Talk:Dick DeVos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

More information about this article...

	The following comments have been left for this page: Is this completely neutral? Although I do not believe in many of Dick DeVos' opinions and actions, the section on his political career before 2006 seems a bit left sided, emphasizing his lack of attendance to meetings for the Michigan State Board of Education and the Board of Control. (edit)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Creationism Portal

This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

The history behind DeVos's exploitation of people via Amway needs to be expressed, just as presidents of companies that use slave labor should have that over their head.

There are plenty of external links in the Alticor and Amway web sites which are critical of Alticor and Amway. Of course, the company's activities will become a campaign issue and his wife's loose cannon statements will make Teresa Kerry's statements seem refined.Steelbeard1 19:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The updates look fair to me.

Here is something to check out:

http://www.amquix.info/pdfs/Blakely_expert_report.pdf

G. Robert Blakey, a law professor at University of Notre Dame, compared Amway to the Mafia in a report filed in court.

Does anyone know what day/year DeVos was born in? That's all I came to this particular Wikipedia article for.

[edit] Changes appear to be made by DeVos Campaign

[edit] In Response

I believe that where I am sitting as I make my changes are irrelevant. I am merely posting what I believe is a cleaner and less biased article. Everything that I have posted on the site is fact, and I have merely cleaned it up and added a nicer picture. Anything that is remotely opinion was not posted by myself; check the history. The only things that I have removed are what I can percieve as slander. I am doing this to make the page congruent with that of Jennifer Granholm, which has no such degrading information on it. If you think that other things should be added or deleted, I'd suggest editing the page, which I have absolutely no problems with, thats the whole idea of this site :-) - I do believe that the one i have created, however, is cleaner, more organized, and more informational.Envix

Why, even your Envix handle, have you contributed only to the Dick DeVos article and nothing else? Can you explain more about yourself? Steelbeard1 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Until Envix explains why he has only contributed to the Dick DeVos article and is clearly working for the DeVos campaign to be Michigan governor, the article should continue to be the composite one developed over time. Steelbeard1 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The one I'm using is mostly the composite one, all I mostly did was clean it up, organize it better, put in a new picture, and add his current positions. Everything I submitted is undisputed fact, I've added no opinion to any extent. I'd again ask you to check the history. Envix

You still didn't explain yourself as to why you contributed ONLY to the DeVos article. Steelbeard1 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand why how often i post or where I post is relevant.. it should be the content that matters. I'd refer to my last comment in this discussion concerning the content I added.

It DOES matter as you are clearly a DeVos insider as you have ONLY posted to the DeVos article and the IP address belongs to the DeVos campaign. Steelbeard1 15:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But how does that change the meaning of the content I posted? It says the same thing whether I'm a DeVos or Granholm supporter.

You are still a political campaign insider and they are treated with great disdain in the Wikipedia community. Steelbeard1 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding factual information and removing bias is treated with great disdain? isn't that the point of this site, to let individual users add factual information?

You are STILL a campaign insider who now risks being banned by the Wikipedia editors.

Under grounds of.. adding factual information? I'm not adding bias, slander, or swaying anyones opinion. It's all FACT. I dont understand your problem.

Pasted from below: The IP address 69.89.97.66 resolves to "mail.devosforgovernor.com". Now explain that? Steelbeard1 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You can share a network with someone without being on staff. Learning basic IT.

While you (Envix) may feel that you are merely posting what I believe is a cleaner and less biased article, I very much disagree. The biography section is out of chronological order and the version that you continually revert to has numerous links to incorrectly disambiguated articles. After reverting you a couple of times, I went through and very carefully tried to preserve the new information that you were adding and organize it in a manner somewhat more consistent with other biography pages. I also kept most of what your revisions had removed, as well as fixing the many bad links. The version that you continue to revert to is NOT the composite one that Steelbeard refers to above. older ≠ wiser 17:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is quite the thread, haha. While I still think my layout of the page is more organized, I do recognize faults that you have pointed out.. something constructive.. hmm :-D I've tried to reflect those problems in to the page and make the changes necessary. I am in no means saying that it was perfect :)

Not much to joke about here, really. If your idea of compromise is to keep all of your edits and fix just a few of the bad links, that is not satisfactory. older ≠ wiser 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Envix reported by User:older ≠ wiser. To Steelbeard, I suggest letting this go for awhile, lest you also run afoul of an admin who holds strictly to the letter of the law without regard to the relative merit of the parties involved. older ≠ wiser 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Post

We should keep our eye out for anonymous poster 69.89.97.66 as it appears to be from the DeVos campaign or from an obvious DeVos supporter. All the postings this poster made are of this article. I just reversed his last revision to restore the article's neutrality. Steelbeard1 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP address 69.89.97.66 resolves to "mail.devosforgovernor.com", so it appears obvious that someone from the campaign is modifying the article. Rather than simply reverting the changes of other users, would the person from the campaign who is modifying the article please unmask yourself, register as a user, and discuss the changes on the talk page? Please don't start a revert war. jeff 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Thanks, Jeff. Let's keep a watch on this article. Steelbeard1 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Several people have now been blocked for engaging in a revert war. May I suggest, when these folk come off their block, talking out the issues on the talk page? I'd be happy to help mediate the dispute if you like. I admit bias, I live in Ada and my kids go to Forest Hills, but as a Libertarian, I don't like either of the major candidates. Leave me a message on my talk page if I can be of help. And further, if what was really going on here was the campaign inserting partisan info, ask for help earlier at the admin noticeboards (bring diffs) instead of revert warring. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Lar. I've got this on my watchlist now. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeVos Campaign

Envix, protests to the contrary, has edited from a network range associated with the DeVos Campaign. I have banned the range for the next six months, which puts us safely past the November election. Whether he is actually on the payroll or is merely a fellow-traveller is beside the point; he's using DeVos campaign equipment to influence an encyclopedia article. This is completely unacceptable. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm out of the penalty box, I should first say that I'm sorry I got caught up in the revert war user:Envix started. Now that he has been exposed and the IP addresses assigned to the DeVos campaign have been banned for six months from posting in Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect any more problems. But we should still monitor the Dick DeVos web page as well as other political candidates' Wikipedia articles to make sure there's no attempts by political campaigns to control Wikipedia content. Steelbeard1 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News related updates

