Talk:Betsy DeVos/Archives/2017

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. [1]. 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• How is it not SYNTH? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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,[2], Grand Rapids Press,[3], Salon,[4] Mother Jones,[5] and even the FRC's mission statement webpage.[6] Seems perfectly reasonable to mention this detail in the text proposed for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

“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.[7] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

“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)

• "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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

• 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)

“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.”[8]
• “Auto-parts magnate Edgar Prince, was instrumental in the creation of the Family Research Council”[9]
• “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."[10]
• “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.”[11]
• "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..."[12]
• "Edgar Prince, a wealthy and influential Michigan Republican who helped found the Family Research Council in the late 1980s."[13] Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

“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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)[31]

“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)[32]

“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)[33]

"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)[34]

“The controversial security firm Blackwater” (ABC News)[35]

“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)[36]

“Despite these efforts to outrun Blackwater’s controversial past…”(Private Security Companies During the Iraq War, p199)[37]

“Controversial contractor eligible for lucrative new Pentagon bids” (CNN)[38]

“Here's What Blackwater's Notorious Founder Has Been Up To” (Business Insider)[39]

“Notorious security firm known previously known as Blackwater that has changed its name to Xe Services.” (DailyMail)[40]

“Members of the notorious US security firm Blackwater, running through the streets of Donetsk in Ukraine.” (India Today) [41]

“Notorious Blackwater firm awarded lucrative Afghan contracts” (The Irish Times)[42]

“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)[43]

"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) [44]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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.[45] 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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 [46] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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"[47] 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)

• 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)

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)

I strongly agree with the summation above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Why do we need "context" about a company she was never involved with? This article is about BETSY DeVos, not Things done by employees of a company founded by a relative of Betsy DeVos. I will even go so far as to say that if Erik Prince had personally been involved in the incident, I might at least find that extremely stretched connection somewhat more credible. But he wasn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

“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[48] 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)

• 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)

"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)

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)

@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)

• The company was notable and well known before the incident. That negates your claims. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"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)

• 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)

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)

• Precisely. Well put. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"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)

Your removal of content from the lead[49] was reverted[50] 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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

• " 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)

“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)

"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)

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

“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)

• "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)

You deleted the material from the lead initially on the basis that it was "already well covered in the article";[51] I addressed that -- it wasn't a valid reason according to WP:LEAD.[52] Your next argument was that even though the details are notable, they are not relevant.[53] I addressed that too -- I said we could agree to disagree.[54][55] Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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.[56] Pandroid responded by stating a case as to why the material merited inclusion and proposed making some additional modifications to the lead,[57] which I supported.[58] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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: [59], [60], [61], [62],[63]. Our readers would find this both relevant and of encyclopedic merit. Pandroid (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)

(←) 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)

• 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)

"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)

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

"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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

Daily Mail [64], People Magazine [65], US magazine [66] [67], HuffPo [68]. Now that I've wasted 2 minutes answering your pointless request....Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Well, the headline "Betsy DeVos tells Senate hearing she supports guns in schools because of grizzly bears" is misleading.

[69]. "So is Betsy DeVos says guns shouldn't be banned in schools ... because grizzly bears" [70]. 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)]

• 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)

Why the repeated invocation of this strange narrowly-focused analogy about Kim Kardashian and nude selfies?[71][72] 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• General Comment on the entire section... I urge my fellow editors to take a long term view in covering DeVos's confirmation hearings. The hearings are part of the current news cycle, but will they have a lasting significance? I doubt it. If you take a look at the bio articles on the other people who have held the position of Secretary of Education... none of those articles contain a section covering their confirmation hearings. The newspapers of the time did cover those hearings, which means we do have enough RSs to write a section about the hearings for those other people ... but we don't. Why? Because when you take a long term approach, the hearings are not considered significant enough to mention. The lack of a "confirmation hearings" section in these other articles tells me that this article is giving too much attention to current events, and not taking a long term approach. It is likely that in five years time, the entire "Confirmation hearings" section of this article will have been removed... or (at least) re-written, and summarized into a very short paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

There is also the question of how significant the viewpoint actually is.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. --Nbauman (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that I didn't call you a liar, and struck the comment, replacing it with softer wording, the fact remains that you actually DID make an false statement and I'm really just calling a duck a duck. But do what you have to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Marquardtika, I was talking to Blueboar about the issues of DeVos' positions on guns in schools, the disabilities in education act, accountability for charter schools, gainful employment regulations, high-stakes testing, and the Detroit public schools, which were covered in the Washington Post and NYT articles which I cited above. One of the issues was her suggestion that guns might be appropriate in schools in Wyoming, to protect them against grizzly bears. Experts on grizzly bears have said that guns are not a safe or effective way to protect against grizzly bears. This has been widely reported by many WP:RS as an example of her lack of understanding of the issues she will be deciding. I believe that if any of the issues has been covered by many WP:RS, it should belong in the article.

User:Blueboar, WP:DUE WEIGHT says that the prominence of each viewpoint in WP:RS determines how significant the viewpoint is. Do you agree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. It's a fundamental pillar of WP policy. Seems to be a lot of partisan obstruction to the addition of content that has been widely covered by multiple WP:RS and warrants inclusion on that basis and on the basis of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The arguments for exclusion, like the strange analogy Niteshift keeps using to equate hypothetical naked selfies of Kim Kardashian with widely covered actual testimony from the confirmation hearings, and incredibly, painting them both with the broad brush of WP:TRIVIA, often seem ludicrous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that the analogy isn't strange at all (just because you don't understand it doesn't make it strange), it has been effective. Haven't said either was "trivia", but I have demonstrated, repeatedly, that your notion of including something merely because it was in a RS, is faulty. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Strike the "dick" attack or you're going to have 2 WP:NPA incidents in one day. Just stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't name Dick DeVos. Considering the amount of time you spent talking about him in a talk page devoted to Betsy, one could apply the word obsession, especially when you feel the need to call out the fact that I used the same Kardashian analogy more than once. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI... I was limiting my comments to the "guns in schools" issue only. DeVos's views on guns in schools is not significant, since she can not affect law (or even policy) on that issue in any way, even if confirmed as Secretary of Education. Her views on that issue (whether accurately presented or not) are no more significant than your view on the issue or mine. Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, under WP guidelines, your personal view or my view are not significant in deciding whether it belongs. However, under WP guidelines, WP:DUE WEIGHT says that what is significant is the prominence in WP:RS of each viewpoint, and that determines how much prominence the viewpoint gets in the article. Do you agree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but there is nuance that you are omitting... for a viewpoint to be significant, it has to have lasting prominence in RS. An off the cuff statement that gets a brief flurry of news coverage for a day or two, and then fades into obscurity does not have lasting prominence and is not worth mentioning. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That requires you to predict the future. How do you know whether an issue like this will have lasting prominence or will fade into obscurity? --

You need to have patience. You need to wait and see what actually happens. Does coverage of the person's viewpoint on the issue continue beyond the immediate news cycle, or not? Are the RSs still discussing it after a month or a year has passed? That lasting coverage (or lack thereof) tells you whether the subject's view on an issue is significant or not. If DeVos is asked for her views regarding the most recent Star Wars movie, I am sure the press will cover it (due to the novelty of the question if nothing else)... but I doubt the press would cover it for long. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. The essay WP:RECENTISM suggest a 10 year test of sorts. Will this be relevant in 10 years? In the 24 hour news cycle, space has to be filled, but much if it doesn't last for long. What is covered heavily today is barely mentioned next week and not at all next year. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(Outdent) I don't think we will need to wait a full ten years to determine which of her views are significant and which are not... but we do need to wait long enough to gain some degree of historical perspective. In a few weeks, she will either be confirmed or rejected by the Senate. At that point political analysts and historians are going to begin to examine why that outcome occurred... and that analysis is the sort of coverage that will tell us which of her stated views were significant and which were not. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting we wait 10 years to add anything, nor does the essay. The essay suggests using that lense (ie, will it be relevant in 10 years), not to wait 10 years to add something. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, WP:RECENTISM is an essay. It says in the headnote that "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." It's simply the opinion of some Wikipedia editors with no official force.

How do you come up with "a few weeks"? What's wrong with Wikipedia giving readers information to help them understand the controversy as it is unfolding, when their interest is greatest? The number of page views has gone up from about 7,000 a day to almost 400,000 [73] during the hearings. This shows that Wikipedia readers want information about her now, while the hearings are going on, to help them understand the hearings. Why shouldn't we give Wikipedia readers the information they are coming here for? --Nbauman (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

One reason to wait is so we can see whether the Senator's question and her answer remains a controversy... or becomes just a flash in the pan that no one cares about or even remembers once the news cycle moves on to other things. By covering recently breaking news, we run the risk of make mountains out of mole hills... of making a major deal out of something quite minor that had no lasting impact. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was the one who brought up RECENTISM and, I clearly identified it as an essay. While you're reading things, have you read WP:NOTNEWS? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he has clearly read WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, he recently explained it to you in detail and pointed out why it didn't support your argument.[74] Ignoring other editors talk page comments is a perfect example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is extremely counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently he hasn't understood it, just like you didn't understand WEIGHT in previous discussion. BTW, needlessly wikilinking things we've already linked (and then repeating it in the edit summary) doesn't actually strengthen your argument or make you right. It just makes your response contain more blue. Considering the number of times you refuted what I said, then saw an overwhelming rejection of your position in RfC, IDHT seems to be a staple in your own conduct. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh... I will take my own advice... I will wait, and and return to this article in a month or so - once the hearings are over. At that time we will have a better historical perspective and can summarize them with an eye towards what was and was not actually important. Until then... Have fun arguing. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Please remove the reference satanic from the first paragraph. That is totally uncalled for. Thank you. Egander (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I changed Satanic back to Reformed Christian. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation hearings again

The section under "Confirmation hearing" has only one sentence, and that's outdated.

