Talk:Ivanka Trump/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

At the end of Section "Senior Advisor to the President of the United States"

“Donald Trump has been accused of taking nepotism to alarming new depths after giving his daughter, Ivanka, a prominent role in meetings with the G20 and Kim Jong-un.” [1] “Such brazenly dynastic displays caused concern among foreign policy experts who, noting Ivanka’s complete lack of diplomatic experience or training, warned of lasting damage to America’s credibility.” [1]

[1] The Guardian, David Smith, Mon 1 Jul 2019 14.32 EDT Last modified on Thu 4 Jul 2019 06.45 EDT

Mcleod2010 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

At the end of 3.2 Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, add the following new paragraph:

Trump was credited by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows with suggesting the controversial photo opportunity for President Donald Trump holding a bible in front of St. John's Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House, on June 1, 2020, after protesters had been cleared. Sources say the bible was carried by Trump in her purse and provided to the President. 73.61.122.174 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NOTNEWS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Not sure why this was not added. It contains information based on recognized published sources, and otherwise seems to comply with rules in WP:NOTNEWS. Can you explain this to a relative newbie? ^^^^ At the end of 3.2 Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, add the following new paragraph:

Trump was credited by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows with suggesting the controversial photo opportunity for President Donald Trump holding a bible in front of St. John's Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House, on June 1, 2020, after protesters had been cleared. Sources say the bible was carried by Trump in her purse and provided to the President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.122.174 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

At the end of 3.2 Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, add the following new paragraph:

Trump was credited by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows with suggesting the controversial photo opportunity for President Donald Trump holding a bible in front of St. John's Church, across Lafayette Park from the White House, on June 1, 2020, after protesters had been cleared. Sources say the bible was carried by Trump in her purse and provided to the President. 73.61.122.174 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done Added, with edits.Bangabandhu (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Goya Foods ethics concerns

The editor "Mr Ernie" removed text about Ivanka Trump endorsing Goya Foods after the owner of the company praised Trump,[1] arguing that it was "non-encyclopedic content". Per multiple RS (this is just a sample), this raised ethics concerns:

• BBC News: "The Trumps' actions have raised concerns over ethics violations."[2]
• ABC (Australia): "US Government employee ethics rules prohibit the use of public office to endorse products... Ivanka holds a public office by virtue of her official job as senior adviser to the President, and the account she tweeted the picture from identifies her as such."[3]
• AP: Government watchdogs: She "doesn’t have the right to violate ethics rules that bar government officials from using their public office to endorse specific products or groups."[4]
• LA Times[5]
• CBS: "The tweet raised questions about whether Trump violated federal ethics rules prohibiting the use of "public office for [their] own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise.""[6]
• CNN: "Ivanka Trump may have violated a government ethics rule"[7]
• ABC: "experts said was a clear violation of federal ethics rules"[8]
• Bloomberg: Government watchdogs "said it violates federal rules against top White House employees endorsing particular companies."[9]

The extensive coverage, coupled with legitimate ethics concerns, make this content WP:DUE. It's hard to imagine a case for excluding content, widely reported by RS, about potential ethics questions regarding powerful political figures (unless articles have size constraints which this one doesn't). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this warrants a mention, given the volume of coverage. Neutrality^talk 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Please re-add a sentence or two. If it was a Democrat in the same situation it would clearly be noted, this is not political. -- GreenC 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Don't forget NPOV ~ The La Times quotes her saying "buck up a Hispanic-owned business that she says has been unfairly treated" ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Another day, another faux controversy, another NOTNEWS-ish blurb added to Wikipedia by the editor Snooganssnoogans. This "controversy" will have no impact on Ivanka or anyone else in 2 weeks, and everyone will move on to the next thing reported in the news. There is a big difference between something being newsworthy and encyclopedic. The news will report things every day, and it is not our job to simply bring that over to Wikipedia. If people want to read about Ivanka Trump and Goya beans, then they can read the newspaper.

