Talk:Jared Kushner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sisters name

With this edit the names of the sisters were restored by Falazar. Can somebody please revert this and we can discuss as per the Consensus required restriction which states All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we go about getting a consensus? Would like to get those changes added, and fill out those pages. Falazar (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Falazar: You go about it by discussing on here. It doesn't matter if you would like to get them added if they are not part of the mission. No need to "fill out" articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Falazar: Restoring. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Why are you restoring? Especially without the required consensus? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The WP:CONACHIEVE#EDITCONSUS policy begins by saying that all edits should be explained by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made or by discussion, unless the reason is obvious. Here the editsum doesn't indicate the reason, nor does the opening discussion comment, and it isn't obvious. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed. Here the editsum doesn't indicate what issues need to be addressed (nor does the opening discussion comment). Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. Here the original text appears to have been been both added and restored in good faith. Most disputes may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. I made a minor change by expanding and redlinking the more notable sister's name. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the sisters or at least the one who you didn't redlink are notable enough to be mentioned. That is the issue which I hope to address. You have made all-or-nothing change and not a minor edit as you have restored both names, and not merely the one which you say warrants a redlink. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Why do you think the other sister isn't "notable enough to be mentioned"? (To be more technically precise: What reason do you have for believing that the information about the other sister isn't noteworthy enough to be included?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that the burden of proof is on proving that she is notable. From what I can see she is only relevant from being a sister and has no need to from her name to be dropped. If you wanted a more policy based answer then I think that WP:BLPPRIVACY Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object and WP:BLPNAME The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. prove that unless she is widely published and completes the reader's understanding then she should not be named. You mentioned that you redlinked the more notable sister's name, and so therefore we can complete the readers knowledge by simply stating that he has one sister. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Many thanks for providing the helpful policy material! DKO's full name has been published by Snopes and WaPo. She's one of the subject's two most immediate family members. As such, her full name may be vitally important to an interested financial investigator's complete understanding of the subject. (By definition, conflicts of interest relate to one's immediate family members' private interests as well as one's own.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: On the other hand, Template:Infobox person does say to "include only if ... particularly relevant". And her name is no more than generally relevant; meaning, it's relevant solely because she is his sister. So, I think it can be omitted from the article body (at least for now). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncles in Family History section

Are the multiple mentions of uncles truly necessary in the "family history, early life and education" portion of the page? Is it commonplace to discuss non-immediate family in this section?

One of the uncles appears to have been the subject's first important business partner. The other was not a business associate, and the material about him can be removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

More famous than me comment...

Tony Blair said the same thing about Mo Mowlem in 1998....

Plus said about Comey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing 'President: Trump' data from infobox

The infobox currently reads:

Senior Advisor to the President | Incumbent | ... | President: Donald Trump

Director of the Office of American Innovation | Incumbent | ... | President: Donald Trump

Compare the model federal-appointee infobox at Infobox example: Ambassador. It looks like the "President" parameter may be optional. And I think there's no real need to inform our readers (twice) in the infobox that Trump is the incumbent President... --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, no need to duplicate the information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox data on 'Serving alongside' other officeholder

The infobox says he's "Serving alongside Stephen Miller". But Miller was given the title "Senior Advisor to the President for Policy" (or "Senior Policy Adviser"). Kushner was given a less limited title: "Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser" (or "Senior Advisor"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Virtually every employee for the White House is or at least was in the the past stylised as "Assistant to the President" as discussed at the talkpage. I think we have to be careful, and we should not say that one is lesser or limited, without a reliable source referring to them by two separate titles. Confusion also arose earlier at Talk:Counselor to the President about Bannon and Powell. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: But compare United States Government: Policy and Supporting Positions ("Plum Book"), 2016, under "Position Titles".

Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement: Valerie B. Jarrett

Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor: Brian C. Deese

Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor: Shailagh J. Murray

Obama appears, at least, to be saying that Jarrett's role within the government is limited to Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, and that Deese and Murray are not limited to any particular portfolios. He may be wrong. But that's not for me to say.

As you point out, there are many positions with the title "Assistant to the President" (I count 23); so we can disregard that particular element. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

All three of the people you have mentioned are listed at Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. Let's compare what each one says in the book title to the official White House website.

Valerie B. Jarrett is listed in the article with the portfolio "Public Engagement/Intergovernmental Affairs", and on the website is listed as Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She oversees the Offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs and chairs the White House Council on Women and Girls. Assistant to the President is not mentioned, but her role in government excluding the Council on Women and Girls is the same as mentioned.

Brian C. Deese is listed in the article with the portfolio "Climate and Energy", and on the website is listed as merely a Senior Advisor to the President with His duties include overseeing climate, conservation and energy policy and advising the President on a range of domestic and international policy issues.. The website seems to match the book in this case, again with the absence of the assistant to the president. I have tagged the uncited portfolio on the article.

Shailagh J. Murray is listed in the article with the portfolio "Strategic Communications", and on the website is listed as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications.. In this case it matches the book but does specify the same portfolio as in the article.

As indicated on the WH website we have now determined possibly mismatching information, but I that removing Stephen Miller won't be a big issue. If anybody wishes to find anybody with a loosely construed similar title they can just click the wikilink. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image quality

The lead image ought to be removed, per MOS:IMAGES. An image of a person should preferably show them facing toward the text; this one shows the subject facing away. Also, a blurry image should not be used; and Jared_Kushner_2016.jpg compares poorly to a typical magazine halftone portrait. (For example, you can't tell whether the subject has many freckles or none.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vasyan174 and AMHC94: I have reverted as per the "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" which state Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.. If you wish to defend the image please discuss. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Government degree???

Where in the world does it say that Jared got his Harvard degree with a concentration in government? There is no reliable citation for that. Some sources even speculated it's sociology. --FlantasyFlan (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

[1]. And I believe some in the article. Your reversion was excessive - you blanked out that he graduated!Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, BI article wasn't cited. I'm sorry, I added a citation comment, for some reason everything disappeared :D --FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK what's the story (tracking down history of K's party affil.)?

No offense to a year-old RealClearPolitics report, (p'raps based on confusion w/ Jared's bro., Joshua; see NYT link?) - But in 2017 NBC News calls subject a Democrat. Cf.:

1. "Neither of them are Republicans. [... Kushner] is a Democrat" - Ali Vitali & Corky Siemaszko, NBC News, March 28 2017
2. "...Jared, a lifelong registered Democrat... " - Instinct Mag, January 23, 2017
3. "Jared's personal political leanings are harder to identify. [...H]e has stated in the past that he admires Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, and has a framed photo of John F. Kennedy, another Democrat, by his desk" - Helin Jung, Cosmo, Mar 28, 2017
4. "Both Kushner boys have photographs of John F Kennedy prominently displayed in their office. Idolising Kennedy signals their political ambitions, their family’s affiliation to the Democratic Party..." - The Austrailian,
5. " ...he registered to vote there in 1999 and cast ballots in New Jersey through the November 2009 state general election, when now-Gov. Chris Christie (R) was on the ballot for his first race. Later that month, Kushner registered in New York at his Park Avenue address. Voting records show he began casting ballots in New York in 2010." - WaPo--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
6. "Ivanka claims to be an independent since her husband just registered as a republican." - Politico [nope: bogus "google-results" artifact] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
7. "Mr. Kushner[...]appeared to lean left. He was raised in a Democratic household[...]. Trump officials say that Mr. Kushner underwent an ideological conversion over the course of the campaign[...]." - NYT
8. "...Kushner is a committed Democrat ..." - TheBlaze.com
9. "Kushner gave $20,000 to two Democratic groups as recently as 2014" - Slate
10. "Although Kushner is registered to vote as unaffiliated with any political party" - By Rebecca Berg, RealClearPolitics, May 31, 2016
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