The hearing has been reported in multiple WP:RSs, which establishes WP:WEIGHT, which according to WP:NPOV means it should be represented in the article in proportion to its representation in WP:RS. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, because it is not original reporting, or routine news reports about "things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." WP:RECENT doesn't apply, because the guidelines and policies of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV overrule the essay WP:RECENT. The people who argue that it is too recent haven't said how long they would wait -- a week? A month? A year? Ten years? It's already been a week and in this age of electronic communications, the people who follow this have come to many conclusions. That's long enough.

As you can see from the page views [75] this page was getting about 7,000 hits a day, until her confirmation hearings started, when it went up to 400,000. People were coming to this page during the confirmation hearings, to find out more about her, and we failed them. I think this amounts to WP:CENSOR. This was a success for the advocates of Betsy DeVos, since this delay prevented about a million people from finding out how poorly she performed in the hearings, on a web site that has one of the highest rankings in a Google search for "Betsy DeVos hearing."

The Washington Post story by Valerie Strauss about her confirmation hearing [76], which I cited above, 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 think we should start updating the "Confirmation hearing" section with this Washington Post story. But a Google search for "betsy devos hearing" will give you page after page of WP:RSs. If you don't like the unfavorable coverage, find some favorable coverage. --Nbauman (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the third section you've started about this issue. The only thing I'm seeing that has substantially changed in the position that has failed to gain consensus in the other 2 is that this article is getting more views. The number of views or interest in the subject has no bearing on what gets included. Your bad faith allegations of censorship or "advocates of Betsy DeVos" seem hollow. Who are these advocates, specifically? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not there are advocates involved is secondary to the content issues raised, all of which I found to be perfectly reasonable and legitimate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell me, tell Nbauman. If he is going to make the claim, he needs to substantiate it or withdraw it. So, I respectfully ask again: Who are these advocates? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your question does not deal with article content or editorial issues (see WP:TPG), so it would be better asked on a user talk page than here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The original poster included it in his reasons for opening this discussion. If he wants to blame the problem on these advocates, knowing who they are will help identify the problem. I try to make it a practice to know what I'm talking about. Don't you try to know what you are talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Red, if you actually have nothing to contribute to the question and just want to try to enforce your will and act as the page police, I'd ever so politely ask you to stop your disruptive editing and not divert attention from a valid question. As I said, since he used it as a basis for the original post, it's a legitimate question. Since you didn't make the statement, maybe you simply don't know the correct answer. It's ok that you don't. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT: "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." [footnote: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."] WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia." According to the headnote of WP:NPOV, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." --01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Saying the same thing over and over isn't helpful. WEIGHT is exactly the same reason used in the previous discussion that failed to gain consensus. What is new in this discussion? It looks like a rehash of the others that you abandoned. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

He's making a valid point and you don't seem to be listening. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to have hearing and agreeing confused. I hear him, I don't agree. Just like when you told me before about those "valid points" and how I didn't know what I was doing and the clear consensus turned out to be against you. Your repeated wikilinking to IDHT is turning into incivility. As often as you link to the guideline, I wonder if you noticed the part that says "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"? Your pattern seems to be to declare a position to be the only correct and valid one, then bully editors by just repeating how they don't understand or dismissing them with remarks like "noted" and not addressing the actual point made. It really makes an unpleasant environment to edit in. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Red, unless you are a sock for Nbauman (or he is a sock for you), I'd really like to get an answer from him. Lately you've "intercepted" a number of questions that were asked to that editor. It's almost as if you're going out of your way to engage me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nbauman articulated a very clear (and compelling) editorial argument based on policy. You did not address the substance of the argument. If you disagree with, it is incumbent on you to offer an equally compelling rebuttal. Instead, you went on a tangent, unrelated to any editorial issue, about advocates and are now crossing the WP:NPA line by accusing me of being a sock. Please be WP:CIVIL and either address the argument or let it remain unchallenged. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

His argument is no different than the previous one, which has numerous explanations given. Second, I haven't gone on any tangent. I addressed something the OP said and asked for clarity on the matter. I think clarity is a good thing. Do you oppose clarity? Third, I haven't accused you of being a sock. I quite clearly said "UNLESS you are a sock for Nbauman (or he is a sock for you), I'd really like to get an answer from him" There is no NPA, nor is there an allegation of any kind. Since you are not a sock for him, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to continually speak for him? I have been civil. You're actually being a bit uncivil with your false allegations of an imagined NPA. Once again, please allow Nbauman to answer the questions directly asked to him. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree with his argument, you can state that you disagree but if you want that statement to be compelling, you must explain exactly why you disagree. If you feel that you have already done so and don’t want to repeat the same explanation, you can simply provide a diff edit. Simple! Suggesting that I am a sock, in the complete absence of evidence, is a personal attack and will be treated as such. If you want Nbauman to explain something to you that has no direct bearing on a specific/key editorial issue related to article improvement, then it doesn’t belong here, as per WP:TPG; it is a needless distraction and can be addressed through your user talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I didn't suggest you were a sock. I did the opposite when I said UNLESS YOU ARE...... Please stop your false allegations and please stop your disruption. Why have you felt compelled to tell me multiple times that he doesn't have to support his own allegation? Did he make you his spokesman? THIS talk page is for matters involving THIS subject. MY talk page is not. Nbauman made an allegation of WP:ADVOCACY, with a hint of a WP:COI. These are pretty serious allegations that, if true, effect THIS article. This is precisely where it should be discussed. YOU have made it clear that you either don't know the answer or are unwilling to share it. Your position is noted. There is no need for you to repeat it. I would, however, like an answer from the person who actually made the allegation. That is NOT YOU (because you are NOT a sock). (Is there any other way I can express to you that I'm not calling you a sock?). Please allow him to speak for himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue of COI is a user conduct issue. The place to address user conduct issues is not this article talk page, as per WP:TPG. Very cut and dried. Nbauman made a simple editorial statement -- policy supports expanding the details about the confirmation hearings -- and with this I agree. If you disagree globally, then provide a compelling argument as to why or refer to diff edits, or simply ignore it if you don't wish to elaborate further/again. What you shouldn't do is derail the thread with unrelated matters and or make unwarranted insinuations about sockpuppetry of any kind. Clear? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

COI is discussion is not solely a user conduct issue. Is there not a template to mark an article as one edited by someone with a COI? {Template:COI} And does that template not instruct the editor placing it to discuss the COI on the talk page? ( Hint, yes it does) Why would we have such a template and why would the template tell us to discuss it on the talk page if this were solely a user conduct issue that should be discussed elsewhere? Not cut and dried at all. What you shouldn't do is try to WP:BULLY or try to give me orders. It is WP:UNCIVIL and a form of a personal attack. Clear? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting to find out why we have templates directing discussions about COI to the talk page?Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Previous arguments of this subject argue that details regarding her hearing should not be included per WP:NOTNEWS. In recent news reports, Senate Democrats requested that DeVos should have a second hearing, but is rejected, as reported by Washington Post and The Hill. The fact that the issue is being brought up again means that it's time to include this information in the article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Including that there are hearings or a request for second hearings probably should be in the article. Making an issue about an off handed remark about bears in Wyoming doesn't. Note: I'd most likely reverse that if there are second hearings and she again uses the bear position. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nbauman, I agree with your general argument above and think that coverage of the hearings should be expanded. Would you be interested in proposing some specific text for inclusion, or in case I missed it, reiterate your proposal. Thanks! Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36, I am not a sock for anyone, and your accusation violates WP:NPA despite your circumlocution. I started a new section because your comments took off on so many tangents that were not related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (like Kim Kardashian's nude selfies) and personal attacks on me, that I couldn't follow them, and I don't think anybody else could follow them. I'm not concerned about the personal insult to me, but I am concerned about the way personal insults distract everyone from the merits of the case.