Now that everything is peaceful again, the only changes since the revert war ended has been a couple of updates based on news stories. Steelbeard1 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good news... I've kept it on my watchlist though. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to remove negative info

Overnight, I noticed some anonymous posters removing any negative references about DeVos to give him a positive spin when the article should be neutral. The histories of a couple of IP addresses look interesting and one is a brand new poster. I reverted their changes to the last neutral update. Steelbeard1 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on that. Tangentially... I think the anon was right in removing this spin: [1] unless there's a cite for it (some paper's analysis or editorial that can be quoted?) ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You got a point, Lar. I changed the intro to a direct quote from the cited Detroit News article. Steelbeard1 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

24.3.248.20 which has an interesting history is reverting again. Steelbeard1 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my removal, I'm jumping out of this revert war as I really don't have a clue who the hell this guy is. Feel free to add it back in --mboverload @ 12:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new at trying to report violators such as 24.3.248.20 concerning the 3RR rule so I'll let the more experienced report it. Steelbeard1 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did report it at [[2]]. How did I do? Steelbeard1 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

24.3.248.20 did it again to remove negative postings. I asked the poster to explain himself here or in his discussion board. His reason in the article history says "Politicized statements...should be held to the same standard as his opponent's profile". What he did was remove "billionaire" in describing his father Richard DeVos and removing the external link whatyoudontknowaboutdick.com which is the Democratic Party web site critical of DeVos which is one of several web sites critical of DeVos which sprang up. I have yet to find a web site devoted to criticizing Jennifer Granholm. If one is found which deals strictly with the issues and avoids personal attacks (such as with devosisadick.blogspot.com as an example of a personal attack URL), then it can be made an external link in the Jennifer Granholm Wikipedia article. Steelbeard1 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

24.3.248.20 inserted an anti-abortion external link in the Jennifer Granholm article which I deleted. He also complained in Talk:Jennifer Granholm about a double standard in that Catholic's opinion about the editing of this article and the Granholm article in Wikipedia. His IP address' editing record shows him to have an interest in the Roman Catholic Church. Let's keep watch on the Granholm article as well. Steelbeard1 10:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to respond to this as systemically as possible. With all due respect to Steelbeard1, most if not all of his assertions demonstrate bias and are far the most part, ludicrous. Dick DeVos' father being a billionaire is irrelevant and its inclusion seems to want to incite some sort of a class war between the candidates. I merely inserted the link to balance the one critical of DeVos, both of which are bordering on absurdity in their respective extremes. Secondly, Steelbeard1 wrote me a message asking me to explain my interest in Roman Catholicism prior to our most recent exchange. I should not have to explain or apologize for any of my interests, let alone my religion! You do not obviously respect people of a more conservative perspective, using wikipedia to spread your liberal mush and reak of anti- Catholicism. I have absolutely no problem with liberals or conservatives. However, I have a problem when someone uses this forum to promote their personal agenda. You really need get a life.

24.3.248.20, a question about the relevance of Richard DeVos's Sr.'s billionare status: while the exact wording of that phrase may incite some to see the portray the race as a class war, is it reasonable for a person to write that a candidate for governor is one of the family heirs to a billionare's fortune? I think it's pretty safe to say that if Devos Jr was not the son of Devos Sr, his path to candidacy would have been much different. Good or bad, the Devos family has a long history of providing substantial financial support to Republican political campaigns, and that's a very relevant point to be made in the article.

Also, I agree with you that the comments about your "interest in the Roman Catholic Church" were unwarranted. What other articles you've edited, and how you've edited them, aren't relevant here, IMHO.

Can I suggest that we stop the revert war over the "billionare" issue for a couple days, and discuss it here? I think it's possible to come up with some phrasing that's agreeable to everyone. jeff 01:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for poll results

While the numbers gathered from poll results (inaccurate as they tend to be) can be empirically proven, the reasons behind those numbers cannot. Stating something to the extent of "DeVos has X lead over Granholm because of his continuous ad campaign" is not a fact, it is an opinion. It very well may be that this is one of the reasons, but if you cannot directly prove it, then at best it is a hypothesis, and at worst, it is an opinion. I'm willing to leave the "hypothesis" in place, with the caveat that the "Detroit News" be listed within the paragraph as the source of said "hypothesis", in order to avoid a revert war, because it can be proven (thus, it is a definitive fact) that they are the source of this "hypothesis", as oppose to un-suspecting readers believing this statement to be some sort of a universal truth (which it clearly is not). Can we agree to leave it as such, to avoid any further conflict over the issue?

Fair enough. Of course DeVos has spent at least $7 million in campaign ads since February while the Granholm campaign only started actively campaigning this month and that is common knowledge we can agree on. BTW, the latest GOP friendly Rasmussen poll just came out dated June 14. Because a full report requires a subscription, I decided not to put it in the article. It shows that Granholm leads DeVos 44% to 42%. You can read the posting from the Red State board at [3] Steelbeard1 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that an anonymous poster found a free full Rasmussen report of the above poll and has updated the poll results adding a Chicago Tribute article mentioning the $5+ million DeVos spent so far on political ads. Steelbeard1 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV shifting again?