1. I think this needs to be reevaluated. We need to know if he's registered to vote in DC and what his party is. What he was registered as in NY/NJ, is a long time ago, politically Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• NOPE, if he was a lifelong Democrat, like his dad, why in hell would that be excluded??? Are you fucking kidding? This is a (supposedly) neutral article. Please leave out your crappy preferences, it's got fuck-all to do with an encyclopedia article. Thanks zzz (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Apologies if I've misundersood what you intended by the above list of weird sources

• "...Bannon’s real undoing in the eyes of his boss, according to three people familiar with the situation, involves his perceived attacks through the media against Kushner and Ivanka as liberal Democrats seeking to undermine a more conservative agenda. ... ... ... The Kushners were a prominent Democratic real-estate family in New Jersey. Their relationship to politics was mostly as members of the donor class. A person close to Jared told me that growing up in New Jersey taught him the utterly transactional nature of politics. His ability to move with ease from one political ideology to another, depending on what seems useful at the moment, comes naturally. Kushner was drawn into the campaign, and the administration, by degrees—“drafted into this crazy journey,” he has been heard to say. More than anything it’s a reflection of how few people there were to do anything in the campaign’s early days." - May '17 Vanity Fair
• "According to the New York Times, there's been another: Democrat. "Here's the reason there's no middle ground. You're a Democrat," Bannon said to Kushner this week. And in fairness, the Trump and Kushner families both have long histories of donating to and endorsing Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)... right up until Donald decided to run for president,as a Republican." - Aor. '17 Yahoo News
• "Within its walls, he is considered a mediator between warring factions — the "Republican populists" like chief strategist Steve Bannon, and the "Democrats," the more left-leaning members of Trump's inner circle. Kushner is considered one of the Democrats." - Mar. '17 Business Insider
• "The conflict between nationalists, like Bannon and policy director Stephen Miller, and those the Bannon-ites derisively call “the Democrats,” like Kushner and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, has mostly played out in executive orders." - Apr. '17 Slate
• "This faction is sometimes called the “New York moderates” or “centrists,” though in many respects they often seem to agree with the Republican establishment. But their internal critics disparagingly refer to them with the epithets “globalists” or — as the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Robert Costa reported last month — even “Democrats.” (Cohn is a registered Democrat, and Kushner comes from a Democratic family.)" - Apr. '17 Vox
• "...Kushner, regarded as a Liberal Democrat, and his close associate National Economic Council chief Gary Cohn—a former supporter of President Obama—are now heading the most powerful faction inside the already fractious White House" - Apr. '17 FOX
  I.e., apparently when termed a Democrat Kushner doesn't state that the case is otherwise?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also this [2] where the voter record says no declared affiliation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Family history

I have removed the reference to the Soviet origins of Kushner's ancestors from the lead since that's hardly one of the main features that our readers need to know. I have also removed the image of the so-called "ancestral home" which was just a random street with no relevance to Kushner and no indication that it's even relevant to his ancestors. Finally I removed the FBI investigation from the lead; that's ongoing, there's no indication anything will come out of him being a "person of interest", and again it's not why he's notable. It should be covered in the appropriate part of the body of the article but isn't significant enough for the lead. In particular, putting an ex-CIA chief's opinion in the lead amounts to rumormongering. Huon (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The article contains an entire, lengthy section on the Russia investigation, which is very extensively covered in reliable sources. Per WP:LEAD, "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." There is no doubt that the lead should summarize the Russia investigation which takes up a significant part of the body of the article. Whether it is "ongoing" and whether "anything will come out" of it is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia's (and the lead section's) purposes, and his notability is in fact mostly based on his involvement in Trump-related controversies, judging by how he is covered by reliable sources. The one-sentence summary was appropriate and based entirely on material already found in the body of the article. The attempt to remove it is basically just POV pushing and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Tataral (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusing me of POV-pushing while emphasizing the Russian-ness of Kushner in the lead is... nice. Yes, there is a huge section on what amounts to current events. And yes, there's lots of media coverage. There's lots of media coverage of everything Kushner has recently done. I could write in equal length and with an equal abundance of sources on, say, his accompanying Trump to Israel. That does not mean these news reports of the past few days should either dominate this article or that they're important enough to be mentioned in the lead. In fact, to me it looks like a smear job. For example, "The New York Times reported that it had confirmed Kislyak's report with three officials and that the White House declined to comment on the report." That tells us what, precisely, about Kushner? Nothing. It's not even accurate. It's just filler to make Russia seem more of an issue. The entire subsection could probably be pared down to three sentences that give the same information about Kushner. Giving the Russia investigation, where Kushner himself is not even the target of the investigation at all but, according to most of the sources, "someone investigators want to speak to", the same amount of space in the lead as the entire rest of his involvement in the administration can hardly be considered NPOV. Huon (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you couldn't write at equal length about one of his trips to Israel, because that would be WP:UNDUE. The reason that around a fifth of the body of the article covers the Russia investigation (I haven't been involved in writing that section, btw.) is because it is the dominant theme of the Trump administration and a controversy in which Kushner plays a major and direct part. A topic that is covered to such an extent in the body of the article and that discusses such a major controversy belongs in the lead in the form of a summary; this is very clear from WP:LEAD ("stand on its own as a concise overview"; "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). The Russia investigation is not about "the past few days", but has been the most important issue relating to the Trump administration since Trump took office months ago, based on its coverage in reliable sources. The claim that "Kushner himself is not even the target of the investigation at all" is wrong; the investigation does not "target" a particular person, and it may focuse on and bring charges against anyone, and it's clear from reliable sources that Kushner is a major focus of the investigation at this point. --Tataral (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, several reliable sources report that Kushner is being pressured to take leave of absence from the White House as a result of the Russia investigation and its focus on him.[3][4] The notion that this investigation, which CNN has called "Jared Kushner's worst week in Washington" with reference to last week[5], is not important enough to be briefly summarized in the lead with a single sentence is frankly absurd. --Tataral (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: WP:BLPSTYLE policy requires that biographies be fair to their subjects at all times. You may accordingly want to add this background material: Nancy Benac, "AP Explains: Kushner and the Back Story of Back Channels", AP, May 31, 2017. "Obama wasn’t averse to informal diplomatic channels before his 2008 election... Foreign policy adviser Daniel Kurtzer met with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s foreign minister in the summer of 2008." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If Daniel Kurtzer did not disclose those meetings on his national security documents, then Daniel Kurtzer committed a felony also, which would be weird since by your own source it was done in public view with full knowledge of the McCain campaign. How is that a defense of Kushner?