The simple argument that I keep making, and which you have not directly addressed, is that Wikipedia guidelines and policies of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV require us to include the massive coverage of her hearing, and guidelines and policies overrule essays like WP:RECENT. WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote; it is the weight of evidence according to WP policies, and the weight of evidence supported by WP policies is that it should go in. If Rhode Island Red and I give arguments based on WP policies and guidelines, and you give arguments based on an essay, we overrule you. According to WP:CONSENSUS, under WP:NOCON, "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." Therefore, even if we had no consensus, content like this should be kept [77] although I would have to examine the history to find other content that should be kept. --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not a sock, but please be careful to note that I never said you were. I made that abundantly clear. Your false allegations ALSO violate WP:NPA are are considered WP:UNCIVIL. Please cease making them. I'm truly sorry that you failed to grasp the analogy I used, but I can't do anything about your inability to grasp it, so let's not discuss it further. Now that you are speaking for yourself, could you please tell me who those advocate for DeVos are and what they're censoring? It's important that we're talking about the same thing. You are correct that consensus is not a vote. You're also correct that RS applies. Can you please show me where anyone has suggested that RS doesn't apply? I've never disputed that WEIGHT applies, but I have disputed your interpretation of WEIGHT. You equate number of media outlets with WEIGHT and that is not what weight actually is. NONCON is being misrepresented. The part you quote is about deletion discussions. This is not AfD. After the part you quote, NOCON says: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Since this IS a BLP and not a deletion discussion, this would be the more applicable passage. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nbauman, I agree with your summary and thank you for starting this new thread to refocus on editorial details that got obscured previously by going off on tangents. Feel free to be be bold and add whatever details you deem appropriate. A priori permission is not required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"If Rhode Island Red and I give arguments based on WP policies and guidelines, and you give arguments based on an essay, we overrule you." No my friend, you don't "overrule" anything. And, BTW, I'm not the only one who has opposed the inclusion. Perhaps you should share your proposed edit? Wouldn't that be more in the spirit of consensus building that improperly invoking BOLD? (It stops being BOLD when you're already discussing it and you just want to have it your way, counting on the idea that if reverted, another is there to tag team it back in). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Neither a priori discussion nor your permission is required for Nbauman to include new material in the article, Yes, he should be WP:BOLD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read WP:OWN yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Encouraging another editor to add content to the article, in keeping with WP policy, is not WP:OWN. Please stop adding noise to this thread lest Nbauman have to start yet another one to facilitate a clear discussion of the editorial/content issue at hand. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of clarity and beg your forgiveness. My suggestion that you read OWN wasn't for suggesting BOLD editing, it was based on your behavior all over this talk page. Clear? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have a user conduct issue that you feel needs to be addressed, then, again, the article Talk page is not the place to do it. You are derailing yet another thread. Please focus on specific content/editorial issues and stop commenting on other editors. Be cool; don't escalate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking me to OWN isn't commenting on the editor actions, but my linking to it is commenting on editor actions? That's very curious. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I said very clearly, in response to your claim about ownership, that "encouraging another editor to add content to the article, in keeping with WP policy, is not WP:OWN". That is not a comment about another editor's behavior. The point I was making was that this thread, and this article Talk page in general, should not be used to go into detail about user conduct issues and that they should instead be addressed using the appropriate forum. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It was your comment before that one that made the ownership allegation. You'll have to forgive me for not immediately accepting your personal interpretation since you've had a pretty spotty record in that department. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again I am compelled to remind you to stop making comments about other editors, including the allegation you made about "spotty record". I am not going to ask you again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• talking to you about this is pointless for several reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you both need to take a break, and go edit other articles for a few days. When you return, talk about the article... not each other. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 to that. Marquardtika (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DeVos' husband

I added this additional source to the lead, but I also have a question: Why are there noteworthy biographical details about DeVos’ father, brother, and father-in-law in her lead, but nothing about her husband? For the sake of consistency, shouldn’t we also briefly state why Dick DeVos is notable (i.e. he is the former president of Amway/Alticor CEO)?Kerdooskis (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that we just had an RFC that reached a consensus saying that the he lead shouldn't give biographical details for the brother and father in law... I would say the same applies to the husband. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that was what the consensus conclusion was; certainly not verbatim. If I am mistaken, can you please clarify, with diff edits perhaps? I see nothing wrong with referring to Richard DeVos Jr. as former Amway CEO in the lead. It's what he is most notable for and it doesn't introduce excessive detail. The lead currently notes that Richard Sr. was Amway's co-founder, so inclusion of the detail about his son would be consistent. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning that he was the CEO of Amway in the lead. It makes sense to be consistent by either mentioning a single reason for his notability or not mentioning it on the others. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If there are no other objections, I'll make the edit regarding Dick DeVos' notability, describing him as the "former CEO" of Amway.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like no issues, so please go right ahead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Other opinions?

The consensus is against inclusion of the net worth of Betsy DeVos's father. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead of the article include the net worth of Betsy DeVos's father? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

• 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)

“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,[78] 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.[79] That makes every one of them members of a very select group (by comparison there are 1,696 players in the NFL).[80]

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Don't; summoned by bot. I agree with Blueboar and Meatsgains. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC - Eric Prince and Academi/Backwater description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 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.
• 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?

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

• 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)
• 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)
• Trim per DrFleischman (except that the new name Academi should be used, of course). StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• That's actually a really good question. I hadn't looked before. But when an editors very first edit [81] 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)

@Niteshift36: looking at his other shady edits, how do we open a checkuser?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• At WP:SPI Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• Trim – This is POV pushing of guilt by association. — JFG ^talk 10:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Trim – Association fallacy applies. She was not involved in her brother's legal problems, so why elaborate on them here? ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Incumbent" listing incorrect plus one other correction

"Incumbent" title for Betsy DeVos seems incorrect. That would mean she already previously had held or currently does hold the office. Under "Assumed Office" should read "Awaiting confirmation by the Senate" not "TBD". Page is currently protected so can't make edits. Mkenworth9 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I removed "TBD" and replaced it with Pending Senate confirmation.--FeralOink (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation

I removed material about this foundation, because I believe it was based on a misreading of the given source. The source talks about the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, then goes on to say "The foundation controlled by Dick and Betsy DeVos, though not as richly endowed, is nonetheless substantial..." The source doesn't say that Dick and Betsy control the Richard and Helen DeVos foundation, but the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation. Two separate foundations. Marquardtika (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

In the Detroit charter school system subsection, please link Jay P. Greene to the corresponding article; also, please include an authorlink to the same in the reference attributed to him. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Graduation rates for cyber charters

DeVos said that on-line (virtual) charter schools have graduation rates above 90%. News reports say that she used a different calculation of "graduation rates" than the calculation used by federal and state regulations.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2017/02/devos_cites_inflated_numbers_k12_inc_cyber_charters.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-twitter
Betsy DeVos Used Cherry-Picked Graduation Rates for Cyber Charters
By Benjamin Herold
Education Week
February 1, 2017
"According to the Ohio education department, for example, the Ohio Virtual Academy has a four-year graduation rate of 53 percent, good for an "F" on the state's accountability system.
"DeVos put the figure at 92 percent."

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/04/513220220/betsy-devos-graduation-rate-mistake
Betsy DeVos' Graduation Rate Mistake
Cory Turner
NPR
February 4, 2017
--Nbauman (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

The guns in school comment needs to be added back in. It's a serious issue.

"I will refer back to Sen. Enzi and the school he is talking about in Wyoming. I think probably there, I would imagine there is probably a gun in a school to protect from potential grizzlies," she said. Notaternativefacts (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Neurocore

This DeVos business is getting more attention now. They're making claims and charging money for this program, but there's no scientific evidence to back it up. If this has been picked up by many WP:RS, then it belongs in the entry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/betsy-devos-neurocore-brain-centers.html
Questions Raised About Brain Centers Backed by Betsy DeVos
By SHERI FINK, STEVE EDER and MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN
New York Times
JAN. 30, 2017
The treatment offered by Neurocore, a business in which Ms. DeVos and her husband, Dick, are the chief investors, consists of showing movies to patients and interrupting them when the viewers become distracted, in an effort to retrain their brains....
Neurocore has not published its results in peer-reviewed medical literature.
--Nbauman (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So they invested in a business that hasn't done anything illegal, right? The company is doing something that sounds experimental, but not in a Dr. Mengele sort of way. So what makes this particular business holding something that should be included in their personal bio? Did they perhaps come up with the idea? Or are they merely people who saw business potential? Can you elaborate? (And please, don't just say that RS's have covered it so "WEIGHT" requires us to put it in) Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The reason this is newsworthy and worth including in an article about DeVos is that many authoritative doctors believe that Neurocore is treating people for many diseases with no scientific evidence that it works. None of their evidence has been published in peer-reviewed journals, or in any publication that would pass WP:MEDMOS. In other words, it's an unproven theory, according to many reliable medical authorites.

Neurocore is charging people money for unproven treatments with no evidence of effectiveness.

If they charge money for a treatment and make false claims for its effectiveness, that may be fraud or otherwise illegal, although it's difficult to prosecute such cases.

As the NYT article says, this not only costs money, but it also causes the harm that comes from delaying effective treatments.

If you don't understand (or care) what a randomized controlled trial is, or what scientific method is, or what medical evidence is, then you will have a difficult time understanding what's wrong.