Comparing these two versions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_DeVos&diff=59702577&oldid=58855287 there definitely seems to be a shift in POV between them. I'm not sure where the right spot to be is but perhaps neither of them is quite right, either the before or the after. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it is either. As long as the material is cited from an impartial source, there shouldn't be a problem. We should look at DeVos' record as a Grand Valley State board member to make sure the attendance record is true. Of course, any obvious signs of POV should be removed. There has to be a balance between the positives and the negatives. Any attempts to shift the balance should be dealt with swiftly. Steelbeard1 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because no one cited any source for the above info on DeVos' attendance record as a GVSU board member, that info was deleted. Steelbeard1 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a newbie named HeeHaw21 who deleted some DeVos sections he considers to be negative and he appears to be a DeVos supporter. Let's keep watch. I've restored his deletions. Steelbeard1 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A new culprit has emerged with User talk:69.14.47.79 who has been warned about vandalizing articles already. Just one more rv from him the the 3RR rule kicks in for him. Let's watch him. Steelbeard1 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with User talk:31415. Steelbeard1 07:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just inserted the 3RR warning to User talk:31415. Steelbeard1 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me steelbeard??? It seems you are a 2 faced person. Especially when it is in the favor of Granholm to suit your needs. On the Granholm talk page you told me this "I've already mentioned verifiable citations of critical material in biographical articles. Editorial statements must state in the article the source of the statement. As mentioned above, it would explain the editorial slant of the source of the material." Remember? OK so with that said what type of biographical source on Dick Devos is #4? ^ Edwards, Paul and Sarah; Economy, Peter (2005). Eluding Scams, Rip-Offs and Other Headaches. Home Based Business for Dummies, 2nd edition. Retrieved on 2006-09-26. Editorial slant? Biographical on Dick Devos? I think you are obviously biased and should be banned from making decisions on both these pages. You obviously are laking in credibility. Mikestilly 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected due to edit warring

This article has been temporarily protected due to edit warring. Please be aware of the Wikipedia WP:3RR policy and work out any issues here on the talk page. As soon as things have been resolved, please request unprotection by placing the {{editprotected}} template on this page. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Disputed Edits

(the following moved from "POV shifting again" section) Steelbeard1 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, you clearly have a bias against Dick Devos which is leading to you repeatedly posting content which is not up to Wikipedia standards. The picture which you keep posting of him is clearly taken by an amateur and is of very poor quality. The picture which I posted is much more professional and is more consistant with the quality of picture seen on any other page including that of Jennifer Granholm. Also, your links to Democrat Blog Pages are clearly not of literay merit and don't belong on Wikipedia. I'm an Independent, but I'm sick of seeing people like Steelbeard vandalize Wikipedia in the name of their candidate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 31415 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not accuse editors of bias, let's make the case that a particular link or pic needs to go or stay in a calm rational manner. Because there has been unnecessary warring here which needs to stop. Note also, 31415, you should sign your posts like this: ~~~~ Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this page is now protected from editing, how about we summarize the disputed edits and discuss what can work for people, so we can get the page unprotected again?

Here's what I see is in dispute:

1. Picture of Dick Devos. Personally, I think the picture that's currently on the page is fine, and it's definitely better than what was there before. I think, it was actually a bit difficult to make Devos out in the picture that was there before. Yes, the current picture is flashy, and was obviously taken professionally, but there's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with having *both* pictures on the page, if someone thinks there's a good reason for this.

2. Deleted links:

a. I think that it's totally appropriate to keep the "What you don't know about Dick" link on the page, and it's also totally appropriate to note that it's funded by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, so people can have an idea of the source of the information on it. How about this as an alternative?:

http://www.whatyoudon'tknowaboutdick.com - Critical site paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee

b. "DeVos Campaign Gets Dirty With Wikipedia" - I think it's great to have a link to this article, because its relevant to the topics of both Devos and Wikipedia. How about the a label that gives the article some context?:

http://who-got-the-gravy.blogspot.com/2006/07/devos-campaign-gets-dirty-with.html - Critical article on banning edits of this Wikipedia article by the Devos campaign

I'm sure there may be other disputed points, or different opinions here. Please add suggestions and comments, so we can get these issues resolved, that this article unprotected. jeff.lopez-stuit 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on summarising the differences!!! ... and if you all can come to agreement, I'm happy to make the edits for you (although coming to agreement is usually sufficient evidence that the protection can be lifted... I can do that too if you want, when the time is right). Let me know if i can help. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that sums up what's needed. The DeVos picture looks too official for my taste, but I see no problem with it. WhatYouDontKnowAboutDick is a keeper as is the blog article on the earlier attempt by the DeVos campaign to change the DeVos Wikipedia article to their liking. While blog entries are usually frowned upon as external links, this is a rare exception because it is so relevant to the DeVos article as it involves Wikipedia as well. The disembodied head external link is more satirical than critical in my opinion so I can go either way with it. But what I think is more important is that the revert war was started by newbies who just starting posting on Wikipedia this month. You can check their posting histories to see what I mean. Steelbeard1 20:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good - thank you. If we can please get some feedback from some other other recent editors to this article, we'll be on our way to getting this resolved.jeff.lopez-stuit 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the suggested edits with the exception of the blog. Because the information in the blog was not presented by a reputable source and is really just one person's opinion, it can't be verified and therefore does not belong in a wikipedia article. And Steelbeard, each person has equal right and responsibility to post on wikipedia regardless of how long they have been posting, so don't downplay someone's work based on that.31415 17 August 2006

Not true. The blog is reporting the official statement of someone responsible to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a fact that the DeVos Campaign interefered with the article. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

31415, yes indeed, the blog article is opinionated, but so is the "What you don't know about Dick" site, or to the Devos campaign's own web site for that matter - that's why I suggested the label "critical article" in the link description. What the blog posting reports, that negative sections of this article were being deleted by someone at the Devos campaign, and that their IP range was banned as a result, is easily verified on this very page. If there's a less opinionated article on this somewhere, please point it out. I think it's a very relevant link about both Devos and Wikipedia, as long as it's labelled as a critical opinion piece.jeff.lopez-stuit 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How does a link to an article about who's editing the Devos Wikipedia page help me gain a better understanding of Dick Devos. The blog has more to do with Wikipedia than it does Devos. No printed encyclopedia would include such a tangent. Let us follow the advice of Wikipedia's founder and work at pushing quality over quantity.31415 17 August 2006