If you have probable cause to believe that Kushner has committed a felony, you should reveal it to the DOJ -- not to Wikipedia... -=Dervorguilla (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Netanyahu slept in Jered Kushner's bed, why isn't this in the article

Mr. Netanyahu had even stayed at the Kushners’ home in New Jersey, sleeping in Jared’s bedroom. (The teenager moved to the basement that night.) Read More, New York Times Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a rather trivial factoid. It also could be taken grossly out of context by others. However, stating of long standing family ties to Israeli government might be important, and including the visit as a relevant factoid would be important, but not the factoid that Jared's bedroom was the sleeping accommodation is irrelevant in this case. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP policy

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Contentious material about a living person that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. A user who egregiously violates this policy may be blocked from editing. (WP:BLP.)

Public-figure policy

If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (WP:PUBLICFIGURE.)

Analogous advice from the Reporters Committee

• Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for the source’s own purposes.

• Just because someone else said it does not mean that an organization cannot be sued for republishing it. (The First Amendment Handbook, 7th ed.)

The 'conduit' fallacy

A common misconception is that one who directly quotes a statement containing libelous allegations is immune from suit so long as the quoted statement is clearly attributed to the original speaker. This is not so. A republisher of a libel is generally considered just as responsible for the libel as the original speaker. That you are simply an accurate conduit for the statement of another is no defense.

When the press reports that X has leveled an accusation against Y, it may be held to account not only for the truth of the fact that the accusation was made, but also for the steps taken to verify the truth of the accusation. (AP Stylebook, 2015 ed.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Gump

A user has directly quoted and clearly attributed an accusation by a medium-quality source (Salon) that a named person is the administration's Forrest Gump. The source's information is conspicuously false. (Compare, for example, the Forrest Gump intro.) Also, the user doesn't appear to have found any other source corroborating that information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not appropriate. Here's the section contents (per WP:PRESERVE) if anyone wants to re-write it. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Jared Kushner has been described by Salon as "the [Trump] administration’s Forrest Gump." He also made an appearance on Gossip Girl with his then girlfriend Ivanka.

The section is clearly relevant, and reliably sourced. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not on whether you think the source's description is "false" (WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) based on your own analysis. It remains a fact that Salon has described him as "the administration’s Forrest Gump," whether you agree with that description or not. --Tataral (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

References

@Tataral: No. When I "think the source's description is 'false'," I generally challenge the material per BLP policy. Which means it's now become contentious material. Per Public Figure policy, you've now got to find multiple sources for the description (not just one).

In case you're interested in studying the topic further, Wikipedia does have a policy about "deliberately adding falsities" (not that it's relevant here). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK - not all true statements about the subject need to be included in an article, particularly regarding WP:BLP subjects, and particularly regarding sentences that are best regarded as "artistic flourish". His IMDb profile is trivia in this context and not relevant. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: You said, "Wikipedia is ... not [based] on whether you think the source's description is 'false' (WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) based on your own analysis". Wrong. Per WP:VDHOAX policy, "deliberately adding falsities to articles ... with hoax information is considered vandalism". To understand what hoax means here, see the WP:HOAX nutshell. "Do not deliberately add ... incorrect information ... to articles." --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I recommend that you stop this silly wikilawyering attempt by quoting irrelevant policies that you, at the very best, don't understand at all. The comparison by Salon to Gump is a straightforward analysis/opinion. There is no hoax anywhere. It has been reliably sourced that Salon made that comparison. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on editors' own views or feelings about those sources. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tataral: Read WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy.

Public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources... If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

1 ≠ "multiple". --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, that policy has absolutely nothing to do with hoaxes or the policy on hoaxes, so I take it you are now retracting your spurious allegation about a non-existent hoax above. Secondly, this material hasn't been included in the article for a long time, so it isn't really a question (in this part of the debate) over whether to include it or not, but a question of a false claim about an alleged hoax when there is none. Thirdly, the opinion (in the form of a direct quote) of a reputable source is neither an "allegation" nor an "incident," so the policy you are quoting now doesn't apply either; furthermore, the substance of what that direct quote/opinion referred to has been extremely well covered in reliable sources, in fact it's Kushner's main claim to fame. At the very best, it's a question of whether it's WP:DUE to mention that particular opinion/quote (I personally think it is, but if others are of a different opinion of its due/undueness, I accept that we will have to leave this particular quote out for that reason). --Tataral (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Mispelling

I was reading this article and noticed nascent was spelled wrong in the political activity section. Also, the references to Sean Spicer should probably be changed to former White House Press Secretary now that he has resigned. Sharked9 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Kushner's ties with Israel

I think a section on Kushner's and Kushner's family ties with Israel might be important. He has a role of primary importance in the US government (as advisor for ME affairs) so his ties with a foreign country of the area are a relevant subject. There are at least a couple of interesting facts to mention. First, his family has longstanding friendship with Netanyahu (see for example here : http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/When-Netanyahu-slept-at-the-Kushners-and-other-media-tales-of-Trumps-Jewish-confidantes-481486 ). The second is that Kushner was listed as a national board member on the website of the Friends of the IDF, an organization that supports the Israeli army. ( http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.767416 ) (The name was removed from the website when Kushner was nominated Senior Advisor). A third one worth mentioning is that according to tax forms, Kushner's family has donated millions to Israeli organizations based in illegal settlements in occupied territories. http://www.mintpressnews.com/trumps-son-in-law-funds-israeli-settlement-projects/222904/ . Therefore it seems very strange to me that in the whole article Israel is mentioned only in relation to his role of peace broker in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Udippuy (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: Good points. Some of this information may be ideologically controversial, though, so it's likely to get challenged, but if you post a draft here first we can vet it for WP:PUBLICFIGURE. You do have to find at least two (known) reputable mainstream sources for each assertion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another reliable source that I mentioned above: Mr. Netanyahu had even stayed at the Kushners’ home in New Jersey, sleeping in Jared’s bedroom. (The teenager moved to the basement that night.) Read More, New York Times Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: Two concerns: (1) The article is about Kushner, not his parents or their many noteworthy guests. (2) I suspect that other relevant organizations also count Kushner as a board member. If so, we shouldn't give disproportionate space to Friends of IDF. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow and Udippuy: Take a look at "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Pick $5.5M Home — and Chabad Synagogue in Washington", The Forward (January 3, 2017). "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner have found a house in Washington and, more important, they seem to have found a synagogue as well. [They] will attend the nearby Chabad synagogue... ‘I ... cannot comment on who might attend our synagogue,’ [said] Shemtov, founder of TheSHUL and executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavich (Chabad)... Many Jewish politicians have attended TheSHUL, including former senator Joe Lieberman..." Kushner's religious denomination may be significant and relevant to the article. Should we say something about it at § Personal Life? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Added sentence about Netanyahu sleeping in Jared's bedroom to the Personal section Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Netanyaho sleeping in Kushner's bed

So my addition of Netanyaho sleeping in Kushner's bed to § Personal Life was quickly reverted by SPECIFICO for the reason that it is WP:UNDUE. I don't think there's any "weight" to it, it's an important, significant fact! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: Discussion of an isolated event may be verifiable and impartial yet still disproportionate to its overall significance to the article topic. This event has indisputable significance to the topic of the Charles Kushner article -- in that it tells us he invited Netanhayu to stay over. (It would have been out of place for Jared to invite him.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 18:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the visit itself might be important to mention, as it establishes that the relationship with Israeli political leadership is generational, but that particular trivial factoid about the visit is rather irrelevant and inconsequential. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Kushner's ties with Israel (proposed section text)

@Dervorguilla: @Raquel Baranow:

I've put together a proposal for a section on Kushner's and family ties with Israel, that I feel is relevant given Jared Kushner role in Israel- Palestine (upcoming) peace talks. I'd be glad if you'd like to comment, amend or expand.