But in that case, it's enough to say that many authoritative doctors criticize Neurocore for treating people outside of a clinical trial. --Nbauman (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask the obvious questions: 1) If this is fraud and causes harm, why haven't the plentiful agencies that govern the medical industry and attorney general's office brought charges, leveled fines or otherwise shut them down? 2) What personal involvement does Betsy DeVos have in this? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no point in going off on a tangent about "fraud" or whether or not the therapy offered by Neurocore is effective. DeVos' involvement with Neurocore as a board member and major investor is a basic fact established by multiple independent high-profile WP:RS, and it's obviously germaine to the Business career section of her bio, especially given how thin it is/was. The basic detail is benign, so please stop blanking me[82][83] when I add this new section and content to which no one has raised any specific objections. Nothing mentioned on the TPG to date offers an excuse for blanking this and no one's permission is required to add properly sourced relevant material to the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Many things are "obvious" to you until they get hashed out and we find that isn't as "obvious". I have raised specific objections. I've asked a number of questions about why it should be included. Once again, your answer is essentially that it was in a RS. I will reiterate for you: So what makes this particular business holding something that should be included in their personal bio? Did they perhaps come up with the idea? Or are they merely people who saw business potential? Can you elaborate? (And please, don't just say that RS's have covered it so "WEIGHT" requires us to put it in) Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The questions you asked were posted before any of the material on Neurocore was added to the article and none of them pertain to the notability of the basic information about her involvement with the company. So please do stop arbitrarily blanking the entire section as it is WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP correctly started a discussion before adding contentious material. The material has been contested. Since this is a BLP, questioning how much she is actually involved is perfectly valid. You can call it DE all you want. You can link to all the pages you want. It won't change the fact that is is being disputed and you refuse to discuss the matter, which is WP:DE as well. Returning contested material with bogus edit summaries and refusing to discuss the matter is more like WP:EW than a good faith effort to reach consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You have pointed out nothing contentious about the material I added and certainly nothing that would justify wholesale blanking of the entire section. You have raised no valid objection to inclusion of the material; you are merely saying, quite vaguely, that you have “questions” and then blanking the section and edit warring to keep it excluded. Exercising your curiosity by now asking “how much was she really involved” is OK, although rather puzzling given that the answer has been in front of you the whole time (the added text, based on WP:RS, states that she is a board member of Neurocore and a chief investor in the company); however, again, merely because you express curiosity about something, especially when the answer is readily apparent, is not a justification for section blanking. It is a basic fact that one of her business activities involves Neurocore; there is nothing contentious about that – it has been established by multiple secondary independent WP:RS and it is entirely consistent with WP policy to include it – it is not a contentious detail in the slightest. You have provided not a single argument for excluding it, and no one else has raised even the slightest objections. In essence what you are saying that if you alone object to the inclusion of content, it must stay excluded because you didn’t offer your permission to include it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have pointed out what is contentious. The questions show you the issues. You know, the questions you've refused to discuss. Being on the board or putting money into the company doesn't show level of involvement. If Toyota has a manufacturing defect in the Prius, are we going to claim that the board must be involved without actually showing any real connection? Doubtful. Your claim that "no one else raised an objection" is hollow. More than once, I've been the one who raised the objection with one of you two. You told me how wrong I was and how policy dictated inclusion. Then when more editors got involved, you position was rejected. Linking me to OWN is really pretty hypocritical coming from an editor who has ordered me not to edit a related article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not pointed out anything contentious about including details about DeVos’ involvement with Neurore. A question is simply a question; it is not an evidence, or even a clear assertion, that the detail is contentious in any way or violates policy. You asked various questions, most of which were ignored because they are vague and irrelevant from an editorial perspective. You asked whether they had done something illegal, which is an odd question since no one is asserting that there was any illegality involved. You also asked the speculative question “are they merely people who saw business potential” which was too vague to even understand let alone reply to. You also asked whether this is an example of fraud and whether it caused harm, which is an irrelevant question since no one is even remotely alleging anything about fraud or harm.

The only other question you asked, and the only one that is remotely relevant, is “what personal involvement does Betsy DeVos have in this”, and that question has not only been answered, it was in front of you the whole time. She is a board member (and a principal investor). Now lest you continue trying to argue that board memberships do not merit inclusion, let me remind you that the article currently mentions her role as a board member of no less than a dozen different institutions (Foundation for Excellence in Education, Alliance for School Choice, Acton Institute, Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Alliance for School Choice, Advocates for School Choice, American Education Reform Council, Education Freedom Fund, Choices for Children, Great Lakes Education Project, Children First America, American Education Reform Council). In light of this, it would be indefensible to argue that her membership on the board of Neurocore is not relevant or worthy of inclusion. But then again, you haven’t even made such an argument but instead are tip-toeing around the issue and using what you say, wrongly, are unanswered questions as a casus belli for wholesale section blanking and edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 said, "And please, don't just say that RS's have covered it so "WEIGHT" requires us to put it in."

Why not? WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy. What reason do you have to ignore a Wikipedia policy? --Nbauman (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the policy. I'm disputing your interpretation of it. An interpretation that, I may add, has been rejected by other editors in this article. Remember the claim that WEIGHT dictated that we put the net worth of Dick DeVos in the lead? How did that RFC turn out? Pretty lop-sided if I recall correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 said: "questioning how much she is actually involved is perfectly valid"

Asking a question is valid. Asking a question after it has already been answered is a case of editorial deafness. Asking the question after it has already been answered and using that stale question as an excuse for repeated section blanking and edit warring is disruptive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your repeatedly wikilinking to the same junk isn't convincing. You are hip deep in edit-warring yourself my friend and your pretending that you aren't is laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The point, which you still seem to be missing, is that your vague question has already been answered and you can no longer hide behind the thin premise of "I have unanswered questions" as a justification for section blanking. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Linking the same stuff doesn't make your position valid. And no, it hasn't been answered. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36, I would like you to show me the text in which other editors have rejected my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, and what their reasons are for rejecting it. I don't see any discussion on this page, and I don't see any discussion in the archives. All that I see are editors changing the subject, such as calling me a liar or citing WP:RECENTISM.

WP:WEIGHT prefix:Talk:Betsy DeVos/

There were no results matching the query.

Show me the text that rejects my interpretation. --Nbauman (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You are making the same claim that because RS's have reported it, WEIGHT demands we put it in. That is the same position Red took in the RFC about the details of Blackwater and in the RFC about the net worth of Dick DeVos. Both RFC's rejected the notion that just because we can find it in a RS, we include it. Since your position is the same, it doesn't need you to necessarily be the one in the RFC for your position to be rejected. Courts call it precedent. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me the text. --Nbauman (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Scroll up. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I have repeatedly asked you to cite the specific text that you claim rejects my interpretation. You have repeatedly been unwilling, or unable, to show it. --Nbauman (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I have told you which discussion mirror your interpretation and were rejected. You've repeatedly been unwilling, or unable, to understand the answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the answer either, or why this back and forth is continuing. Doesn't seem constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• You agree with Nbauman. Who saw that coming. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick Evaluation

Seeing as this article is likely to be in the spotlight currently/in the near future, there are a few sections which could use additional information. Expansion of the Education portion of this article would be helpful. “involved with campus politics” is extremely vague and could be elaborated upon. Additionally, the 2016 U.S. presidential election section could be updated to cover her political actions after the Republican primary. An expansion of the Business Career section would also be helpful, as only three business ventures are listed. Information is well cited throughout. Mcmonty2357 (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Focus on the Family

I appreciated the addition of new text on DeVos’ role with the Prince Foundation;[84] however I have one minor concern about the text regarding DeVos’s claim that she “had nothing to do with the contributions made by her mother’s foundation to anti-gay rights groups including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.” In fact, this seems highly misleading since Betsy’s own organization, The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation donated at least $570,000 to Focus on The Family.[85][86] Any thoughts on how to reconcile this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Focus on the Family and FRC have been separate entities since 1992. And did she have anything to do with the contributions made by her mother's foundation? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The point is that by highlighting Betsy's denial it implies that she did not donate to Focus on the Family (FOF), which is misleading. It's easy enough to fix by not including the denial, or by including a qualifier that reiterates in the same line that her own organization did donate directly to FOF. Simple enough fix. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Since they are separate orgs and there's nothing showing she donated to FRC, why is the FRC even part of the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

The text:

"On February 7, 2017, DeVos was confirmed by the Senate by a 51–50 margin, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie in favor of DeVos's nomination, it was the first time a Vice President had done so for the appointment of a cabinet nominee."

is a run-on sentence. Either change "nomination, it" to semi-colon ("nomination; it") or new sentence ("nomination. It") 47.35.108.98 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is confirmation last step?

The lead still says DeVos "will be" the Secretary of Education. I was under the assumption that the confirmation made it a done deal. Is there some final needed step, such as a swearing in or signing, that I am not aware of, or is her post official now? Kerdooskis (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

She's gotta be sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Right after I posted my question, I found the answer. Ceremony in 5 minutes. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

It is incumbent on editors deleting content to have a clear clear overriding policy basis for doing so. Repeatedly deleting content without a clear overriding policy basis is edit warring (i.e., overriding another editor's contributions while failing to make a constructive effort to resolve a dispute), regardless of whether the 3RR line is crossed.

Furthermore, editors are required to provide appropriate edit summaries to indicate the reason. Per WP:REMOVAL: “unexplained content removal is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted.” An edit summary listing the reason as “See Talk”[87], or something similarly vague, is not appropriate or obvious, and it qualifies as unexplained content removal, which is “open to being promptly reverted”.

The newly added text that was deleted[88] was well supported by multiple WP:RS and consistent with WP:PROPORTION and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and no valid reason for blanking it has been provided.