Beg differ--the matter of campaigns and elected officials interfering with Wikipedia is a widely reported phenomenon. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not paper. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Without treating wikipedia with the dignity of a printed encyclopedia, it will never reach the same status. I must doubt the merits of any blog by an unnamed author in a professional work.professor_james 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. Please realize that the creation of multiple accounts (sockpuppets), is a fast way to lose your credibility around here. I've blocked "professor james" indefinitely. It is difficult to work through an alias, so please stick with one account and one account only. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A printed encyclopedia wouldn't allow the subject of a biographical article to make edits to remove negative material, which is exactly what someone at the Devos campaign did repeatedly. The linked article can give someone more understanding of Dick Devos, because it highlights the behavior of who he has working on his campaign. Their behavior resulted in their IP range banned from editing for 6 months, which is pretty compelling information. Again, if there's a less opinionated or less partisan article about this somewhere, please point us at it. Otherwise, I think that pointing to the article and labelling it as a critical opinion piece gives access to the information while keeping it in context. jeff.lopez-stuit 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that "31415"/"professor_james" has been blocked, I think a consensus has developed. What do you think, Mackensen, Jeff and Lar? I think we should request an unblock to add the critical DeVos/Wikipedia blog entry and possibly reword the WhatYouDontKnowAboutDick external link. Steelbeard1 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind waiting for a while for 31415 to respond under their own account. As I understand it, that account didn't get blocked - only the "professor james" sockpuppet got blocked.jeff.lopez-stuit 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he hit the autoblock, so he might be a while coming...Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry - not following you on that one - "hit the autoblock"? jeff.lopez-stuit 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No word from 31415. How long should we wait? Steelbeard1 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Still no word from 31415. Who wants to make the formal request to make the changes? Steelbeard1 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotectedreview|added 2a and 2b below|[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]] 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)}} Steelbeard1 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

removed editprotectedreview, the article no longer is protected so no longer needs to be in "reviewed protected change requests" category ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific proposed changes

What specifically are the changes, I'll make them if need be... My guesses 1. new pic stays, no change there. 2a. put "http://www.whatyoudon'tknowaboutdick.com - Critical site paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee" in as a link, and 2b. "http://who-got-the-gravy.blogspot.com/2006/07/devos-campaign-gets-dirty-with.html - Critical article on banning edits of this Wikipedia article by the Devos campaign" as a link? Is that it? ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Lar. Steelbeard1 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to submit that "http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/ Amway Quixtar Insider's Web Site" is a worthy inclusion to this site's list of external links. It contains content that bears directly on the biography of the subject. It is undisputably critical, but it also impresses me as being well-considered and is further well-established and reflects in a measured way an important and widely-held point of view on the history of the subject of this biography. 207.75.179.26 01:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Merchants of Deception external link is already in the Amway, Quixtar and Alticor articles. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be an external link in this article. Steelbeard1 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no, it's not directly relevant and is covered elsewhere. Also I tend to give less credence to anons, especially when we're in a lull after an edit war... ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to create a "Related Articles" section with links to related wikipedia articles? That seems like an appropriate place for pointers to Amway, Quixtar, and other related stuff

Not necessary. Amway and Alticor are mentioned in the text of the article and both are wikied. Steelbeard1 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So what's the upshot. we've been in a protected state for some time now, what needs changing? ...or should we try unprotect? ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The descripion with the erroneous URL is the preferred one. So we should delete the first one and correct the second one. Steelbeard1 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the changes are the reworded external links to the WhatYouDontKnowAboutDick web site and the "DeVos campaign's past attempts at editing this article" blog to be inserted into this article. Steelbeard1 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make these later today. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I am a slacker... but Zsinj did it on the 22nd. [4] ... presumably we're all sorted. I'd like to see the protection lifted sometime soon. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I say let's wait a little bit longer. I should mention that the old "Anti-Devos website by Michigan Democrats" is now redundant and it has the same link as the reworded "Critical site paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee" external link. So we should ask that the "Anti-Devos website by Michigan Democrats" external link be deleted. Steelbeard1 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys are going to leave that horrible blog link which is irrelevant to Dick Devos, atleast label it as a blog entry and not an "article"31415

Fine with me - go ahead a call it a blog entry. I think the relevance to the Devos campaign can be found on this very page, in the "changes appear to be made by the Devos campaign" section.jeff.lopez-stuit 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick minor change recommendation: There are two attempted links to "http://www.whatyoudontknowaboutdick.com/". But the second link is really to "http://www.whatyoudon'tknowaboutdick.com/". The second link should be removed - it is an invalid URL anyway. --RTK 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The second one has the preferred description. So we should delete the first one and correct the second one. Steelbeard1 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Can we unprotect this yet? It's been protected a very long time by WP standards. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Semi-protection (described below) for now? Steelbeard1 20:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The same exact thing can be said with the powerful forces at the Jennifer Granholm page. There is a strong opinion over there to suger coat her policies in Michigan and leave off the economic impact of her horrible leadership. I have a ton of facts but those facts with proper sitations have been deleted because people are saying the facts are slanted? Sounds kind of strange to me that if they are facts of the 4 years of her administration why would they be slanted? Mikestilly 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While it would seem that facts are merely facts, when there are multiple studies, a given side will almost always use the statistics which look best for them. For a true neutral point of view, all relevent studies and their premises should be presented. Unfortunately, very few people on either side of such a battle are willing to do so; I would prefer that the more experienced members of Wikipedia - those who have proven they can be trusted - be allowed to post, to add factual information. Though there may not be complete equality, ignoring the issue entirely via a full ban on editing would seem draconian. To that extent, I am satisfied with the current edit status of this article, but I recommend that the more experienced users seek out available information on both sides of the issue.

