable? largely because of the worldwide coverage of one major incident (there are other incidents), so mentioning brother and company, in context, and in accordance with WP:WEIGHT does not seem contentious to me. What do others feel?
  1. ^ Scahill, Jeremy (2007). Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. New York, NY: Perseus Books/Nation Books. pp. 2–8.
  2. ^ Bennett, Laurie (December 26, 2011). "The Ultra-Rich, Ultra-Conservative DeVos Family". Forbes. Retrieved Januray 4, 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Smith, David (November 23, 2016). "Betsy DeVos, billionaire philanthropist, picked as Trump education secretary". The Guardian. Retrieved January 4, 2016.

Pandroid (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim. This is more undue weight on the controversial details of DeVos's family members. It's appropriate to have a bit of information about the subject's immediate family, but not this much. It's enough to say: "DeVos's brother, Erik Prince, is the founder of private military services contractor Blackwater USA." If readers want to learn all the dirty details of Blackwater then they can easily click through. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim: It's fine to say that he founded Blackwater. Including the incident is not. The company was notable before the incident. The company was well-known before the incident. The claim that the company became notable because of this incident is easily disproven with a simple Google news search. As I mentioned to Paranoid, Blackwater was so well known that in 2006, the TV show Jericho had a storyline about a private military company called "Ravenwood" that operated like Blackwater and had been in Iraq. That was before this 2007 incident. Blackwater was already known enough to be working into pop culture. The entry should stop after the word contractor. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim per DrFleischman (except that the new name Academi should be used, of course). StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwhelming Keep: It is entirely appropriate to provide a top-line description of what the company is notable for, and the company, according to a predominance of sources, is notable for being both “controversial” and “notorious”. WP:WEIGHT demands that some description of this be included. It is needed to establish what it is that the company is most notable for, consistent with what the majority of sources have said (in other words, the WP:UNDUE argument is not valid). Also, please refer to WP:LINK. Wikilinks are not supposed to be used in place of basic contextual top-line details; sufficient context should be provided so that the reader does not have to follow a wikilink. With respect to use of the dba name Academi, no, of course that should not be used. Prince founded Blackwater, not Academi; the references cited refer to Blackwater, not Academi; and the lead of the article on Academi even states: “Prince retained the rights to the name Blackwater and has no affiliation with Academi.” Those who have commented so far should rethink the issue in the context of the aforementioned details. A little more forethought and exactitude would be appreciated rather than shooting from the hip. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he founded the company Academi - the fact that he is no longer affiliated with it is irrelevant. But we need to realise that this article is three steps away from the controversy. No one is disputing that Academi is controversial; the question is whether we mention it here. Should we mention it in the Academi article? Absolutely. Should we mention it at Erik Prince? Probably. Should we mention it at Betsy DeVos? Certainly not. StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
actually he founded Blackwater, not Academi, our article on the latter states: "It was renamed Academi in 2011, after the company was acquired by a group of private investors in late 2010.[5] The new investors instituted a board of directors and new senior management. Prince retained the rights to the name Blackwater and has no affiliation with Academi." The designation 'Blackwater' is consistently used across Wikipedia when discussing the company in the context pre-Academi history; in keeping with the sources cited, this norm should be followed here. Pandroid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim - Fully agree with the above comments of DrFleischman and Anselm. Unless Betsy herself has had a direct involvement in Blackwater/Academi, it seems UNDUE and COATRACK to go into any details about either company in her bio article. Indeed, the only reason for this article to even mention either company is to clarify which "Erik Prince" the subject (Betsy) is related to (and... since there is a bio article on Erik that we can link to, including such clarification is not really necessary). Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if an analogy will help clarify what the objection here is... The article mentions that Betsy grew up in Holland, Michigan... All well and good, and appropriate to mention... but I would hope that everyone would agree that there would be no reason to expand on that fact here in this article. We would not write "She grew up in Holland, Michigan, which was named the most secure mid-sized city in the United States by Farmer's Insurance in 2013" (Or something similar). The fact that the town was praised in this way is verifiable (and it is mentioned in the article about the town)... but there is no reason to mention how safe the town is in the bio article on Betsy DeVos. If someone wants to know more about the town where she grew up, they can click on the link and read about it at the town's article. In the context of this article, the praise is a misplaced irrelevance. The same is true for the controversy about Erik's company. Yes it is verifiable, but it is irrelevant to the subject (Betsy) and thus misplaced. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim Heavily, per DrFleischman for reasons expounded well by Blueboar, unnecessary and borderline coatrack, (the sins of the brother are not yet visited on the sister, on WP at least). Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim per my points in discussion above. Attempted guilt by association is a hallmark of poor writing, and she is not her brother's keeper. This is content for the company's own article, not the article of the company's founder's sister. Marquardtika (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed BLP vio, and I would question whose sockpuppet Pandroid is to be making such high-level edits having supposedly been here only three months.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually a really good question. I hadn't looked before. But when an editors very first edit [72] is to go to Move Review and open a discussion about a close, it does give a whiff of socks. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Niteshift36: looking at his other shady edits, how do we open a checkuser?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim - As others have noted above, we should include information on Prince's founding of Blackwater but anything more would be WP:COATRACK. DeVos had no connection with the incident that took place in 2007 and it should not be added to her BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guns in schools