The latter policy states: “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”

The content in question meets all 3 criteria: it is noteworthy (i.e., per WP:WEIGHT), not irrelevant, and extremely well-documented.[89]

Continuation of edit warring over this will result in administrative complaint and a possible block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you have exceeded the 3RR and violated the DS as well. Please don't act like you are some how exempt from this. You're right that I should take a break article from this today, but at least I can walk away without displaying a stunning level of hypocrisy. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a clear, and disappointing, refusal to address the relevant policy and content issues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a clear refusal to be sucked further into your edit war. To be honest, I probably should have stepped back earlier. I didn't then, but I am now. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

This line is presented in the Wikipedia page below Political Fundraising: "Atlantic Magazine noted that DeVos had indicated in a 1997 op-ed that she expects to benefit from her political contributions"

This line suggests that DeVos was looking to personally benefit from her political contributions, which is slanderous. If you would go to the source [45] and then go to it's source, until you eventually reach the original OP ED, She makes it clear in literally next sentence, that what she is expecting is that the Republicans in question actually implement the agenda DaVos and the Republican are advocating for, by taking the money. I should suggest a change from the line currently present in the Wikipedia article to:

"DeVos had indicated in a 1997 op-ed that she expects results from her political contributions" 2001:56A:F3F1:C100:9DD7:3736:9D1B:5E01 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed (and done)... that said, I would think that every donor to political causes expects "results" from their contributions. The question is whether there is there something unique about DeVos's expectations that make them stand out?... Is her attitude in some way different from the attitude of anyone else who contributes to political causes? If not, I have to question why we include this snippet from Atlantic Magazine in first place. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The angle about DeVos is not about whether she expects "results" from her donations. It would be inappropriate to attribute to the source something that the source didn't say. The line of reasoning was about conflict of interest, influence peddling, and whether she stands to benefit from her donations; not whether she expects results. She stated explicitly that she expects to buy influence, which isn't exactly the same as donating money with the hope that the recipient will simply do something good with the donation. It's a subtle difference but an important one.

The appropriate way to write this up would be to use pretty much the exact statement that Atlantic used and attribute it accordingly. For example: "According to Atlantic Magazine, DeVos acknowledged in a 1997 op-ed, that she expects to gain something from these contributions." We can't arbitrarily change the words and attribute them to Atlantic. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Atlantic wasn't the only source that reported on this statement and the COI angle. Lastly, there is nothing slanderous about this from WPs perspective. In fact, accusing Atlantic of slander may in itself be slanderous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Here a re a couple of those other sources I alluded to:

1. "By some estimates, DeVos and her family have donated over $200 million to Republicans nationally, including sizable donations to many of the senators who will vote on her confirmation. In fact, DeVos is open about her support of pay-for-play, once stating that “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.”[90]
2. "Did Ms. DeVos’ donation to Sen. Toomey constitute buying his vote? Certainly not in a literal sense. But she has admitted that political donations are given with an expectation of influence. In a 1997 Roll Call article she was quoted as saying, “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.”[91]
3. "Showering lawmakers with money also helps — and DeVos’ groups have spent millions on candidates who support vouchers. DeVos has been blunt about the power that donations have in politics. In 1997, she wrote in Roll Call that “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return.”[92]

The original meaning and intent from the sources that have written about this must not be distorted. So again, refactoring Atlantic's words to "results" would clearly not be appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

While the given source states this, Senate records do not.

@Therequiembellishere: What do you mean by this? Senate records are a primary source are they not, would they reliable secondary and tertiary sources not trump (pun not intended) this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Betsy DeVos is in fact the first cabinet nominee to be confirmed by a tie vote in history: look at this New York Times article from 1945 that states Wallace was confirmed in a 56-32 vote. Somewhere else in the confirmation process I saw the mention of a tie relating to some procedure or motion, though the actual final roll call vote wasn't a tie. That source's information that was being cited I believe is incorrect, and many more sources now are reporting that it was the first time this has happened. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't access the article, so I'll take your word for it. For what is worth the citation I provided is from a university professor and not some random journalist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Request Edit

Please change the picture of Besty DeVos the graphics of the picture seem to depict her as a cartoon or video game character please find a better picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D1A:AB10:592C:1BD:C253:B313 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this IP. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Philanthropist"

This word has just been removed from the lede. Whether one likes what she does with her money, or not, sources do list her activities as at least partly philanthropic. Esowteric+Talk 21:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

How notable is it though. I am not denying that the sources say she is philanthropic, but is that what she it most known for. If she it not then it doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted that change--"philanthropist" is the standard word here for "rich person who endows charities and such", and aside from the education activism, she's established a scholarship and an arts foundation. I think summing it up as "businesswoman, philanthropist, and politician" seems apt. (Arguably "politician" isn't the right word for someone who's never run for office--we don't call Loretta Lynch or Shaun Donovan "politicians"--so I'd suggest changing it to "businesswoman, administrator, and philanthropist". But I'm not invested in that.) — Narsil (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Scandal"

Let's talk about this edit by Nick.aus96 which was reverted by Emir_of_Wikipedia and discussed here on Emir's talk page. I disagree with Emir's assertion that if there is "nothing positive" then nothing can added--that does not follow our policies. I don't have time to give my full thoughts, but will come back to this. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It was poorly sourced and needed to be removed immediately. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What exactly was poorly sourced about it? Besides possibly utilizing more sources, the source itself was accurate and reputable? Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and am not the best with notation - if the format of something needs to be changed please let me know. However, I agree with David that controversies can be talked about as long as they are not "tabloid journalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.aus96 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, for one. This article should resemble an encyclopedia, not an editorial. Marquardtika (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The source provided did not mention a "scandal", nor did it say it was "one of the most controversial nominations in recent presidencies". StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the title "scandal" was inappropriate and lacking WP:NPOV. However, much of the text of the edit was actually in the sourced article contrary to what Emir of Wikipedia had said at his/her talk page. I see no problem using that source to add material. I'm making no specific suggestions as to where or how much of the source should be used. I think some compromise between including the entire edit as is and excluding it entirely is appropriate, especially with regard to anything mentioned in the source that is not mentioned elsewhere in our article. @Marquardtika: Can you identify what specifically in WP:BLP makes any part or all of the edit objectionable, since WP:BLP is such a long standard? This is, after all, a public figure. (See also our standard: WP:PUBLICFIGURE). --David Tornheim (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that the source is inappropriate for this article. However the source does not justify the lack of a neutral point of view, or using weasel words like "arguably" without citations, or synthesising information that could be included chronologically into an editorial style analysis, or mentioning people like Bernie Sanders when he is not named in the the source. About my assertion that if there is "nothing positive" then nothing can added, this just means that we should follow the clear evidence instead of exaggerating or trying to make DeVos look like something she is not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I do not remember seeing Bernie mentioned in the article, so that does not belong without a source. I also agree that using the words "arguably" should not be added as this would be WP:OR, it would have to be mentioned specifically in the source; and even if it were in the source, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to repeat such a conjecture. I agree that we should "follow the clear evidence", assuming you mean whatever the secondary source says rather than draw any further conclusions as that would be WP:OR or WP:SYN. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So upon removing some of the general buzzfeed/attention grabbing words that aren't as neutral and properly sourcing the Bernie Sanders bit, would this be ok to publish? I'm also not entirely sure what is necessary to reach consesus before reinstating an edit.Nick.aus96 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A good first step would be to post your proposed revised wording here first. StAnselm (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

^Indeed. I was about to suggest that in my last comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

See below for the re-written section. I can't figure out why the formatting of the section is getting messed up, so if you could also take a look at that and fix it, I would appreciate it (for some reason it seems as if the citation for Bernie isn't going through right)Nick.aus96 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved it below.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nick.aus96: I think the problem with the formatting had to do with a non-printing character. I deleted some white-space and it went away. Also, the space in the name "USA Today" of <ref name=USA Today> seemed to cause a problem. I changed it to <ref name=USAToday> and that helped. Also, notice that I used {{reflist}} template to keep the references next to the block, which helps when presenting proposed text with references on talk pages. As a new user I'm not surprised all of that was difficult to figure out.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks so much for all of the help and patience! Do you think the revision is more appropriate currently, or are there other changes you would like to see?Nick.aus96 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Can you identify what specifically in WP:BLP makes any part or all of the edit objectionable, since WP:BLP is such a long standard?" Titling the section "Scandal" is a good start, when the only source used doesn't use the word. It's unnecessarily salacious and is clearly the point of view of a Wikipedia editor rather than a reflection of the given source. When it comes to this recent content addition, IMO all of the content is already covered in a more neutral, better sourced way throughout the article--political donations, charter schools, opposition to nomination, etc.--so it doesn't seem that this paragraph is adding any value. Marquardtika (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy & Opposition

Betsy Devos has been a controversial nomination of President Trump, and she faced a lot of resistance in her appointment. The first of these controversies comes from her family's large contributions to the republican party over time. Betsy Devos and her family have given donations to several key party members including Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. According to Bernie Sanders during her hearing, it is estimated that her family has donated more than a billion dollars to the republican party.