Kushner belongs to a family of Jewish Holocaust survivors and is a Modern Orthodox Jew .

At the time of his appointment as senior White House adviser, Kushner's name was listed as a member of the national board of Friends of the Israel Defence Forces

Kushner's family has strong ties through business deals and joint ventures with the Raz Steinmetz, a member of one of Israel's wealthiest families. Together they co-own buildings in Manhattan for a value of $150 million, and share investments in the Trump Bay Street tower in Jersey City

Jared Kushner is one of the directors of a family foundation that between 2011 and 2013 made small charitable donations to illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.

Kushner's father was a personal acquaintance of Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu . On one occasion Netanayhu spent a night as a guest at Kushner's house and was given Jared's bed for the night.

At age 17, Jared Kushner participated in "March of the Living" event, where they listened to a speech by Netanyahu in Auschwitz-Birkenau, before continuing their trip to Israel.

Udippuy (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References

@Udippuy: Not worth discussing yet. First you need to address the substantial problems listed in the comments preceding. (Meanwhile I recommend that you add the material about the subjects's father's activities to the article about the subject's father.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Thank you for your reply. Could you be a little more specific on what problems do you think should be addressed? In the meanwhile I've added a few more sources to the statements above and I'll try to find more. -- Udippuy (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: First, you need to find reputable mainstream sources that say it was the subject, not his father, who invited Netanhayu to stay over. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Hi, I re-read your previous comments on this topic and the questions you pose are reasonable. In regards to Kushner's membership in the board of Friends of IDF, you said "I suspect that other relevant organizations also count Kushner as a board member. If so, we shouldn't give disproportionate space to Friends of IDF.". It's a good point, so I did some research, and luckily I managed to find an official US document- a financial disclosure report that was compiled when Kushner was appointed Assistant & Senior Adviser to the President . According to it, Jared Kushner had a role in only four non-profit organizations at the time of his appointment. One is the family foundation; two are New York advocacy organizations for local business infrastructures, and the last one is Friends of Israel Defence Force, where he had been on the board since 2014. So it's the only non-profit unrelated with family or business, and the only relevant as a possible conflict of interest given his new role.
As for the fact that there is a long friendship between his family and Israel's P.M. Netanyahu, it's covered in plenty of media articles. Since we're talking of the two meeting for the first time when Jared was a young boy, it's of course obvious that it wasn't Jared who invited him; however, the fact that Netanyahu was friend with his father, that the two met multiple times in different occasions, that this family acquaintance is acknowledged by multiple sources and by Netanyahu himself (here, the video of the conference with Netanyahu recalling how he knew Jared Kushner since he was a boy ), to me makes it a notable fact, that deserves to be mentioned in the entry about the person currently in charge of brokering a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. Furthermore, these family and business ties, as well as a possible bias of Kushner in favour of Israel, are mentioned by so many independent sources that not spending a word about them for fear of appearing biased might end up making the entry biased in the opposite direction. Udippuy (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

References

@Udippuy: I see he's at least $100,000 overdrawn on his Visa card ... which means I won't be lending him any money any time soon. Many thanks!! ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: What a silly reply. If you're not interested in a serious discussion, why waste other people's time?
Is there anybody else reading this thread that wants to chime in with something more substantial? Udippuy (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: The data speak for themselves; no further discussion is needed. Just go ahead and post them! --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: So I did, and did my best to keep a decent standard and use reputable sources, though it's certainly improvable. Let's see how many minutes it lasts... :) Udippuy (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourced speculation - is still speculation. The section you added is not in BLP tone, and is not a bio entry about Kushner - but rather an ESSAYish speculation on Kushner's positions from a Palestinian angle.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: - also you shouldn't be editing this topic area, as you are not extended confirmed (500 edits, 30 day tenure) - this is definite ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Hi, sorry, I didn't know about ARBPIA. It certainly does apply to this case- or rather to the section I was trying to introduce. However I don't agree with your calling the section "sourced speculation", without providing any more further explanation. Scepticism about Kushner's fitness for the role of broker of an Israeli-Palestinian peace is not speculative: it's a fact that's been mentioned in a multitude of articles on reputable media sources in the past year. And his religious, personal and business connections with Israel have frequently been cited as sources of possible bias or conflict of interest in this public role. What would be the reason for omitting this material?
As for BLP: all the material I added is supported by a number of reputable sources, is well documented, and concerns public and non-sensitive aspects of Kushner's life. It also has been widely reported in the media due to Kushner's public role. Could you try to specify what you think should be changed in the proposed section to make more neutral or to make the tone more suitable for a BLP? Udippuy (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Thank you for your editing, very much appreciated! Udippuy (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: The following content does need to go: ... have raised the question of potential bias ... and by Palestinian officials, as well as by several organizations opposing the occupation of Palestinian territories. ... On one occasion Netanyahu (not yet Prime Minister) was invited to stay over by Kushner's father and given Jared's bed for the night. ... an organization "established ... to provide for education and wellbeing of the men and women who serve in the Israel Defense Forces" ... Kushner's family foundation, of which he is one of the directors, donated $58,500 to West Bank settlements between 2011 and 2013. The donations mostly went to schools, including religious yeshivas, located outside the Green Line that separates Israel and the West Bank; among the receivers were settlements considered "hard line and ideological". ... and on one deal joined with Harel, Israel's third insurance company. Also, the section title ("Personal ties with Israel and scepticism over Middle East role") sounds polemical and needs to be replaced with something more boring. Having removed all conflict-related and nonscholarly information, you can most likely restore the remainder; but you'll need to wait a day or so, as I may well have overlooked something. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Udippuy: - re ARBPIA that's why I brought this up - I thought you were probably unaware. The whole thingneeds to be toned down and trimmed down - and focus on Kushner (e.g. how he specifically is connected to Israel - if this rises beyond UNDUE, then perhaps this should be in a different section). Criticism of his role as ME enovy or any other role - should be balanced (and note this is a BLP). And I'm not sure this should be in at all - this is all sourced from pieces around the inauguration - surely there are some more current sources on how he is actually performing rather than media speculating on how he might perform given his various ties and affiliations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: @Dervorguilla: I see your points. Let me think out loud. A problem with the text I proposed might be that it tries to conflate the reactions to K's appointment and his ties with Israel in a coherent narrative, which inevitably brings in a point of view (for example it omits that a generic "lack of experience" is probably the most common source of scepticism). It is also true that the focus on initial reactions to the appointment is too narrow for a BLP and events that are unfolding. Would it makes sense to have a (sub-)section exclusively on his role of I-P negotiator, including initial reactions AND further updates on his activity?
The following instead are immutable facts in the life of the subject, which are covered and referenced in a number of articles:
-Long time acquaintance with Netanyahu, of whom the father is a political supporter and financer;
-Personal and business ties with Israel: membership in FIDF, funding of settlements, links to major Israeli companies.