I remain against the inclusion of this material until it can be demonstrated that there is a lasting impact to the life of Ivanka Trump, for example, an official ethics rules investigation, or, say, excess gas from increased bean consumption. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right the Trumps help encourage excess natural gas methane emissions in the USA just reached an all time high, news that will be with us for thousands of years, unless you don't trust science then it will be harmless. In the here and now, when legal experts decry a "clear ethics violation" this is not merely news, it is expert opinion and would, one might assume, be noteworthy beyond typical punditry. Unless you don't trust experts. It's not a Snooganssnoogan-ian fault for giving weight. -- GreenC 16:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Include Ernie, your opinion This "controversy" will have no impact on Ivanka or anyone else in 2 weeks is not the test we use for due weight. NPOV requires this to be included in the article. RS tell us why it is significant and why it is noteworthy for Ivanka and the USA. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV requires? I guess we have very different understandings of NPOV. RS report things every day. That's what the news does, not Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

She was in a skit on SNL in 2015. This should be added to the television section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We should cover her outside income

We should cover[10] how much she earned in outside income while serving in the White House, as reported by RS. It goes to the heart of the concerns raised regarding conflicts of interest. It's in particular notable that she earns millions from the Trump hotel in DC, which lobbyists, foreign governments and other actors who seek the Trump administration's favors spend money at. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely, this is a very large unusual amount of income. The recent removal makes no sense. We don't report every year, but we do report representative amounts so the reader understands how much she is making. Suggest restore and justify removal here first per WP:BRD. -- GreenC 13:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems kind of NOTNEWS to me, but I guess I wouldn't be opposed to stating her earnings even though I don't see the point in saying a rich person made some money. I don't think it is necessary to connect it to some theory that people who own hotels shouldn't make money from those seeking to stay in said hotels. The Trumps were very wealthy before taking office, and it's no surprise they continue to make money. Contrast that to a relatively low wealth pre-term Obama or Clinton who have made hundreds of millions since leaving office. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you are not opposed. I am personally very surprised how much she earned, not that facts need be surprising for inclusion. Since our article doesn't discuss Obama and Clinton, rightly so, we won't have to worry about equivalency arguments (most equivalency arguments are logical fallacies when unpacked). The President's for-profit hotel right next door to the Whitehouse has been controversial with the public, politicians and legal scholars. How much she makes is topical to that controversy, which itself is part of her notability. But regardless we often list wealth there is an infobox entry for it, people are interested. Is she making 100,000 a year? 1 billion? Numbers matter, rich is relative. -- GreenC 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

New York Times tax returns story

Sounds really important. See here. Can be probably included using NYT as main reference? My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

falsely claimed to have graduated summa cum laude from Wharton?

I perceive a discrepancy:

As of 2020-09-22, the Early life section says, "she graduated cum laude with a bachelor's degree in economics [from Wharton] in 2004.

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A later Books section says "she falsely claimed to have graduated summa cum laude from Wharton."

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who knows revise this to reconcile the apparent contradiction? If she graduated cum laude but not summa, I think the latter should say that: That seems to me slightly less fraudulent than if she wasn't cum laude at all. It's possible that the summa was added by an editor, who maybe didn't understand that there might be a difference, and she was too busy to notice. If she did NOT graduate cum laude, then the earlier comment should be revised at least to delete the reference to cum laude and maybe explain the controversy in the note.

What do you think? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My preferences: (i) Say she falsely claimed to have graduated summa cum laude while removing mention of her having graduated summa cum laude, (ii) remove mention of her having graduated summa cum laude. At the very least, the article should not include her self-sourced claim of having graduated summa cum laude in wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What process would you recommend for making this change?

I haven't followed Ivanka enough to feel comfortable editing this article. I see you've made multiple edits. Do you want to wait a day or two in case someone else wants to comment on this? If no one else does, I suggest you make the change you suggest.

On the other hand, Wikipedia ethics encourage us to "Wikipedia:Be bold but not reckless." I suggest you make the change you think would be the best. If someone else disagrees, they can alter it. At least something gets done, and we're not Waiting for Godot. DavidMCEddy (talk)

Cum Laude is not a big deal, omit. If she lied, that would be a big deal. But it would need bulletproof sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

For the time being I have removed completely. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the full removal.