[edit] Semi-protection

I think it's now safe to unlock the page, but also to semi-protect this article so only those with Wikipedia User IDs who are Wikipedians for at least four days can post in this article. Details at [5]. Lately, only those who were newbies or used IP addresses were the ones who caused trouble. The last newbie made the typical newbie mistakes like making a sock puppet ID which got him out of the way. What do you think? Steelbeard1 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say unlock it completely. The article's been protected for 10 days. Don't semi-protect it unless there's a demonstrated need. — Miles←☎ 04:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Steelbeard, how does putting up more appropriate pictures and deleting poor links count as trouble? You seem to really hate people who are new at Wikipedia. The amount of time you have been here makes you no better than anyone else.31415

I went to full unprotection. Let's see what happens. I'll be around today and can semi if we need to. The goal of WP is to have as few articles as possible protected or semiprotected. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. An unregistered user did update info on DeVos' family after full protection was lifted. Let's all keep an eagle eye on this article and give bad and obvious POV updates a quick delete. This includes adding or deleting the external links which gave this article full protection in the first place as well as adding obvious PR material and deleting facts considered critical of DeVos. Steelbeard1 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that the page is semi-protected, let's see if the vandalism or POV shifting gets cut down. The obvious vandalism is from anti-DeVos people. The pro-DeVos people delete material considered negative and add pro-DeVos PR material. I'd say keep the semi-protection until the election. Steelbeard1 01:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converting to reference style references

Steelbeard1: thanks for adding the citations requested, do you think we should be using full <ref>, </ref> and <references/> tagging? I think it would add a lot... Also someone added a facebook ref (3rd external in a row in the family section), can someone check that out for appropriatness of fit? I can't check facebooks from this client, they're blocked... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be more difficult to do the full tagging because the article keeps changing as DeVos is a newsmaker. Because of the blocked citations, I deleted the info about DeVos' children. Of course, if accessable citations are found, then the info on the DeVos children can be restored. Steelbeard1 17:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Full tagging won't be that bad I don't think. I'll take a cut at it tonite if someone else doesn't first. Basically surrounding all the URL's with the ref open and close tags and putting a "references/" at the bottom is all you need to do to get started. You can improve the URL cites by using {{cite-web}} and giving context as you get motivated, but that's the basics. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to slap an inuse on this and do it...++Lar: t/c 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Did it. took tag off again. If anyone wants to take a crack at converting more of the refs to {{cite web}} style that would be awesome. Also (almost) all the references in the external links section shold find a place to be hung in the article and move to the references section. IMHO anyway. Although I don't feel too strongly about it. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Miles←☎ 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How can co-writers get equal credit on the reference line? Right now, the way the code is set up, only one writer can receive credit. See the reference for Betsy DeVos to understand what I mean. Steelbeard1 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

are you asking about cite web usage?? I just use br or spaces or whatever. Which ref do you mean, the current #1 or #2 or ? Nice job on the ref conversion by the way Miles! ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Miles understood and he fixed it. Steelbeard1 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If Dick Devos wins

The state of Michigan will be in Jeopardy.... It is hard enough for me, at 21 years old, to get a job, all because i screwed up and did not finish high school. the last thing we need is this man to take over. Granholm is no freaking better. But he will give all our jobs away to China if we vote him in. --Dr. Pizza 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be but this is probably not the vehicle to make that viewpoint known. We need a neutral, balanced and objective article recounting the facts known about the candidate, and in the case of controversy, letting folk know what that controversy is without taking sides. That's the essence of the neutral point of view. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight, but this is no place to leave it. Please leave this area open for discussion of changes to the article.Jeremyburkhart 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Lar, The purpose of wikipedia is to provide an unbiased view. Maybe you shouldn't be working on this article if you cannot make an unbiased decision.

[edit] Request for limited access from 2, October

That day will be my state's 1st of three debates on 'the issues' and I humbly request that access to this page be limited to those of us with accounts so we can update this article with factual info siphoned from the debates. After the fact, the article is likely to get even more traffic, and purhaps the best thing for the article is to remain limited until November. I'll make the same request for Granholm's article as well. -Biokinetica 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for semi-protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection jeff.lopez-stuit 02:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This request was denied, but the IP that had been doing most of the abuse (148.61.225.76) has been banned from editing this article until after the election. jeff.lopez-stuit 21:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I also made a request in the Talk:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 page. Steelbeard1 12:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that this article is now semi-protected until at least Election Day. That should take care of most of the edit warring. Steelbeard1 01:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review

This article is heavily biased in opposition to DeVos. I am requesting that a user (preferably not one from Michigan) review it for WP:NPOV issues.

If the user does not sign his request and uses an IP address to post it, it should be disregarded. Steelbeard1 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, you can see a lot of discussion about NPOV issues in the past on this very page. A lot of biased information, both in support and opposition to DeVos has been removed in the past. If you've got a specific problem with the tone of this article, why don't you try to improve it by editing, rather than complaining? What's what wikipedia is all about. Respectfully yours, a user who is not from Michigan: jeff.lopez-stuit 01:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

- This isn't complaining. This is asking for a review by a fellow Wikipedian who isn't influenced by this gubernatorial race. Comparing this and Jennifer Granholm's article is like comparing Hitler to Mother Theresa.

As long as you are an anonymous poster, your request may continue to be disregarded. Steelbeard1 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First off: I am from Michigan. I don't see much bias here; it's all fact. If the fact is that DeVos has poor attendance records in the few times he's served in public office and has tried repeatedly to deny gays and public school students their rights, that should be reported. If he comes off more like Hitler than Mother Theresa, that's more his fault than the fault of those reporting the facts. I do have an issue with the article, though. There's one section that seems, to me, to be somewhat biased in favor of DeVos. The section on "Philanthropy" seems to be inaccurate, since philanthropy is supposed to be, according to Webster, "active effort to promote human welfare." DeVos's donations to organizations that fight against gay marriage and public schools don't seem to qualify. Eceresa 21:32, 17 October 2006 UTC