While these facts might simply belong to the personal and/ or business sections, they are particularly relevant in light of his appointment (and this is confirmed by the coverage they've been given in relation to it).
I think it's a problem that a bio that mentions, for example: that in college the subject was member of basketball and hockey teams; or that he was a "less than stellar student"; that he had a bad relationship with the Observer's director (single-sourced, with some disparaging quote from the latter); allegations about his use of the newspaper as a propaganda tool against competition; a single Politico article about his ties with "Russian Jewish oligarchs and Putin"; or a line saying that "Kushner's investments in real estate and financial services have also drawn controversy for conflicts of interest." - instead lacks a single reference to well documented and non-controversial facts like his friendship with Netanyahu, his membership in Friends of IDF, his business ties with Israeli companies. All things that can be found in abundance in reputable MSM sources (and even on the entry about him on the Jewish Virtual Library), have been mentioned by the same sources as relevant given his role, but are NOT in his Wikipedia bio.
So, in conclusion. 1) I agree that the section title and subject collect together facts in a way that suggests a POV (also, the use of a section gives them undue relevance, while a sub-section under Senior Advisor to the President would have been more appropriate); 2) I propose that a sub-section on his I-P brokering role include a (shortened) version of my proposed section, plus other reactions and ongoing developments; 3) I still think that at least some of the facts mentioned in the section I posted belong to the bio anyway, and shouldn't be omitted- they could easily find their place in other parts of the bio, such as early life and business career. Udippuy (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that detailing his actual work as an envoy to the Middle East (as opposed to speculation on how he might act an envoy - and note that he's visiting outside of Israel/Palestine - e.g. [6]) merits some detail. His alleged ties with Israel? It's a maybe - but if yes, then in a separate section (the Netanyahu connection is between his father and Netanyahu - and even there seems fairly distant (putting him up while visiting when he wasn't an official), the business and donations are fairly low-scale compared to Kushner's overall business and charity activities).Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Kushner's role, or alleged role, in the current Qatar crisis

Does anyone think this should be mentioned?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/jared-kushner-qatar-666-fifth-ave

deisenbe (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I think it would be very helpful. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

There being no other comment, I have gone ahead and added it. deisenbe (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by Govindaharihari with this edit. We must discuss before reinserting as per the notice Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps @Govindaharihari would tell us why. deisenbe (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"[This] may also have contributed to Trump's hostility" means it may or may not have. HuffPo isn't a reputable mainstream RS for ideologically contentious BLP material. WP:REDFLAG policy mentions "reports of a statement by someone that seems against an interest they had previously defended"; and it was against Kushner's apparent interest for Trump to block Qatar from funding him. Most tellingly, Trump has openly distanced himself from his Senior Advisor in a way that suggests that Trump's interests and the Kushners' do not coincide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)--Dervorguilla (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Wikipedia does not maintain a whitelist of news outlets that are universally WP:RS and your above link to comments (including your own) regarding HuffPost has no value in that regard. Rather, for each piece of material under consideration for addition to Wikipedia, each source has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. See WP:NEWSORG for additional clarification. Lklundin (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: I'd be please to copy/paste my most relevant comments here, if you think it appropriate. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not goung to participate in this discussion further. Those of you that know more of WP's policies than I do can handle it. I just raised the issue but have nothing else to contribute. deisenbe (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly an example of Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia. O3000 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Party affiliation

Well, is Jared Kushner a Democrat or a Republican? I've heard lots of conflicting information.77.119.130.221, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This source says Kushner is "formerly a Democrat". Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete data on financial disclosure forms.

Should there be information about how Jared Kushner failed to disclose data on his disclosure forms? A recent addition to this would be his failure to major investments in [Cadre]. Considering that this establishes a pattern with failure to disclose required personal information on forms, and the general failure to properly divest in the Trump Administration. Because it is an investment platform it could provide substantial conflict of interest. Reference http://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-white-house-forms-omissions-cadre-millions-679231 --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is could be worth mentioning. Don't know what this pattern of he general failure to properly divest in the Trump Administration means though, and even still including something about that is unlikely to be appropriate for this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

1st opinion

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.

---

Initiating review of this article which may take a day or two. Could you mention what drew you to expand this article and let me know when you are ready to start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Take your time with the review, I am not in no rush. I was drawn into this article due seeing Kushner in the media. I will be ready to start work tomorrow, but feel free to start your review as soon as you can. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Initiate review of sections

0 Lead section

The citations in this section are not needed since they should already be in the main body of the article and fully addressed there. Please confirm that each of the citations are in the main body of the article and then they should be removed as redundant from the lead section itself which summarizes the main body of the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE says that citations in the lead are sometimes appropriate. I actually moved the information from the lead into the text body though. If you feel like something should be mentioned in the lead that is not then please tell me, but I think it might be best to work on that at the end perhaps. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be nice to see this as a three paragraph lead section given his prominence in the Trump administration. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That is completely understandable. Do you have any suggestions for the third paragraph? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your first comment here is accurate. After the new citations are brought into the article from this review, then the lead gets a third paragraph. Right now, the issue of his qualifications for any one of his three jobs remains of high interest. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Early life

Could you indicate the years which go with each one of these sections: Early life, Business, Politics. First and second paragraphs are very short and should be combined. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

2 Business career

Give years for this in parentheses in section title. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

2.1 Real estate

Development at 666 in Manhattan has gone quite poorly at this time and his family is taking a loss financially due to complications. Can this set-back be updated and be made more up to date. Also, there are some rather dramatic drawing of the repurposing of this building by Zaha Hadid which might be reviewed with a photo or image added. Will it be built or did it fail as a financial set-back as of June 2018? JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Kushner not 666. I don't think we should really be including much detail about it that doesn't involve Kushner, we already include the bit about the companies loss. Any image that we would include would have to be available on Commons:Category:666 Fifth Avenue. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The negotiation with Asian financiers was notoriously poor and unproductive for the resale and redevelopment of this property under the management involvement of Kushner, which showed poor negotiating skills and poor business acumen. There are reliable sources on the deal falling through and it sounds relevant to understanding his skills as an advisor. The link to the Hadid article above shows that there were large scale plans which apparently fell flat. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I will take a closer look at those sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources should concern the deal apparently falling through after large pre-negotiation investments for the extensive re-purposing of the building involving Zaha Hadid being retained. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If Kushner himself was involved with the negotiation and fall through then I'll include it but I will look at the sources first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If Kushner was the executive of the firm during these high profile negotiations and expenditures then its important to include it. His firm lost vast amounts of money on this deal fallen through under his charge. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This source [7] makes it look like his father was the one behind it. I will look more into the issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Good reliable source; this quote is fairly explicit: "Jared, who is President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, was the face of the deal." JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a mention. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this section all fine now? Should I give it a tick? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

2.2 Newspaper publishing

State the year of the Observer acquisition, 2006 it seems, in the first paragraph of this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Politics