I find this statement to be inaccurate. "DeVos said that she did not believe in gun-free school zones." Backbonz (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is inaccurate. And the whole section is dubious since it's a side issue compared to what the hearings actually talked about. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation hearing

Here's a Washington Post story about her confirmation hearing which is a good WP:RS source for her positions on guns in schools, disabilities in education act, accountability for charter schools, gainful employment regulations, high-stakes testing, and the Detroit public schools. I don't know if the hearing transcript itself is a WP:RS, but I would accept it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/18/six-astonishing-things-betsy-devos-said-and-refused-to-say-at-her-confirmation-hearing/
Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said — and refused to say — at her confirmation hearing
By Valerie Strauss
Washington Post
January 18, 2017
--Nbauman (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's not get caught up in being the newspaper. For example, the guns in school thing is being misrepresented as "she worries about bears" or some nonsense like that. Instead of trying to report on every question or answer, I think we should focus on what is most significant and notable, once the hearings are concluded. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the newspapers said, "she worries about bears". If you are going to accuse newspapers of misrepresenting her, please quote exactly what the newspapers say. Otherwise you're creating a straw man of newspapers that say nonsense (when they really don't).
Wikipedia establishes WP:WEIGHT according to multiple reports in WP:RS. The hearing has already been concluded. We don't decide what's significant and notable; we let the WP:RSs decide. Daily newspapers with fact checking, like the NYT, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, are the classic WP:RSs. The purpose of these hearings is to find out what appointees have to say. They're asking substantive questions about DeVos' position on the issues, and she responds with her official positions.
Here's another WP:RS:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/betsy-devos-education-secretary-confirmation-donald-trump.html
Nominee Betsy DeVos’s Knowledge of Education Basics Is Open to Criticism
By KATE ZERNIKE
New York Times
JAN. 18, 2017
If you don't like these stories, please feel free to find WP:RS that you do like. --Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the headline "Betsy DeVos tells Senate hearing she supports guns in schools because of grizzly bears" is misleading.