I noticed that the material in the "Philanthropy" section was shifted to the "Political activities prior to 2006" section which seems more appropriate to the material. I thought I also saw an extra citation or two as well. Good job, Jny2cornell. Steelbeard1 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I flagged it for NPOV. It regularly cites to his anti-aboriton position, which is neither the focus of the campaign nor the focus of either party's attacks. The article should tone down or group together the abortion citations in a single section, and it should address other POV concerns. It's certainly written in a bad light, not a neutral light. Zz414 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you made some changes to rectify your neutrality concerns, Zz414. Most of the changes look good, although the citations section needs additional work. One deleted external link needs to be retained because it deals with the DeVos campaign altering this very article which quotes from this very page. Steelbeard1 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did update, and feel better after running through. I don't think there's enough about his actual platform, which is really relevant for a Wiki article. I noticed there's the same lack of information in Granholm's profile, too. As for the external link, it was to a blog, which is generally considered a poor source for a link. Did a newspaper pick this up? If not, I don't know that it's that significant to merit a separate post. Zz414 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DeVos has a platform? As far as I've seen, his platform consists of "Granholm has done nothing." Though, to be fair, her platform consists of "I've done nothing because the Republican-controlled congress hasn't let me." I added some valid criticisms from a union mailing. Obviously from a certain point of view, but they were all sourced. Rather than cite each criticism individually, I cited the union-provided pdf, where individual articles are cited. Somewhat new to this; did I do rightly? Eceresa 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia blog entry was discussed before and the consensus was to keep it. Read the postings above. Please don't start a revert war! Steelbeard1 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

sigh* I won't. Zz414 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm amused that a blog picked up my remarks, but I don't know that they're actually worthy of inclusion. As of writing, no major or minor news outlet has made anything of this, and there hasn't been any further attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to influence the article. I don't feel strongly on the matter, and I'm sympathetic to the view that it isn't notable enough for inclusion. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nod. I see no reason to have a cite of a blog that points to a musing on a talk page. That's several links away from notable in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keithalmli.. Why is this such a problem, if people read the stats.. sure theres bad and sures theres good. Eitherway, we all dont have time to bicker about what canidate did or didnt do.. this isnt the time, not on wikipedia, a place accessed by many thousands of children.

[edit] Is there any NPOV on here???

I'll come right out and say it, I am a DeVos supporter, so there is no need to get into an endless discussion about whether I am. I have to admit that a lot of the posters and redactors (look it up) here appear to be obvious Granholm supporters posing as disinterested parties. And, if you were to post their IPs and/or real names it would be apparent. Every time....every time...someone tries to add something that rounds out an assertion made here, with supporting link(s), it is edited out. Look at the edit log and it's painfully clear. This entry is being dominated by Granholm supporters and is completely without a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BNowling (talk • contribs) 22:29, 31 October 2006

PR material from campaign web sites are clearly not NPOV material. As was mentioned previously, nearly all the material considered critical are from journalistic sources and are easily verifiable by clicking on the footnotes. All the supporting links MUST be from bonafide journalistic sources, NOT P.R. material from Alticor, the DeVos campaign or the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation. If the source is considered slanted one way or the other, make sure it has references to back up the statements. Last, but not least, please sign with four tildes? Steelbeard1 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What Steelbeard1 said. And how. I am in no way shape or form a Granholm supporter. As if. The both of them can go to hell and devil take the hindmost as far as I am concerned... but we WILL have a neutral point of view in the article if have anything to say about it. If most of the verifiable, reliable, non campaign/PR sources that can be found are apparently negative on DeVos that's really not Wikipedia's problem, is it? We present what other sources have on offer, and we cite that, we do not draw our own conclusions, that is for the reader. And please, please, sign with ~~~~, as it is not that hard. Also, people can use {{unsigned2}} to add sigs after the fact (look in the history to find the time and userid) ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Now can this article get restricted access? There seems to be POV shifting from both sides now. BTW, the critical external links aren't needed now because of the critical material in the article itself nowadays beginning with the TV debates as well as other journalistic sources Wikipedians found and it is close to election day now.Steelbeard1 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, are you asking for semi or full protection or what? You know Wikipedia tradition is to only use full protection in extreme cases of vandalism. We (I should say YOU, and THANK YOU for your tireless efforts in this regard) seem to be keeping up with most of the POVish insertions, which ultimately, are content disputes. Theoretically we should not use protection to manage content disputes, we should revert and discuss, and that's what we've been doing here. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, Lar. I asked for semi-protection before, but that got rejected. A Wikipedia higher-up just gave full protection to the Jennifer Granholm article because someone continually tried to insert critical, but unverifiable, material in the Granholm article. Steelbeard1 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, someone put a protection banner on the article, but the article isn't actually protected yet... it iwll be interesting to see if that actually helps out at all! I don't know of other places that's been tried before. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article isn't the sources; it's the POV content. I can understand why many users new to Wikipedia are outraged at the content, because the DeVos content is glaringly negative while the Granholm content is nearly perfectly positive. While objective sources have been cited, that doesn't deny that the article has a heavy POV slant: he's the son of a "billionaire," his company was investigated by the FTC, his company cut jobs, he supports "religious schools" through publicly-funded vouchers, he lost an initiative by a wide margin, LGBT groups and the AFL-CIO oppose him, and his stances on abortion and intelligent design receive more press than the actual cornerstone of his campaign (economic issues). The article's improved, but it still has a heavily-critical edge to it. That's a real concern, and it shouldn't be glossed over merely because novices are the only ones trying to (incorrectly) fix it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zz414 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only person to blame is DeVos himself. He has a bigger paper trail than Granholm. BTW, please sign with four (~~~~) tildes. Steelbeard1 17:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, the way to actually SHOW 4 tildes in a post is to use the <nowiki> tag ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look back at this article's history, you will find that there was an editing dispute in September 2006 involving Amway's legal problems with the Federal Trade Commission which I was NOT involved in. A compromise was devised and it was requested that a citation be found about the resolving of Amway's legal problems which I happened to find. Remember that Dick DeVos founded Alticor as the successor company to Amway which still exists as a unit of Alticor. So Alticor/Amway is a major part of Dick DeVos' biography. More critical material about Amway/Alticor was edited out of this article by myself and others as they are already mentioned in the Alticor and/or Amway articles. Steelbeard1 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairly amazing how many redlinked user names (sign of relative newcomers) turn up here complaining about one thing or another and accusing long time editors in rather inflammatory ways of things that just are not so. Steelbeard1 is doing a fine job, in my view, of keeping this article neutral, and deserves commendation, not condemnation. I'd remind participants on this page that it would be best if they remained civil and not attack other editors. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In all the recent editing I'm not sure if the current version has the phrasing that was agreed upon earlier for the Amway stuff. Could someone who has been keeping better track of the article than me please look it over? JoshuaZ 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The obvious missing entry is the 1979 FTC ruling on Amway and the two citations connected with the decision. There is a reference to that, but without the citations found here, in the Amway article. Steelbeard1 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure which version to revert back to, can you look through the history and restore the relevant sections? JoshuaZ 04:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Business Activities section to the way it was, JoshuaZ. Steelbeard1 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

