Talk:George Gund II

NPOV and original research edits
User talk:Akronman, there are a couple issues, I think, with the editorial changes you wish to make.
 * 1) Adding excessive detail about the distribution of his fortune in the lead is probably better left to the main text. Wikipedia's guidelines on what goes into the lead paragraph calls for only basic and important information in the lead. Not detail.
 * 2) Words like "euphemistically" constitute a non-neutral point of view and may constitute "weasel words" in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The words "extremely conservative" are used by author Pierre Clavel and by Carl Stokes, and as such are both in quotations (it is a quote) and cited.
 * 3) Carl Stokes doesn't talk about Gund in the way your edit describes. Stokes does talk about Gund's opposition to ErieView, a downtown urban renewal project. Neither Stokes nor Cavell talk about Jim Crow. As a private individual, Gund would have no role in creating or enforcing Jim Crow laws.
 * 4) The claim about implementing redlining needs a citation. Otherwise, it constitutes original research. To make such a claim, a source would have to document Gund setting redlining policy for the bank, not just assuming that he did. Alternatively, a source would need to state clearly that Gund acted in the daily operations of the bank to impose redlining. Either, or both, is fine. But absent a source, we can't tell if it was Gund or someone lower who implemented redlining.
 * 5) About the distribution of Gund's fortune: The Musson source says "bulk". If there is a source that says "roughly half", then please add that source (with a page number) and change the text back to "roughly half".
 * 6) Also about the distribution of his fortune: If you want to add the detail that the remainder of Gund's fortune was split equally among his children, left in trust, and consisted of Kellogg stock, find sources that say that. Otherwise, such a claim constitutes original research.
 * 7) The "not a cultural appropriator" sentence is original research. As Wikipedia editors, neither you nor I can make such claims. We have to find a source that says "Gund collected mostly Western art that depicted cowboys or Indians" and we have to find a source that says "he did nothing to help Native Americans" and a source that ties his art collecting to his refusal to help Native Americans.
 * 8) If you want to add the detail that Jessica Roseler was 15 years younger than Gund, find a source and re-add the comment with the source cited. Wikipedia does not cite itself; moreover, I can't find any Wikipedia article about Jessica Roesler Gund.
 * 9) If you want to add the detail about "in eight years", find a source and re-add the comment with the source cited. (The source is needed because they could have had more kids just before or just after the birth of George Gund III and Louise Gund, but who didn't survive past infancy. Hypothetically, they could have had seven over nine years, but the seventh didn't live. This is why a source is needed.)
 * 10) Your comment about pornography is original research, and may even constitute vandalism of the article without a source. I realize you think this is "well known", but it isn't. Wikipedia requires verifiability and citations to published, neutral, reliable sources.
 * 11) Your edit about family incest constitutes original research without a source. I know you say it's hard to source; that makes it rumor, not fact, and without a source it constitutes original research. Moreover, since Louise Gund is still living, it constitutes a violation of sourcing claims about living people.

Until these sources can be found, it would be against Wikipedia guidelines and policies to add the information. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)