• Columbia Journalism Review states: "Ivanka claimed on the back of her 2009 best-selling book, The Trump Card, that she had graduated summa cum laude, the highest possible distinction, from Wharton. She actually graduated cum laude, two notches below."
• The same summa cum laude claim was on the Trump Organization website [11] and in her Huffington Post biography [12]

We have a secondary source that says summa cum laude is inaccurate. An editor above speculated it was a mistake by a copy editor or something. I'm sorry but not without her or her PR team's knowledge, in three prominent places over an extended period of time - it is their job to manage a high profile clients image and reputation. People like this don't have bios published without a PR team involved (such as Hiltzik Strategies). And it fits a pattern of "spin" as the Columbia Journalism Review article is about. -- GreenC 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources [13] says "This employee appears to have overlooked two university protocols: releasing grade point averages and having the registrar's office confirm information to a journalist. (“I talked the person into it,” Lewis Halpern told me.)

When presented with this information last week, Ivanka’s team acknowledged the error and noted that other bios of hers (including on the Trump Organization website) reflect her actual degree distinction. “Any instance of confusion surrounding the specific level of honors she earned will certainly be clarified,” said Abigail Klem, her chief brand officer." I am not really sure how to include this with the above in a concise and detailed way. As SPECIFICO says it is not that big a deal, so seems easier to omit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not relevant how Lewis Halpern obtained this information, for example we don't ignore Snowden's revelations because he criminally stole documents from the NSA, and in this case there was no crime. Journalists will "talk people" into giving them information, it's good investigative reporting. And when presented with her real GPA, the PR team changed her bio, they had no choice because it is the truth. It stretches credibility they were not previously aware of this discrepancy, otherwise where did the puffed up GPA come from? The whole incident is notable IMO and should be reported in some way. It doesn't have to say she lied or "falsely said" because that is a higher threshold not met. -- GreenC 23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging DavidMCEddy, Emir of Wikipedia, GreenC, Snooganssnoogans, SPECIFICO: Ivanka’s team acknowledged the error - it wasn't just an error on the back flap of her first book, it was also in the bio submitted to Huffington Post, and in her bio on the Trump Organization's website. See also previous Talk page comments {[14], [15]). I spent a few hours back in 2017 looking up the Trump Organization on the wayback machine. It used the false claim until 2012 when they downgraded Ivanka's latin honors to the correct one. It's her book and her bio; she probably didn't write either but whoever wrote them got the input from her, and it was her responsibility to proofread for any mistakes. For someone who hasn't gone to a college in the U.S. claiming a summa cum laude instead of the actual cum laude may seem like an error easy to overlook but to the people who have received one or the other it isn't. It isn't something they won't notice and correct (but don't go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage - quoting The Trump Card). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  The source literally says " Ivanka’s team acknowledged the error", that was not my own wording it just went onto another line. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Flouting safety protocols at the debate belongs in the article

That Ivanka flouted the safety protocols at the first presidential debate meets WP:DUE and belongs in the article. Not only is it illuminating about what kind of person this is, but it meets all the criteria for substantial RS coverage and it relates directly to a major incident with long-term encyclopedic value (The President, a large swath of the White House and GOP establishment getting a deadly disease in the lead-up to the 2020 election). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to "illuminate" what kind of person someone is. If a large swath of the White House and GOP "establishment" have COVID then put that in the article about the 2020 election, having a dedicated mention at every article is not needed for someone who does not have the disease. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The GOP leadership have behaved like good ole boy Cavaliers making a Pickett's Charge against the Covid line, they just keep on coming in a straight line. We could have an entire article (book) on how not wearing a mask has trickled down into 100s of millions of people, starting with Trump's own family. If something serious happens at Walter Reed the events leading up to it will become notable on a per-person basis both for who got infected and who didn't during those key days as historians reconstruct, which is already happening at the journalist level. Probably safer to wait and see, more surprises in October for certain. -- GreenC 04:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually it looks like there is an article at White House COVID-19 outbreak. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: Mother's given surname