In addition, Devos has defined Trump as "an interloper" that did not belong with or did not represent the republican party. However, now she has chosen to work with Trump on his cabinet. Much of Devos's scandal regards her support of charter schools. Despite all of the work that Devos put into charter schools in Michigan, they are still not faring any better than their traditional counterparts. The American Civil Liberties Union said that her work was "elevating for-profit schools with no consideration of the severe harm done to traditional public schools." In addition, there has been concern that she will allow these chartered schools to pursue more religious education according to the New York Times. According to the Detroit Free Press, "she is, in essence, a lobbyist - someone who has used her extraordinary wealth to influence the conversation about education reform, and to bend that conversation to her ideological convictions despite the dearth of evidence supporting them." Her hearings did not inspire confidence in several key senate members, as she even remarked that a Wyoming school might need a gun to defend itself from a grizzly bear.

as proposed by Nick.aus96 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to take out the word "scandal" that is not in the source. Such a provocative word added that is not in the source does not meet WP:NPOV and probably some other standards. I suggest reading WP:NPOV if you haven't already. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I still have a few concerns: firstly, it reads less like an encyclopedia and more like an opinion piece. Secondly, there is still the problem of original synthesis: why are these particular issues being highlighted? Is there a reliable, neutral source that names these as the points of controversy? It appears that there is - the BBC article. But then it should be named at the start of the paragraph/section: "BBC News identified three areas of controversy regarding Vos's nomination..." Thirdly, some of the grammar needs to be fixed: it should be DeVos had defined Trump as "an interloper". Fourthly, although it's good to discuss this particular wording, we also have to remember the wider context of the article - there is a lot of material here that is repetitious and vexatious, such as the mention of grizzly bears. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit because it doesn't appear that the issues with the content raised here previously have been addressed. Marquardtika (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ties to "Reformed Christian community"

Our lede currently says that DeVos is notable for her "ties to the Reformed Christian community." I don't believe this is lede-worthy per WP:LEDE. The body of the article doesn't elaborate much on these ties. There is a sentence that says "DeVos grew up as a member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America," but there's nothing in the body that seems to indicate that her ties to a religious community are one of the most notable things about her. The available sourcing seems to hit more on her stated Christian motivation for education reform (which is covered in the article), rather than ties to any particular Christian community. I think the current information in the lede is undue and should be removed. Marquardtika (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have thoughts on this? Marquardtika (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm going to remove "ties to the Reformed Christian community" from the lede.Marquardtika (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I made a similar proposal a couple of months ago (Ties to Reform Community in the intro?). I got a lot of pushback then so I didn't fight it--but maybe the fuss has died down. I still think, as I thought then, that she isn't "best known" for that by any means; rather, her religious background is widely known only because of her education activity and her cabinet appointment. (And IMO, it's because a lot of people get freaked out by those scary Calvinists, and wanted to make sure to say very high up that she was one of them--it's why people kept trying to put "Calvinist" in her infobox.) — Narsil (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

This article falsely states that her nomination to Secretary of Education was opposed by Democrats, but in fact, there was bipartisan opposition to her nomination. 98.243.15.148 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Our article already includes opposition to her nomination from Republicans. See "Later on February 1, 2017, two Republican senators, Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), came out against the confirmation..." and "As expected, there was a 50–50 tie on the final vote, with all Democrats and independents, along with two Republicans (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), voting in opposition to DeVos" and "Prior to DeVos's confirmation, numerous senators from both parties reported tens of thousands of their constituents having contacted their offices in opposition to the confirmation of DeVos." Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

The article describes Betsy DeVos as the chairwoman of the American Federation of Children (AFC). DeVos stepped down from this position when she accepted the position of US Secretary of Education. She should be described as "former" chairwoman of the AFC. Specifically, the sentence under the "School vouchers" subsection that says "DeVos is Chair of the American Federation for Children (AFC)" should be changed to "DeVos is former Chair of the American Federation for Children (AFC)"

Economicactvist (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ties to Reform Community in the intro?

Right now, the intro raises DeVos's religious background quite prominently:

DeVos is a member of the Republican Party known for her advocacy of school choice, voucher programs, and ties to the Reformed Christian community.

To me, this looked like undue prominence for her religious background, especially as the connection to the Reformed community is somewhat stretched--she grew up in a Reformed church, went to a Calvinist college, and now attends a non-denominational church. She was never famous as a Christian thinker or activist, her prominence was as an education activist--and now that she's a nominee, people are interested in her religious background, too (naturally enough).

I removed the clause "and ties to the Reformed Christian community" with this edit. Shortly thereafter, someone reverted my change with the curt comment "Please read citations before removing sourced content." In fact, I had read the citation; my objection wasn't to the fact (that she has connections to that community), but rather to the high prominence given to this fairly pedestrian fact.

Don't want to get into an edit war, though. What do other people think? I have no objection to noting her religious background, but putting it so high up seems like undue weight to me--and frankly, it looks to me like people freaking out about Calvinism, which does happen a lot... — Narsil (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and would support removing this from the lede. She is not predominantly known for religious activities. Based on available sourcing, she is predominantly known for GOP politics, education/voucher activism, and business activity/wealth. Religious views can be covered in the appropriate sub-section of the article. Marquardtika (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

would have been better to discuss before deleting, it had been stable for some time, and no one is freaking out about Calvinism, or any religion for that matter, merely stating facts, religion is important to her, it is a prominent part of her life, and informs her views on education. If you like we can add more citations for support and note that she is a member (President of the Council of Elders) of the Mars Hill Bible Church perhaps we could add a quote from her in the main body: "There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…[versus] what is currently being spent every year on education in this country…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom." Pandroid (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's consider what WP:RS have said about the subject. According to the title of the WaPo article currently cited, she has "deep ties to the Christian Reformed community".[93] What is the basis for your assertion that her "connection to the Reformed community is somewhat stretched"? Is that based on a published source or WP:OR?

As for the Christian Reformed Church, it is a Calvinist denomination, ans she has been described as being heavily influenced by a Calvinist theologian.

Not sure I buy into the WP:UNDUE argument; Betsy's religious background seems to be routinely mentioned in articles about her (perhaps even a majority), apparently because it has shaped her views about education policy. She's also an elder at her church,[94] so it seems that religion is a big part of her life.

One possible option would be to substitute "Christian conservatism" for "Reformed Christian community" but I would want to see such a change made only if it is widely supported by WP:RS. This would be one such source perhaps.[95] Here is another, which states:

"But of the $3.2 million doled out by the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation in 2004 — the last year for which financial statements filed with the IRS are available — the vast majority of recipients were overtly Christian groups. And mixed in with them are high-profile organizations that pursue a staunchly conservative agenda...One of DeVos' beneficiaries, James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family...Dobson's Focus on the Family received $570,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation from 1996 through 2004...The DeVoses keep getting richer, giving them more money to fund the think tanks that provide the scholarly reports and position papers that support their free-market economic philosophy, and more money to fund the fundamentalist Christian groups that turn out the voters to support the hard-right conservative politicians whose campaigns the DeVoses also fund, gaining the sort of access and favors those voters can't even begin to imagine."[96]

On a side note, I noticed a couple of sources (like the last one cited above) that say Betsy and her husband control the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. This is not currently mentioned in the article, but it should be, and the implications discussed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

we should probably give details of the $8.6 million given to Christian schools between 1999 and 2014 also. Pandroid (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I was asked, According to the title of the WaPo article currently cited, she has "deep ties to the Christian Reformed community".[82] What is the basis for your assertion that her "connection to the Reformed community is somewhat stretched"?

My answer is, the only actual evidence to support that statement is that (a) she grew up in a Reformed church, but does not attend one now; (b) she went to a Calvinist college; and (c) one source says she's influenced by a Calvinist theologian. That doesn't strike me as overwhelming; there's nothing in the column about what connection she has now. But that said, my main concern is that this is giving undue weight to her religion. She isn't notable for being Calvinist (or having once been Calvinist); she's notable for being an education activist and nominee for Department of Education. I think the religion stuff should go in the "personal life" section, not at the very top of the page. — Narsil (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

both the Prince and DeVos families are notable members of the Dutch Christian Reformed community - according to a number of sources - I guess that's the "deep," we can add cites for those also maybe? and, it's quite evidently clear, based on recent coverage, that she is now notable as a religiously motivated billionaire education activist who has been nominated as Secretary of Education. We can of course flesh all of this out in the main body if you like, and then add a note in the lead, something very similar to what is already there. Pandroid (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Narsil: “the only actual evidence to support that statement is that…one source says she's influenced by a Calvinist theologian.”