[73]. "So is Betsy DeVos says guns shouldn't be banned in schools ... because grizzly bears" [74]. So there's 2, which is sufficient. So again, my point wasn't solely about that issue. Right now, it's developing news and we should be careful about trying so hard to be "first" that we're becoming the news. Yes, RS's are reporting them, but as WP:NOTNEWS tells us, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." "Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Just because it's being reported doesn't mean it automatically has a pass to be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS gives the examples of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." DeVos' support for guns in schools isn't a thing like that. If many WP:RSs report her support for guns in schools, then it should go in the entry. WP:WEIGHT says: "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." DeVos was justifying guns in schools with the example of protection against grizzly bears. There are now huge numbers of articles in WP:RS, like the Washington Post, quoting experts on grizzly bears saying that guns are not an effective or recommended defense against grizzly bears. So the grizzly bear debate probably belongs in the article too. It's not "timely," and it's not ephemeral; that debate has been going on for years.--Nbauman (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The key here is WP:DUE WEIGHT... in any confirmation hearing, a nominee will be asked a lot of questions about his or her views (on all sorts of topics). Some answers end up being substantive, and have an impact on the nominee's eventual confirmation (or rejection). Others, however, have no impact at all. At this point, we can't know whether the question about guns in schools (and her answer) will have any impact on DeVos's eventual confirmation/rejection... or any impact on the policies she will actually put into place if confirmed (it shouldn't, since gun control is not a federal issue). Until we know whether her answer has an impact on her confirmation, discussing anything she says in confirmation hearings gives her personal views UNDUE WEIGHT. Sure, she may have said something stupid (in response to a stupid question) but Wikipedia should avoid playing the "Gottcha" game when a nominee says something stupid... let's leave that to the politicians, and WAIT to report on it until we see what kind of lasting impact it actually has. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nbauman, your answer is a great example of the problem. You say "DeVos' support for guns in schools isn't a thing like that." She did not actually say "I support guns in schools". She said she thinks the states should make that choice. We can see her actual words. But them some reporters say "she supports guns in schools", then you parrot what they say and next thing, you're trying to introduce her "support for guns in schools". And in the end, that helps Wikipedia continue to not be a reliable source of information. Misapplying WEIGHT to shoehorn in something doesn't help. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Blueboar, WP:DUE WEIGHT says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Our job is to see what viewpoints have been published in WP:RS, and represent them in the article in proportion to the prominence in WP:RS. Do you agree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)][reply]
  • You're misrepresenting it. Just because it was published doesn't make it something to include. For example, if Kim Kasdashian puts a nude selfie on Twitter today, there will be a metric ton of reliable sources that cover it. That doesn't mean it gets included in her bio. And not putting it in doesn't mean we're "excluding significant viewpoints". The newspapers get paid to cover everything, as it happens. Many newsworthy events don't merit inclusion here. It's the job of an encyclopedia to discern what is reporting news and what is encyclopedic in nature. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the repeated invocation of this strange narrowly-focused analogy about Kim Kardashian and nude selfies?[75][76] We are talking about serious comments from senators in an important cabinet confirmation hearing, not tabloid gossip about a naked reality TV star. Kim Kardashian posting nude selfies would not in itself merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. If however, multiple WP:RS wrote about KK (or DeVos for that matter) posting nude selfies as a significant story, then yes, it probably would merit inclusion. In fact, her bio discusses her nude appearance in Playboy, so basically you have inadvertently answered your own question. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I use it because it's simple (for most people) to understand. (Yes, I used it before.....to counter the position you held and that consensus did not agree with you on. So apparently it works.) Do you dispute that said selfie would garner a lot of coverage, probably even more media coverage than this hearing? Or is it your position that said selfie would automatically be included? Yes, her bio does mention Playboy. An exclusive pictorial in a large periodical is undoubtedly more relevant than the Twitter selfie, so no, I didn't "inadvertently answer". See, I actually understand the difference between newsworthy and encyclopedic. You should try learning it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed this, " Yet half the Democrats on the committee either went to private school themselves or had children or grandchildren attending private schools." because whose grandkids went to what school is not relevant. Also much of the issue with DeVoss is not about private schools but charter schools. How many senators grandkids went to those? Carptrash (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that was part of the quote, right? The RS was pointing out the double standard.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. The article was not about the senators. And the double standard was what? The issue is charter schools not private schools. Carptrash (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the point. When you remove something from the middle of a quote, shouldn't we indicate that material is removed? Either inserting an ellipsis or making it into 2 quotes? As it stands, we're showing a quote that has missing material and nothing indicating that. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard. I see how you rather oddly removed the last word of a sentence you kept and left the last word of the sentence you removed to say the same thing. Strange. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It all makes sense, as much as politics make sense. The quote goes for miles in both directions. I just, as I recall, lopped off the end of what was provided because it did not make sense. Re-read the article if you wish. Private school are not mentioned, or not much, before we get to hear about senators families. Then suddenly "charter" becomes "private" because it fits the authors POV. Grandkids? DO you think that where your grand kids go to school reveals anything about you? For example. Carptrash (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, when I looked again, you'd cut off the last word of a sentence that remained and then left the last word from the sentence you removed. As it turns out, it was the same word, just appeared weird when looking at it as a diff. Personally I'd have left it in because the author was pointing out what they felt was a double standard, but it's not something I'd spend time debating. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content is a quote from an opinion editorial, which is attributed, so we needn't debate the merits of the quote's contents as it is clearly the author's opinion. I added the quote as a counter-balance to the LA Times oped. We could just remove both opeds, as it would become cumbersome to document every media outlet's reactions and responses to DeVos. Marquardtika (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section that I did because private schools had nothing to do with anything. It doesn't mater if it is someone's op ed or not. It is not germane to what is being discussed. Carptrash (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeVos's nomination is what is being discussed, so anything having to do with her nomination is germane. The oped author likely pointed out that many children and grandchildren of U.S. Senators attend private schools because the U.S. Senators evidently think the private schools are better than public schools. Those with money have inherent "school choice" because they can choose to pay for the best schooling. But rather than quibble over what to include and exclude from the opeds, we could just remove both of them, as I suggested above. Marquardtika (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the op ed author added that because he felt a needed to make a point and the best he could do was a snarky, off-topic crack. And you are assuming what the author "likely" was thinking, as well as what US Senators "evidently think." If you feel removing that but of fluff ruins the whole section then do what you have to do. And good luck in DC, but do you mind updating the Holman Rule article for us as that story develops? Carptrash (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say this: While I would have left it in, I'm not going to fight the removal because there are plenty of really unrelated things (like bears) others want to work in and fighting this fight makes that one tougher in my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed both quotes from both opeds, FYI. It seems that is a better solution than trying to figure out which parts of which opeds to feature. Marquardtika (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE WEIGHT

Neither User:Blueboar nor anyone else has answered my question, so I will repeat it:

WP:DUE WEIGHT says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Our job is to see what viewpoints have been published in WP:RS, and represent them in the article in proportion to the prominence in WP:RS. Do you agree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but I guess I don't understand what you're proposing. Do you have a specific content proposal we could have a look at ? I think that would be helpful, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being answered. You don't like the answer. Stating that it hasn't been responded to is a flat out lie false claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the question of how significant the viewpoint actually is.Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Niteshift36, calling me a liar is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, despite your sarcastic strikeouts. If you make another personal attack, I'm going to complain to the appropriate admins. --Nbauman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABetsy_DeVos&type=revision&diff=761114921&oldid=761075761

Leave a Reply