3.1 Political background

The democratic background is significant, and it should state what his participation in Democratic politics was. Did he vote for certain candidates like Obama or not? Did he give Obama money and donations? Etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded it a bit more. Is it to your liking or do you think changes need to be made? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is useful information. The transition to supporting Romney and then Trump is notable. Did he endorse any particular policies of Romney, and did Trump see eye-to-eye with Romney on major issues here. Other section below were not yet edited and I'll look forward to see that. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I can not find any sources right now for particular policies he supported. As I can't see Kushner supporting any specific policies I am not sure if similarities between Trump and Romney should be mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That comment by you would suggest that Kushner's move to Trump was strictly a family affair. Some mention of the differences between Romney and Trump might be useful. Trump was opposed by Cruz and Kasich on policy issues for the Republican primaries, with Romney closer to them on some policy issues rather than to Trump. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My comment does suggest it is a family affair, but I have not seen a source making that observation .I have not seen sources mentioning the differences of Trump and his competitors in the context of Kushner so it would be WP:OR to include it here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All you need here really is a sentence indicating his close attachment to the Trump campaign, since the politics of the Trump campaign are covered in detail in the next section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That is fine. Do you have any particular suggestion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen a reliable source to say that Kushner is adapting his own politics to conform with his own needs or the needs of this business interests. Normally, the public assumes that an appointee of the President is hired under the understanding that he will conform to what the President says. That is, is there an established pattern in Kushner's past which suggests that Kushner will adapt his politics to conform to his father-in-law. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen a source explicitly say that but I have seen sources like this [8] where it says Kushner is not trying to his politics to change his father in law. It is an unusual situation and I am surprised that with the huge coverage of Trump that a source has not made such a statement, but I will look further. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver is a comedian and not a reliable source. There is an extensive reliable source literature of Kushner as unqualified as seen here [9], and here [10], and here [11]. This is an issue. Previously, JFK had RFK join his administration because RFK was qualified. This case with Kushner does not appear to have anyone speak of his useful credentials outside of being born into a wealthy real estate firm. This topic of Kushner being discussed as unqualified in the reliable sources press should be included. The article as a whole still needs a transition section also from 2014-2017 perhaps (or whichever years you feel best express this transition) to explicitly cover his move out of real estate and into politics as soon as you have a chance. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources you have provided talk about the are not really about his political background, the first and last are about his role in the White House with the other being about him in the real estate industry. Do you just want me to include them in the relevant sections? Regarding the transition section I do not think it would be appropriate for the article as currently laid out. As shown the dates for the sections already overlap and his transition was not really smooth it was more as was still involved with the Observer during the presidential campaign. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

3.2 Presidential campaign

Adequate to article for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you feel like the sourcing and writing style are appropriate? If so then I will tick this section as done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There is some overlap with the Russian officials material in the later section; do you wish them separate or organize them together (see section 3.4.2 below)? JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have moved them below. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that I have moved it, do you think this section is fine now? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

3.3 Presidential transition

Trump is famously discussed as making a favorite of the daughter in preference to her siblings. Was this at all or in any way discussed as influencing Trump's decision to make Jared high profile in his administration? Are there any reliable sources which cover this who have mentioned repeatedly his close ties to his daughter as being the in-road to his son-in-law rapid political ascent. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick Google search and this article seems to to be a possible source. It does not really say that Ivanka is the favourite child but it mentions about 'Jarvanka' going into politics. Is this what you meant or should I do some more source searching? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good place to start. The other interview is the Barbara Walters here [12] shows where she interviews all the siblings together and gets all the siblings to admit that Ivanka was the favorite (see 1:07:00 in the YouTube file I linked above). JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a WP:LINKVIO to me. Also to avoid WP:SYNTH issues a WP:RS would have to make the mention of Ivanka being the favorite in the context of Kushner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no question that Barbara Walters is a reliable source for network television. The material in the interview is fully quotable and must be attributed using standard Wikipedia citation templates without any LINKVIO whatsoever. She has been a central journalist for network news for decades and the quotes identifying Ivanka as the favorite of the President's is pertinent and informative. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of this source [13]? It specifically states "Kushner is married to Trump’s favorite child, his daughter Ivanka." in its first paragraph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is also a reliable source. It would be useful if this could be extended to some statement about why she is his favorite? Do they always agree about family matters? Do they always agree about politics? Same question applies for the important question of her relation to Kushner on each of these questions: family matters and politics, and do they always agree, or does she defer to Kushner as she did on the question of their family religion? JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added in the Vanity Fair source. Regarding the agreements the closet thing I have seen is the source I mentioned above "John Oliver: Why Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are not “moderating influences” on Donald Trump". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See my added comments on the large reliable source press on Kushner as Unqualified and the 3 links I included. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

3.4 Senior Advisor to the President

What is this position of 'Senior Advisor' and are there examples of other Presidents making such appointments. Does he have any supporters in the press corps? Are there any journalists who see him as a liability to the Trump administration? Paragraph structure in this section should avoid short one or two sentence paragraphs and should be re-formatted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Senior Advisor to the President of the United States is a position that has been used since the Clinton administration. I have removed the predecessors from the infobox and remove the succession box as there is not really a clear line of succession. The paragraph structure has been reorganised a bit with an irrelevant sentence removed. I have also removed speculative content that is not confirmed and is just "reportedly" and from unnamed sources, also reworded the bit from the New York Times. What do you think of this section for now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A passing mention should be made that Kushner fills a role in the Trump administration just like Clinton had a similar appointment in his administration. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

3.4.1 FIRST STEP Act

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you think perhaps the heading level is undue and it should be bumped down a section? What do you think about the sourcing? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing is ok though bumping it up or down does make sense possibly without a heading since its so small. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

3.4.2 Russian investigation

Some comment of the degrees of separation from investigative prosecution is needed here. For example, the President is separated from prosecutorial investigation by several degrees of administrative middle management, making the President the most difficult person to submit to interrogatories. Where is Jared amid these degrees-of-separation and how immanent is his being called to testimony? Is it 6 months, is it a year away? JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting that we speculate as to when Kushner will be called to give testimony? This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Apologies I I misunderstanding but we must keep in mind WP:FUTURE. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Its not a misunderstanding. The pecking order of getting to the President during special counsel investigations is very well established, such as the pecking order of all the persons that needed to be interviewed before Clinton could be questioned on the record during the Lewinsky matter years ago. Same with Kushner, and we know that Kushner would need to be interviewed on the record before Trump is potentially called to interrogatories because of the pre-established pecking order in the administration's middle management working its way from the bottom up to the President. Who is next for the interviews in the current investigation and how close or distant are they from Kushner. There is no speculation in the question I am asking here as to who is next in the special counsel interviews and how close they are to Kushner's level in the pecking order. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure the "pecking order" is well established? I have not been able to find a source for that nor any for the now resolved Lewinsky matter. The next person in the investigation is not relevant for this article, this is an encyclopedic entry about Kushner not a predicted timeline of an investigation that he just happens to be a part of. If a source mentions that Kushner is next then I will include it but I have not yet seen anything of the sort. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add a link to Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) as a See also reference to another Wikipedia article from this section. Also, the reference in this Special Counsel article has several references to Kushner which should not be over-looked in this biography article. They should be covered here as well. Could you determine if the Kushner interview he did participate in with the Special Counsel's office was listed as an investigation of him or of someone else in the administration. If someone else, then Kushner may still be in line to be investigated after further preliminary investigations of lower level staff in the Trump administration. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

4 Personal life

There is little reason to separate his marriage from his other activities and the marriage along with the birth of children should be added into the above sections in chronological order after you add the years for each of the sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is standard practise for many biographies. A reader who is interested in see if or when Kushner was married would not know whether to look in a section that has a heading named after where Kushner is in his professional life. If you can give me a suggestion to reorganize this I am open to hearing it, but I feel that this works for this article as it contains information from such a large time span. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be puzzled through. The business life and the personal life sections overlap by only 1-2 years and it would be nice if that overlap could be removed from the outline. Possibly create a new section labeled the Transition years from Business to Politics. Such an outline with time frame ambiguities I think would look better for the organization of the article. Marriage and children would fit in better as well to pin down what he was doing when these significant events took place. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