When I came across this article two days ago it was quite possibly the most negatively POVd article I have yet read on Wikipedia. Despite extensive discussion about the negative POV, the article remained significantly unbalanced. The article has improved over the past couple of days, but selective use of "sourced" materials continues. As it stands now, the Amway and "social issues" section of this article stake political positions rather than dispassionately conveying facts. This article deserves better. great2bnaustin 04:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions or issues? It is much easier to correct specific problems than vague generalities. JoshuaZ 04:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in Texas and don't know the specifics of what is happening in the race for Governor of Michigan. My specific recommendations are based on my view of a neutral POV and a comparison of the DeVos and Granholm articles: 1) remove "social issues" entirely, there is nothing in the Granholm article even remotely like this section; 2) remove the FTC action section to Amyway, it reads like a politically biased material; 3) remove the number of jobs lost over 20 years reference for Alticor, I just checked the Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler articles and can't find any metric like this one, politically biased material which has no place in this wiki.

There are other minor changes I would suggest, but these were the issues I tripped over on first reading. great2bnaustin 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't developed opinions on 2 and 3 but regarding 1- in so far as Devos has made social issues a large part of the campaign that section should stay (it would make more sense to add a similar section to Granholm's page than to take the one from here). JoshuaZ 04:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion about adding to the Jennifer Granholm article is academic now because that article is fully protected currently. We can talk about it in the Talk:Jennifer Granholm page. Steelbeard1 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And therefore, becuase the Jennifer Granholm article is protected, point number 1 is not valid??? Regardless of the status of the Granholm article, the unbalanced POV of "social issues" must be addressed intellectually.great2bnaustin 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ... add stuff to the Granholm article instead of chafing about information that is a central part of the DeVos campaign. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the matter of protection, you may want to go over to that talk page and see if you can a consensus to unprotect or to add a specific wording which could then be added by a neutral admin. JoshuaZ 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it that the fact that the FTC investigated DeVos's company is politically biased? Are you suggesting that they did it to hurt his chances of being elected governor? And how is it that you can suggest that Alticor's job exports under DeVos aren't relevant, given that he's campaigning on the platform that he's going to bring jobs to Michigan? Seems to me that you're complaining that the facts don't make DeVos look good. Like Steelbeard said, that's more the fault of DeVos than the people who edited this entry. Eceresa 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Another edit to make DeVos look better than he really does. I edited the entry on Nov. 4th, adding back in that DeVos's father was a billionaire, that he worked for his father's company, and that he didn't graduate from Harvard. All of these facts were in earlier versions of the entry. I also added that he resigned from his only elected office two years into an eight-year term, and that he resigned from an appointed position after missing 16 of 27 meetings. Both of these facts were sourced. Mrmiscellanious deleted all those changes today. I've reverted the page to my version, but posted this here for discussion.

DeVos's family fortune and the fact that he worked for his father are relevant, as he's billing himself as a by-his-bootstraps businessman rather than one who inherited wealth. His attendance and lack of commitment to his earlier posts are equally important. While I'm obviously not a DeVos fan, I went out of my way to avoid adding negative comments into the text along with these facts. What's the consensus? Am I alone in thinking that this is relevant? Eceresa 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Relevant" doesn't mean it's not POV. You're trying to correct an impression he's giving in the election. Wikipedia isn't a source to combat commercial political images. The DeVos biography is meant to describe him in neutral terms. Using terms to "correct" his impressions is blatantly POV. It's true, but it intends to cast a certain light on the article that doesn't add to his background. It's meant to injure his reputation. Reverted. Zz414 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the impression the article currently gives isn't fact? As it currently reads, you'd assume he graduated from Harvard and Wharton. He didn't. As it currently reads, you'd think that he attended meetings and served out his term when appointed to Grand Valley's board. He didn't. Your revert makes this entry less factual.