Correction. There are at least 4 sources that say she’s influenced by a Calvinist theologian.[97][98][99][100]

That point aside, there are also many sources that draw a clear and strong connection between DeVos political agenda, her religious beliefs, and her funding of various conservative Christian organizations. Here are just a few examples:

“Even this article, however, barely scratched the surface of DeVos’s religious associations. Grand Rapids, her base of operations, is in effect the capital of American Calvinism. The Christian Reformed Church is a stronghold of Calvinist orthodoxy. The mission of Calvin College (as stated on its website) is to prepare its nearly 4,000 students to live “as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.” (Since 1999, the college has received about $650,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family.” Foundation.)”[101]

“At a 2001 gathering of conservative Christian philanthropists, she singled out education reform as a way to “advance God’s kingdom.” In an interview, she and her husband, Richard DeVos Jr., said that school choice would lead to “greater kingdom gain.” And so the family tradition continues, funding the religious right through a network of family foundations…”[102]

“Ms. DeVos has spoken out against anti-gay bigotry — as recently as the early 2000s they funded some groups like Focus on the Family, a large ministry that helps set the political agenda for conservative evangelicals. They have also backed groups that promote conservative values to students and Christian education, including one with ties to the Christian Reformed Church…the DeVoses stand out for the amount of money they spend trying to advance their goals through politics rather than philanthropy, such as research into reforms or subsidizing schools.”[103]

“DeVos is a religious conservative who has pushed for years to breach the wall between church and state on education, among other issues…the DeVos family doubled down on political contributions and support for conservative Christian causes. Members of the family, including Betsy and Dick DeVos, have spent heavily in opposition to same-sex-marriage laws in several states. According to the Michigan L.G.B.T. publication PrideSource.com, DeVos and her husband led the successful campaign to pass an anti-gay-marriage ballot referendum in the state in 2004, contributing more than two hundred thousand dollars to the effort.”[104]

“Some flee home for college; Betsy Prince traveled just 30 miles to Grand Rapids, where in 1975 she enrolled in Calvin College, from which her mother, Elsa, had graduated. Any attempt to forecast what DeVos might do as the nation’s education secretary must begin here, at this college of 4,000 that bids its students to act as “Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.” The college is affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church and takes its religious mission seriously: Faculty members, for example, are required to send their own children to a Christian secondary school. The college is named after John Calvin, the 16th-century French thinker from whom Calvinism gets its name…DeVos talks about “advancing God’s kingdom” through public education. That only stokes fears that DeVos is a Christian soldier disguised as a public servant. Ingersoll, the University of North Florida scholar, says that “it’s a long-standing goal of the religious right to dismantle public education” and that religious conservatives like DeVos “don’t see public schools as religiously neutral.” If an education is not Christian, then it is anti-Christian. This is a view, she suggests, DeVos shares with Mike Pence…”[105]

“Take a tour of the institutions that educated her and you immediately find the powerful influence of religion. DeVos attended Holland Christian Schools, and she belongs to the Christian Reformed Church, a Calvinist denomination. The nominee for education secretary graduated from Calvin College, a liberal arts institution in Grand Rapids that "prepares students to be Christ's agents in renewal in the world."[106]

“She is a devout Christian conservative. DeVos attended Calvin College, a Christian Reformed school in Michigan, and has made significant donations to her alma mater. Prior to that, she went to Holland Christian High School, a Christian Reformed school in her hometown. She has stated that her mission in education is to "advance God's kingdom…"[107]

“This deeply dysfunctional educational landscape—where failure is rewarded with opportunities for expansion and 'choice' means the opposite for tens of thousands of children—is no accident. It was created by an ideological lobby that has zealously championed free-market education reform for decades, with little regard for outcome. And at the center of that lobby is Betsy DeVos."[108] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Narsil: “But that said, my main concern is that this is giving undue weight to her religion... she's notable for being an education activist and nominee for Department of Education. I think the religion stuff should go in the "personal life" section, not at the very top of the page.”

That seems to be an overly narrow interpretation of WP:LEAD. The lead is not to include only details critical to the subjects notability but rather a summary of all of the most relevant details, including prominent controversies:

WP:LEAD: “The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents…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…the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

CNN, Huffington Post, and others reported that DeVos had plagiarized portions of her Senate written responses. When I added that information to DeVos' Confirmation Hearing section, User:Niteshift36 removed it and wanted the information covered on the talk page instead. What are editor's thoughts on including this information? --Kbabej (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts: The sources say may have. In reality, we're talking about 2 sentences. 1 is pretty much a quote from a government doc and the other is similar sounding, but not the same. Unlike the Melania Trump speech or Biden's incidents of plagiarism where there were a number of clear points of comparison, this is pretty scant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Huff Post article clearly states "President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s education system, Betsy DeVos, appears to have copied lines from statutes and other sources in her written answers submitted to a Senate committee, according to a copy of the document and a review of those other sources." That's not "may have". --Kbabej (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Appears"....that is the same as "may have" (which is what CNN said). If I say "it appears you dislike DeVos", I'm saying that is how it looks to me. It I say "You said you dislike DeVos", that is an affirmative statement. If HuffPo removed the semi-weasel wording, it would be a different statement. BTW, other sources are noting that she was given around 1,400 questions and that she "obviously" had staffers help complete that answers. (CBS put "obviously" in quotes, not me) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

From the Washington Post: "In other instances, answers that DeVos submitted in Murray in her 62-page response used text verbatim from federal statutes and Education Department materials without direct quotation." Is that direct enough for you? --Kbabej (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I said her answer did quote a federal website (which isn't copyrighted BTW). The other quote is not a quote at all, nor verbatim. Look at their headline: "appears". First sentence: '...appears to have used..." there is a reason they keep using that word. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In general, we're running into a recentism issue with this page. Every day, whatever headlines there are about DeVos are being almost immediately incorporated into this article, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with WP:NOTNEWS. We need some time to pass before we can assess the elements of her biography that are truly encyclopedic, and what the appropriate weight is for those elements. If she is confirmed, which we'll know soon, the brouhaha surrounding her confirmation will be relatively uninteresting. If, however, she is not confirmed, then the various incidents currently being documented here (plagiarism being one of them) will certainly be more relevant. Let's wait and see. Marquardtika (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, WP:RECENTISM is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it's an essay and the personal opinions of several Wikipedia editors. The decision on whether to include the plagiarism charges (or anything else) in the article is determined by 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." If many reliable sources include the plagiarism charges, it goes in, according to WP:NPOV and WEIGHT. --Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• We all know RECENTISM is an essay. It says so at the top of the page. That doesn't mean it can't provide guidance. And why is it that essentially every matter discussed here ends up with you claiming that WEIGHT means something has to be included? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources cover this, and it should be included in the article. I would imagine a sentence or two would be sufficient per due weight, but I do not see any reason why no mention should be made at all. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Charter Schools

The article included the following text regarding the 2013 CREDO study on charter schools:

A study published by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes in 2013 concluded: "the typical student in Michigan charter schools gains more learning in a year than his TPS [traditional public schools] counterparts, amounting to about two months of additional gains in reading and math. These positive patterns are even more pronounced in Detroit, where historically student academic performance has been poor."

This is presented in the article as a counterpoint to the NYT's criticism of DeVos' position on charter schools. However, the 2013 CREDO study itself is primary source and obviously never directly countered the 2016 NYT piece. Rather it was positioned as such in a 2016 opinion piece by a policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation and published by the Heritage Foundation's news outlet The Daily Caller, which is not an NPOV source by any stretch; and not only is not properly attributed as such, the findings of CREDO have been interpreted quite differently by the non-partisan National Education Policy Center,[109] and this was echoed by the Washington Post.[110]

As such, the text in question has been expunged from the article. It might be possible to re-include it but only if it is substantially modified to address the issues raised above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

References

The quote is a direct counterpoint to the NYT article's criticism, because the NYT article directly cites the 2013 CREDO study - "one well-regarded study found that Detroit’s charter schools performed at about the same dismal level as its traditional public schools". However the findings of the CREDO study completely fail to match that, instead stating "on average, charter students in Michigan gain an additional two months of learning in reading and math over their TPS counterparts. The charter students in Detroit gain over three months per year more than their counterparts at traditional public schools." Given this glaring factual error, the NYT article seems a long way from NPOV. At the least, the actual findings of CREDO study (very similar to the text that was previously deleted) should be restored. Lilleymatthew (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

BLP problems and false POV pushing that all Jewish Rabbi's oppose her

• 1- Too much criticism which I will remove.
• Confirmation is too lengthy we are not news. This is a CURRENT EVENT and does not need such a lengthy section.
• The whole thing that User Rhode Island Red added that reform rabbis oppose her is totally not relevant. Even if it is relevant - Rhode Island deletes the well sourced fact that Orthodox Jewish Rabbi's strongly Support her and instead the user makes it seem that she may be anti Jewish and Pro Christian. CaseeArt ^Talk 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Unfortunately this page has turned into a bit of a catch-all for people evidently unhappy with DeVos. Whatever particular editors think of her, it's our job to write a biographical encyclopedia article about her, not to document everything that's been said about her in the press in the last month or two. Marquardtika (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why so vague? Which "criticism" do you think qualifies as "too much" and what's your objective yardstick for measuring too much? Which text about rabbi's are you objecting to and on what basis have you deemed that it is irrelevant? How about providing quotes, or diff edits and links to back up these assertions -- that is the norm on TPGs. Which Orthodox rabbi's strongly support her? How about providing some tangible details, sources, and text proposals. Please be specific and clearly identify which material you are disputing, citing the relevant policy basis for your objection. WP:WELLKNOWN provides the following relevant guidance: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Here are relevant WP sources on relevancy and noteworthiness. Which material in the article do you feel is consistent with these policies and why? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There are 10,000s of news articles about the subject. WP not News and not current events. You try to taint the subject as pro christian and opposed by the Jewish Rabbis by writing "an organization representing Reform Jewish rabbis ...opposed DeVos's nomination, declaring that she had "specifically Christian goals"" and you delete sourced material that the orthodox Jewish community supports her [111] which is a BLP in my opinion. Anyways non of that belongs. Not every news article that gives a negative comment about her belongs here. CaseeArt ^Talk 20:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you could take a less harsh tone and simply focus on the editorial details without making your comments personal? Thanks. With regard to the text that you allege I tied to “taint” the article with, you should realize that this is what the cited source said verbatim. The source of the statement, Central Conference of American Rabbis, also happens to be a notable rabbinical organization and was reported by a WP:RS; i.e., Fast Forward.[112] This was the exact text that was added to Devos’ bio based on the article:

“The Central Conference of American Rabbis, an organization representing Reform Jewish rabbis in the United States, opposed DeVos’s nomination, declaring that she had “specifically Christian goals” for the department, and raised concerns about her positions on gay rights and support for school vouchers.”