General comments

That should get things started. Ping me when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Thank you for the quick review. I have managed to complete some points already, but I had comments about others so could you please take a look at them. 😊 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: That's a nice start and there are some added comments above. I noticed that you were involved in the attempt to start a GA review for Trump last year, and is this nomination related to that in any way? Ping me when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Any plans for addressing the new comments I have made above over the weekend? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: The nomination for the GA for Trump was more of a group effort, even though the topic is closely related to this article the nomination is not related. I have addressed the comments and will carry on working on the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The issues after section 3.4 are also important, especially pulling the personal information section into the main body of the article itself. His marriage is as important as listing the schools he attended. Let me know when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll pick this up tomorrow with replies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have replied now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See my added comments above. Your 2 new reliable sources are both useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I will try and get to finishing the article over next week. Is there any other sources you want me to try and look for? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In my last edit from a day or two ago I added 3 more links for the Kushner as qualified/unqualified discussion in the above sections. Could you ping me when you complete the updates to all the other items in the list above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The reading of this article is becoming obscured by the fact that there are oddly overlapping sections as to chronology. I need to see an outline that follows chronology before further comments. This is very non-typical for a Wikipedia biography to factor a biography page based on largely disjointed issues (his vocation, and his politics, in this case) and then to ask readers to make sense of his biography chronologically. The idea I suggested above, I think, sounded ok though if you have a better idea for a chronological biography then factor the article's chronology in time sequence and not by overlapping activities. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean it is very non-typical for a Wikipedia biography? Every article I have seen where a person has been in multiple distinct fields has been laid out like this. No-one else has had issue with this at the article talkpage, as articles do not need to be fully chronological. The overlapping actives are due to a real life overlap, it is not something I have made up with this article. Sectioning is not part of WP:GACR, but if you think it is problematic then if you provide me an alternative we can get a WP:3O. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For peer review articles, my experience is that a biographical chronology is used as in the FA for Frederik Chopin and the GA for Akira Kurosawa. My request is that you reconsider adding a section title "Transition from Real Estate to Politics" to cover this issue. It can always be refined later as needed and it is worth trying. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started off a transition section with content already existing in the article. What do you think? Do I add need to add new stuff or just move stuff around? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good and useful start. The dates should also be added to that section as 2016-2017, with the subsequent section changed to 2017-present, to reflect the actual Senior Advisor assignment as day one in full politics for him. As some needed fine tuning, the current first three sections from the current last section including the old one which was previously already labeled "Presidential Transition" should also be pulled into the new Transition section which you just opened in the main outline today; they belong in the same section. Ping my account when you are ready. The appointment as Senior Advisor ought to be day one for his full Politics career. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: That section heading was removed by Candido. As per sanctions consensus is needed to re-add challenged content. The being of his political career is the campaigning for president not when he became Senior Advisor. The section labelled "Presidential Transition" refers to the time period from election to inauguration as described at United States presidential transition, it not about Kushner transitioning into politics. If you are going to keep on suggesting changes to the sections, which are not even required for a GA review as long as it passes criteria 3, then could you please give me an outline so I can just move it all together? Do you think everything other than the sectioning is fine with the article as it stands now? I would prefer to make sectioning changes after everything else is dealt with if we do decide that sections need to be fine tuned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a necessary structural correction to the article TOC outline to include the Transition section, but not as a one sentence edit like you did yesterday. Pull all the paragraphs together as per my note above and re-date all the sections as I have indicated above. Then in the edit history field when you make this edit, add a comment that this is per GA review and invite all editors "to join the review in progress prior to edits". This needs to be done prior to further review of this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you want the exact TOC outline to be? I don't think a fully chronological order is what is best for this article, and no editor of this article has tried to make it like that. Even the example you gave of Chopin is not fully chronological and has separate music and life sections. Consensus must be obtained before the edit is reinstated, whether it is identical or similar. I will wait and hear what Candido has to say, but until then I will not reinstate that part. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Candido has already stated that the creation of a 1 sentence section by the nominating editor is subject to immediate revert. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick close of review subject to future improvement of this article

This article is subject to quick close as it appears to have multiple defects which will require extensive editing to repair outside the scope of a normal peer review. Another editor Candido has also stated that the creation of a 1 sentence section by the nominating editor is subject to immediate revert. I would also have reverted such a plainly anecdotal edit if I had visited this page as an outside reader. Having spent nearly two weeks reviewing this article, it is with some reluctance that I am quick closing the review for an article which is presently unready for peer review. Possibly it should be brought up to B-Class first before being re-nominated, but the current article is in poor condition which to my reading actually does not even appear to be C-Class as it is listed on the Talk page of the article at present by another editor. You may of course re-nominate the article after the article is improved to a better version preferably when it is at the B-Class level. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2018 (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.

2nd Opinion request

I am requesting a 2nd opinion. No reason has been given for this "quick close" after 2 weeks. These alleged multiple defects have not been stated. Candido has not yet commented here to add there view. The first reviewer is now saying that the it is not even C class with no explanation. This was not a request for peer review but a good article review, and I have not been given any explanation as to why this article is not a GA other than the fact that it doesn't fit one editors preferred sectioning despite no other editor having objected to the current sectioning. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This review has been closed for multiple issues as documented in the closed section above which has failed. According to Wikipedia policy, a nominator may open a new second GAN when needed. The first GAN is closed as failed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What are these multiple issues? The GA criteria does not mention that it must fit a reviewers desired sections. I want to hear what a second opinion says. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to follow Wikipedia policy for a closed GAN and stop edit warring on the GAN page. You and all editors should follow WP:GAN policy for closed GAN reviews. You also need to remove your manual re-add of this closed and failed GAN prior to further discussion. The instructions for any re-nomination are on the GAN page and you need to stop edit warring and remove your manual re-add of the review at the GAN page at this time and stop edit warring for a closed GAN. If you continue this edit warring to force your edit into the GAN page which is against WP policy and do not remove it, then it will need to be reported as edit warring by you against WP policy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You and all editors should follow WP:GAN when reviewing articles instead of failing them for not having sections in your personal preference despite no other editor having expressed concern against the article sections. I do not need to remove manual re-add, the bot has taken care of it with my second nomination where hopefully I'll get someone who looks at this against the GA criteria. If you do a review like this again it will need to be reported. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Candido has already stated that the creation of a 1 sentence section by the nominating editor is subject to immediate revert. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What are you on about? They merged sections to get rid of the section that you suggested. I was just acting on your suggestion, this was not an edit war the article is stable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump "favourite daughter"

Some back and forth editing happened regarding the second sentence of the Personal life section which reads: "He married Ivanka Trump, the favourite[14] daughter of businessman Donald Trump..."

I'm not sure that the assertion that Ivanka is the "favourite" daughter is appropriate. Firstly, it seems to be more a statement of the author's opinion rather than a fact (but isn't attributed in text), and secondly, the quality of relationships can change; who knows if Ivanka is still his favourite? or if she was his favourite at the time of the wedding?