I've left it, hoping for more discussion, but as I said before: if the facts make DeVos look bad, that's his own fault. This version is less accurate than the version I reverted to yesterday. Eceresa 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked again, both at the changes and at Zz414's earlier complaints and edits. All of his arguments (not a source to combat commercial political images, supposed to describe him in neutral terms) seem to be reasons to keep the edits, and Zz414's earlier comments show an apparent bias in DeVos's favor. It seems his deletion of factual information was an attempt to paint DeVos in a more flattering light, so I reverted. Eceresa 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Eceresa, I support your reversion to the consensus version as I adjudge consensus to be. I don't see any sourcing or support for removing the information, while there is clearly sourcing and support for retaining it. I'd caution you to watch out for 3RR though. Rely on others here who agree with consensus to also restore the consensus version. It will all be over tomorrow, presumably. If there is additional reversion here I will strongly consider full protection for a short while, although I think we're doing good at not needing it. (however since I have stated a preferred version, even though it's clearly the consensus version, I can't be the person to do the protection) ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the page only once, or twice if you count some statements I added back in along with other edits. Both were on separate days, so I'm nowhere near three in a day. I was actually going to leave it as it was until I looked closer at Zz414's comments and realized he was trying to spin the entry in DeVos's favor instead of honestly removing bias. If I notice that it's edited to add rose-colored glasses again today, I'll certainly post here to point it out rather than reverting it myself. Eceresa 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is totally absurd. I'm not "spinning" anything. You've admitted that you want to use the article to correct an impression that DeVos is portraying about himself. That's not relevant biographical information; that's a deliberate attempt to spin the article in POV. The wealth of one's parents is usually not a concern unless we're talking about a literal heiress or something of that nature; you then insert the fact, again, redundantly, that it's "his father's" corporation, when the article already states his father was the founder of Amway. Again, the edits go out of their way to portray DeVos as one who took advantage of his father's position, and "correct" the impression that you disapprove of: that he portrays himself as a raised-from-his-bootstraps businessman. I'll give on the "did not graduate from" (even though "attended" notably distinguishes him from "graduated from") and "after missing 16 of 27 meetings," even though they're, again, your "corrections" of DeVos's commercials. But the wealth and duplicative family connections are ludicrous. I'm not editing with rose-colored glasses. This isn't an article that's intended to tear down DeVos's public image. It's an article about him. That's it. Your blatant attempts to "correct" the article to counter his commercial image is flagrantly POV. Your motivation is not to add relevant information; it's to "correct" an image to DeVos has placed out in the community. Zz414 20:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree to Zz414 in this case. With all the material now in this article, redundancies should be minimized. I already posted in the Richard DeVos article that the elder DeVos is a billionaire so that reference is not needed anymore in this article. Some of the disputed material may be more appropriate in the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 article. Steelbeard1 20:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If DeVos portrays himself in a way that hides or glosses over the truth (and he does), and this entry is supposed to be a factual representation of him (which I believe it is), then correcting his misrepresentations of himself is within the scope of the article. The redundant "father" thing is debatable. On every other point, my version is more clearly the truth than the version to which Zz414 reverted. "Billionaire," in describing his father, is necessary; I think most people would agree that a great deal of wealth is something worth mentioning, and has a bearing on the person who grows up in such an environment. "Did not graduate from" makes the truth much clearer than "attended" alone, which is a phrasing that's designed to hide the truth. Many readers would assume he graduated. His attendance is a matter of record, and clearly belongs here. Likewise, the fact that he resigned early from two separate posts. My phrasing makes the truth clear; Zz414's preferred phrasing is designed to hide it. You can accuse me of bias all you'd like, but while I've admitted my preference here, I've kept the article neutral, though true. By hiding the truth, Zz414 is trying to make it into a puff-piece. Eceresa 21:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eceresa on this (and as a note I wasn't saying Eceresa was anywhere close to 3RR, just throwing out a caution) that it's important information to retain. There is controversy about these facts and assertions, and it would be great if some cites from reputable sources could be found that highlight that controversy... that would satisify both sides I think. As a note... At this point I am no longer a disinterested admin though, I've made my views about content clear, and I can no longer in good conscience do any protection. Today hopefully will be the last day it matters, failed gubernatorial candidates don't nearly have the interest and attention placed on them as successful ones. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I took it as a caution. Thanks. Eceresa 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Why is the Criticism section necessary? Hardly biographical information here. Mikestilly 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be present on several other politician's pages. It's there on Bush's, and Granholm's page mentions criticisms of her policies, though there isn't a section with that heading. On a separate note, Mikestilly has deleted the "billionaire" and the "his father's Amway" from the entry again. Looking back on his earlier comments, this seems to be part of a history of trying to make DeVos look good, and I've already argued for the inclusion of these phrases, but I said I wouldn't revert this entry again. If someone else with an interest in keeping this entry factual would like to, however, that'd be appreciated. Eceresa 03:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your reasoning for adding these items are not in your comments. Inserting negative "comments" are not part of putting together a biography. How about making it neutral rather then making it an attack on Devos. Your above comment is proof to your inability to make this page a neutral non-bias page. Mikestilly 13:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can be sorry all you want, but you've proven that you're an extremely unreliable authority on bias. I've admitted to a dislike for DeVos on this talk page, but what I added to the article was unbiased. Nothing I added was remotely an attack, and your inaccurate description seems to stem from your own bias. The article, including my contributions, is about as neutral as it can be. If you read this page and feel that it presents DeVos in a bad light, you should take it up with him. Eceresa 17:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit polls showing Jennifer Granholm ahead

Here's a link http://woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5641990Superway25 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV cleanup

Just to get going on this now.... In the introductory paragraph, for instance, it lists (1) the fact that his father's a billionaire, with the negative POV implication that he comes from a wealthy family; (2) the fact that he heads a "multi-level marking company," which is a negative POV implication that his business is a scam; (3) he lauched "the most expensive" campaign in history, with over $14M, again with the negative POV implication that he's wealthy; (4) he lost by a 14-point margin. All of these are true, and most are even appropriate for the bulk of the article. However, as an introductory paragraph, they're inappropriate because they all cast a negative, rather than a neutral, light on the biography. Zz414 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that any of those suggest anything but a neutral point of view. The money thing, in and of itself, isn't negative. Neither is the description of his business. Both are quite appropriate for the intro. The degree of his defeat, perhaps, could be moved to the body, leaving only the fact that he was defeated in the introduction. Eceresa 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole wikipedia page about Dick DeVos is so blantanly bias and has made me rethink using widipedia as a source in any future academic research endeavors. The author of its content should be ashamed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It's not intended to be biased. Unfortunately, DeVos' background makes this article prone to be perceived by certain people as biased. And PLEASE sign with four tildes if you want to be seriously regarded. Steelbeard1 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(I wason't the OP, but I'll respond.) Yet every time I try to clean it up and remove weasel words, it's immediately reverted to prevent any changes from taking place, particularly in the introduction, as I've elaborated in excrutiating detail before. Zz414 15:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To which words are you referring? Eceresa 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI the Michigan Gubernatorial Election is Over. Devos is not Actively Running for Office

...At least not yet. The point is that there is a template at the top of the page stating that Devos has an ongoing political campaign, or involved in a current political controversy. That template is obsolete and needs to go. I don't see it in the edit window, so I don't know how to remove it.--Libertyguy 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Neutrality Dispute Tag

I am removing the neutrality dispute tag because discussion is not “ongoing.” In fact, there has been no discussion on this since last year. If anyone wishes to put it back, I will leave it there. Otherwise, it is resolved.--Libertyguy 17:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)