And this is what the source article opened with:

“The group representing Reform Jewish rabbis in the U.S. came out against the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education in a statement that raised concerns about her positions on gay rights, and her support for school vouchers. Ms. DeVos has declared specifically Christian goals for her approach to diverting funding from public to private education,” the Reform rabbi’s group, called the Central Conference of American Rabbis, said in a statement.”

Oddly, this text was deleted from DeVos' bio today with a vague and seemingly inappropriate edit summary; i.e., "not particularly noteworthy and no consensus on talk".[113] It merits pointing out that consensus was not required to include the material, so that is not a sufficient basis for blanking it according to WP:REMOVAL, and on that basis I urge the editor who blanked it to revert the edit. Dismissing out of hand the position of one of the country's major rabbinical organizations seems highly inappropriate and there is no apparent policy basis for doing so.

As for the text material that you allege is “sourced material that the orthodox Jewish community supports her”, it was deleted because it did not say that the orthodox community supports her, or anything close to it.

This was the text that was deleted:

“The orthodox Jewish communities supported her due to her advocacy of school choice.”

The source[114] does not support the statement, and I made that clear in the edit summary when the text was removed,[115] so what exactly is the basis of your objection? Please be specific.

A Google search (i.e., DeVos + Jewish;[116] DeVos + rabbi[117]) seems to show several reliable WP:RS that have discussed the reactions of Jewish organizations to DeVos’s nomination. So perhaps it might be worthwhile to sift through them, post key details here and work together to come up with appropriate text to include in DeVos's bio. Is that something you would be interested in working on together?

As for you comment “which is a BLP in my opinion”, I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, so maybe take a Mulligan and try again if you think it’s a point worth making. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to waist time here because none of this belongs in the article. We are not news reporting every opponent of the subject. But the source you deleted is titled "Betsy DeVos Wins Cheers From Orthodox (-Jewish-) Education Advocates...". Now when you add material citing that Jewish reform Rabbis oppose her because she has “specifically Christian goals”, and then you go and delete sourced material that other factions of the Jewish people support her - in my opinion that COULD falsely trick the reader and make the subject seem anti semitic (or similar) which is a serious BLP. Anyways, none of this belongs here because we are not news and current events. CaseeArt ^Talk 02:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussing editorial issues isn't a waste of time. It's an integral component of WP:BRD, although nothing compels you to participate. I’m trying to understand your position here. On the one hand you argue that it would somehow be inappropriate to include the reliably sourced statement from the Central Conference of American Rabbis while on the other hand arguing that it was inappropriate to remove the text about orthodox rabbis (“The orthodox Jewish communities supported her due to her advocacy of school choice”), even though the statement was not supported by the source that was cited.[118]

So what exactly is the policy basis by which you are concluding that the reactions of major Jewish organizations don’t belong in the article? Is it an issue of WP:NOTNEWS? WP:RECENTISM? Read WP:NOTNEWS and you will see that it does not apply here and it is superseded by the policy WP:WEIGHT. If you think there is an issue of WP:BALANCE, then consider proposing some text to add about the Orthodox communities reactions as well, making sure this time that it is adequately supported by WP:RS (which wasn’t the case on the first go around).

As I alluded to previously, I found several additional sources that describe reactions from some of the major Jewish and interfaith organizations.

“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’.”[119]

“Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called the pick "deeply disappointing. It suggests that he has little regard for our nation's public schools or the constitutional principle of separation of church and state."[120]

“the Orthodox Union said DeVos “has a long history of advocating for and supporting” reforms favored by the group, though it stopped short of issuing an outright endorsement. The Reform movement’s rabbinical arm, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, was opposed to the nomination, as were the National Council of Jewish Women and Jewish Women International.”[121]

Surely you don't believe that the opinions of major Jewish and interfaith organizations are too trivial or WP:FRINGE to merit inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There are 10,000's news articles and so many supporters and non supporters (50/50 senate vote) - we are not news. Especially since some Jewish groups support the subject and others don't, - making it even less important for inclusion. As in the source I presented.

That is just an argument about inclusion. It was however in my opinion a BLP issue ONLY putting that Jewish groups oppose the subject because it could falsely portray the subject as anti semitic. But again I don't think it should be included at all. I would recommend creating an RFC. However note that past RFC's on the subject mostly voted to trim the article. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's an editorial in The Forward, a major Jewish newspaper, by Jane Eisner, the editor-in-chief, which says (correctly) that the majority of Jews, who are Reform or secular, opposed DeVos' policies on religious schools, while the Orthodox Jews supported her. Since DeVos says that her education reform is a means to "advance God’s Kingdom," then to comply with WP:NPOV we should include the views of other denominations -- including Jews. There are a lot of WP:RS dealing with that.

http://forward.com/opinion/362533/how-trumps-win-on-betsy-devos-bares-cultural-divide-among-jews-on-education/

How Trump’s Win On Betsy DeVos Bares Cultural Divide Among Jews — on Education and Beyond

Jane Eisner

The Forward

February 8, 2017

--Nbauman (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support for leaving Paris Agreement

This factoid does not belong under the heading of "Tenure" (as it has nothing to do with her job as Secretary of Education). Should we omit it entirely? Should we mention it, but move it to another section (and if so, which section)? Let's discuss and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine removing it, as it doesn't seem particularly notable or important to her position. Just sort of a throwaway statement in support of the President. In general, the "Tenure" section is already getting pretty bloated given that she's been in office for only a few months. I think we should only include items of enduring encyclopedic notability that have been covered widely in multiple reliable sources. Otherwise this section is going to quickly get too long, especially if she retains her position for several years. Marquardtika (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not her comment on the Paris Accord is directly relevant to her duties as Ed Sec seems irrelevant. The section describes details related to her period of service in that role, not necessarily only those things that are exclusively part of the job description; that seems like a rather arbitrary and inappropriate restriction on content. It doesn't belong in a separate section and seems fine as is now, since the subhead was removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

In what way was her comment related to he period of service as Secretary of Education. How is it relevant? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd question. She made the comment about the administration's policy on the Paris Accord during her tenure as ed sec. She didn't make the statement as a private citizen. In what other section could it possibly belong? Early life? Philanthropy? Arguing that her comment was irrelevant is one thing (although it's not), but the argument that it would belong in some other section seems indefensible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Are saying that anything she says or does while in office belongs in the section? Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No. If I was saying that, I would have said that, but nice try on the straw man argument. This is not a case of saying "anything"; it is comment from a cabinet secretary, during her tenure in that position, about the policies of her administration. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am with Red on this one. She is speaking as a member of the administration about a very important stance taken by the administration. It should remain. Carptrash (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be removed. We cannot add her stance on every issue just because it was reported in the news. Only include those relevant to her position as secretary of education. Meatsgains (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't think that her opinion on the Paris Accord could have ramifications in the Dept. of Education? Or do we have to wait for her to proclaim that global climate change is a hoax and can't be talked about in schools first? Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That would definitely be notable, but given that she's said "Certainly, the climate changes", it seems unlikely. I'm ambivalent toward including the Paris Agreement content, but I think it may stretch into the WP:NOTNEWS realm--a Republican appointee expressing support for a Republican president's policy stance is expected and predictable. Marquardtika (talk)

No, it's actually quite unusual for an ed sec to make an endorsement on a major (and highly controversial) climate policy decision. That's not par for the course at all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanging up the hat

I at first had not seen the argument over the addition I made last month and would concede that there were practical views against it being added. But when I read the comment by @Marquardtika: about the "Tenure" section "already getting pretty bloated" when the other additions had directly to do with education, which I was under the impression was the purpose of that position, I've opted to resign from submitting new content since apparently that's unwanted without a 100 day period in-between. - Informant16 13 July 2017

Semi-protected edit request on July 27, 2017

I think it would be worthwhile to include what her degree was actually in in the early life and education section. Her bios most places just say she earned a "Bachelor of Arts," which is spectacularly vague. What a public figure overseeing a focused institution majored in is totally relevant to the public discourse. Putting that information here would do a service to the public by getting that information in a top Google result.

I would also much prefer a source that isn't her personal website. I found an article from her alma mater student newspaper that specifies her major, and also a USA Today article.

Under the section "Early life" please change: where she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree,

To read: where she earned a bachelor's degree in business economics,

JobyOne (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Her brother"

I am noting, though not immediately objecting, that there is an unusually long paragraph in the lede about her family (husband, brother, father). I would note that Erik Prince's article does not currently say "Brother of Betsy DeVos, son of Edgar Prince" etc. I find this to be a helpful essay on this: Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Defining_women_by_their_relationshipsSeraphim System ^(talk) 07:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)