And even if we accept it as fact that she is her dad's favourite, why is it relevant to this article about her husband?

pinging involved editors Optanks3 and Emir of Wikipedia

Any thoughts? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This was suggested at the GA review at Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1. We should not remove this content that he been in there for like a month now without consensus. I am open to adding some attribution or clarification but the GA reviewer was fine with how I wrote it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the previous discussion and for all the great work you've done on this article. I have no intention of changing the section without consensus. I'm still unsure why it is relevant to Kushner's personal life that Ivanka is Trump's favourite? Seems like this might be relevant to Kushner's current position as Presidential adviser but I don't see any sources arguing that there is a connection between the marriage and Ivanka being Trumps favourite. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The source I used says "Kushner is married to Trump’s favorite child, his daughter Ivanka"[15]. I made sure that the source I used was very clear and established the connection of the marriage and the favouritism, but I can understand if you think it should be moved elsewhere in the article or expanded on. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the source provide any evidence for that claim, or merely assert it? PaulCHebert (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Everyone in the family seems to acknowledge without overt rancor that Ivanka is the favorite." I also haven't found any sources that dispute the claim. I think the contention is more about whether it's relevant to Jared and Ivanka's marriage, or to Jared's position in the White House, or just to Ivanka (and therefore not to this page). BananaCarrot152 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So no real evidence, just what a journalist thinks people "seem to" believe. Not relevant to the present article; not documented with an on-the-record quote from a human being. PaulCHebert (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If the cited "evidence" shows, in fact, that Ivanka is Trump's "favourite" of all his children, then to alter that conclusion to make Ivanka out to only be "favoured" over the other daughter seems a gratuitous swipe at that other daughter, as well as a deceptive inference that each son may be "favoured" over Ivanka. As stated here, it is implied that the only child who Ivanka is "favoured" over would be Tiffany, who would, in turn, then be the least "favoured" of all of Trump's children. If Ivanka were, in fact, the "favourite" of all, then Tiffany could be the "second-favourite," not the least "favourite" which would be the reality if Ivanka were merely the "favourite" daughter. If the concensus were that the cited source should be relied upon, then its conclusions should be accurately reflected here, not selectively edited to create the impression that Ivanka -- and her sister -- may be favoured less than each son. Of course, in reality, there is no actual evidence that Trump "favours" any of his children over another. The only evidence is a convenient opinion of someone -- the write of the source "authority" -- who needed nothing more than a topic to write about to earn a paycheck as the basis for the cited article. The only "evidence" is a gossip column in reality, a source that is not "favoured" in support of an assertion of who among Trump's children is most "favoured," even if that assertion were material to the subject matter, and if so, accurately reflected here. 3tpo 04:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Optanks3: Please gain consensus here to remove the word favourite before making an edit again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would love to see it disappear. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? We follow the WP:RSs not editors personal preferences. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it is poorly sourced -- as noted above, the citation says "Everyone in the family seems to acknowledge without overt rancor that Ivanka is the favorite." So all we have is what a journalist thinks "seems" to be the case, with no single named human being going on the record to confirm. "Seems" is a different word than "is." PaulCHebert (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is opinion. It may be true, but we don't know that. Also, this isn't Ivanka's bio, so WP:COATRACK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support The charge of 'nepotism' against Kushner's appointment was made by multiple reliable sources WP:RS in the press and network television. In this case 'nepotism' means because of his marital relation to his wife Ivanka, which makes mention of this in the Kushner article useful and notable. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nepotism doesn't require that Ivanka be his "favorite". Trump's nepotism is on display with his three children with Ivana. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Nepotism charged at the time of Kushner's appointment was repeated by multiple reliable sources, and the issue of Ivanka being a favorite increases the weight of her association with her father which successfully gave Kushner the appointment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"the issue of Ivanka being a favorite increases the weight of her association with her father which successfully gave Kushner the appointment." That looks like you are independently reaching a conclusion based on your own original research. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

'Nepotism' is the charge that was carried by multiple reliable sources at the time of the Kushner appointment; that Kushner only received the appointment because of Ivanka. Multiple reliable sources kept repeating this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nepotism isn't the question here. The question here is the "favourite child" remark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulCHebert (talk • contribs)

@PaulCHebert: The quote that supports the information is "Kushner is married to Trump’s favorite child, his daughter Ivanka.", not what you added in article saying "whom "everyone in the family seems to acknowledge" is Donald Trump's "favorite" child". I kindly ask you to self revert as that is not the relevant quote it does not mention Kushner whereas the one I included in the quote parameter does. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That quote is mere assertion provided without evidence, and the flimsy nature of the assertion is revealed by the very author who made the assertion with his own remark that some undefined "everyone" "seems to acknowledge" something. Is there not a single person who has said so on the record? PaulCHebert (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The author is the award winning Sarah Ellison. On the record and in relation are two very different things, I found a source that specifically linked the favouritism to Kushner. You included a random quote you dug up from the source, that might be relevant in the article for Ivanka Trump but not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I note your appeal to authority. The quote I dug up is no more or less random than the one that you dug up from the exact same source. Your source explicitly undermines the very argument that you are trying to get it to say by explicitly stating that there is a state of affairs that people "seem" to believe is the case. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Your quote is random because it is not linked to Kushner, whereas my one explicitly mentions Kushner. Furthermore I did not include in the text body but the quote parameter of the citation. There is not appeal to authority, I am just following the WP:RSs. If you feel the source is not reliable then bring it up at WP:RSN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice that @Optanks3: has been making multiple reverts in the article against Wikipedia policy and has exceeded 3 reverts in 24-hours. My single edit on the article page is to restore the article while Talk page is in progress and until consensus is reached on the Talk page by the multiple participating editors. No further edits on the Article until consensus on the Talk page is reached on this issue. If there any further reverts by User:Optanks3 then he may be reported by any editor for exceeding 3 reverts in 24-hours. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (mostly) There is no evidence nor assertion that Ivanka's relationship with her father had/has anything to do with Jared marrying her. If you want to talk about nepotism, then use a source that makes the connection between Ivanka being Trump's favourite and Jared getting a job etc. and put it in a section about Jared getting a job. The current source does not connect the act of marrying Ivanka to her being the favourite; "Kushner is married to Trump’s favorite child, his daughter Ivanka." Not "Kushner married Trumps favourite daughter to get closer to him." I just don't think the statement is relevant/appropriate in the personal life section. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• @BananaCarrot152: That might be possibly persuasive if you could indicate the best place in the article to place your version of the writing, and if you could tell us if it would affect the other writing which is already in the article when you add your version of the writing. Where would you place your version of the sentence. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Just to be clear, if we're countin' votes. reasons given above: the claim is poorly documented. PaulCHebert (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mexico to grant highest honor to Kushner

Next Friday (30/Nov), at the G20 summit, Jared Kushner will be awarded with the Order of the Aztec Eagle by Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, which is the highest honor Mexico gives to foreigners.

References

1. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/jared-kushner-mexico-honor/index.html
2. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/11/27/world/americas/ap-lt-mexico-kushner-medal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.255.42.246 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Jared Kushner played floor hockey, not ice hockey at Frisch School

At most schools you would not need to make the distinction but his Yeshiva had two sports according to the school's web site: "Ice Hockey" and "Hockey" which is actually floor hockey, similar to street hockey which does not require ice skating.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/nyregion/yeshiva-floor-hockey-new-york.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSull464 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)