Question: In the infobox parents section, should her mother's name be represented as [[Ivana Trump|Ivana Zelníčková]] with her mother's given surname, following the standard set in other articles about people from prominent political families, for instance George W. Bush or John F. Kennedy. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to pipe. Ivana Zelníčková is a redirect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this appropriate? Using the given name is not factually correct since the surname of the mother at the time of the child's birth is Trump. By using the maiden name you are also implying the mother was not married at the time of the child's birth, which is also factually incorrect. The appropriate thing to do is to use the {{nee}} template. Why isn't this being done? @Arbor to SJ:, could you explain why you insist on using factually incorrect names?William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no such implication that her parents "[were] not married." Rather, it is simply to show the family origins of Ivanka Trump, just like other articles about American political figures with notable parents like George W. Bush or John F. Kennedy. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of the mother's maiden name does indeed make that implication. Why is not better to use the nee template than to use a factually incorrect name?William S. Saturn (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The title of this very article is Ivanka Trump, not Ivanka Kushner...does the article title imply Ivanka Trump is not married? Not all women take their husband's last name. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump is her name so it would be factually wrong to call her Ivanka Kushner. She became a public figure with the "Trump" name. Ivana was not a public figure under her maiden name. Of course, not all women take their husband's name but most married women do and did, especially in the 1970s. Your argument is moot since Ivana did take her husband's name. The fact that some women don't take the name of their husbands does not justify using a factually incorrect name and suppressing a factually correct name.William S. Saturn (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Conversion to Orthodox Judaism isn’t a thing

The article says she converted to Orthodox Judaism. That’s not something a person does. A person can convert to Judaism. They can undergo an orthodox or non-orthodox conversion. They can, after converting, affiliate with the Orthodox movement, or with another movement or with no movement. But “converting to Orthodox Judaism” isn’t a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.246.213 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Add the insurrection to the lede

Ivanka Trump's role in the attack on the US Capitol is central to her biography. It is surely the most significant historical event that she has played a direct role in. The opening parapraphs mention her performance on the television program The Apprentice and some material about her financial disclosure forms, but do not mention the episode that she will be most associated with in the historical record. I believe we should add text about the attack in the opening paragraph of this article. 2601:184:4780:3130:4423:2C8A:EFC8:43FE (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

IS not WAS

The edit on 11:18, 15 July 2022‎ implies she died. It was her mom that died. Houligan86 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Houligan86, fixed! Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 13:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate opening sentences in personal life section

The first sentence in the personal life section of Ivanka Trump refers to her father suggesting he would date her. The third sentence makes reference to sexual-abuse allegations against her father. This is inappropriate weight given to extremely minor notes of her life. Assumedly this was done by idealogue editors attempting to assassinate her character. First and foremost in her personal life section should be information such as marital status, family, major life events or so on, not scurrilous gossip. 203.166.232.254 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Ivanka's dad lusted after her IS relevant to her personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that in the first sentence. ~mitch~ (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Legal name

Is her legal name "Ivanka" after her mother or Ivana? Raiatea1500 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

deletions today - 01-06-23

I deleted 3 passages today. Here's specifics, and why.

#1 - Deleted paragraph: “In early April 2017, the government of China extended trademarks to Trump's businesses . . .”

Reason: This has already been discussed earlier in this wiki article

#2 - Deleted paragraph: “She was criticized by some in March 2018 after the firing of Rex Tillerson for meeting with the South Korean foreign minister Kang . . .”

Reason: weasel wording… (“criticized by some”)

#3 - Deleted paragraph: “In November 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump shared her schedule with childcare providers . . .”

Reason: this is gossip about a minor thing that ended up being nothing substantial. It doesn’t seem particularly encyclopedic. Eileithyiai (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

Fix punctuation errors at the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph. JackSitilides (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

https://www.compromat.ru/page_44782.htm 85.93.58.43 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I also could not determine whether compromat.ru is a reliable source or not. Liu1126 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Dead link

footnote #20 to town & country 146.203.129.25 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Out of date information

The Footnote section has,

"Ivanka Trump is sometimes also called a 'Senior Advisor to the President' (or sometimes a 'senior advisor to the President', without the upper case 'S' and 'A'), even though that is actually the title of her husband Jared Kushner, while her own title is 'Advisor to the President",

which is written in the present tense, although her father hasn't been president for several years.

'Is' should be changed to 'was' in several places, or the Footnote should be removed. Recommend the latter as it is is of marginal, if any, interest several years after it was applicable. 217.42.2.32 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @217.42.2.32

Do you have a reliable source stating this information? Paytonisboss (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source stating that Trump is no longer president of the US, hence the present tense is incorrect? Good point! Of course, Trump is still president and so Ivanka is still in the role. Make America (Something) Again? 217.42.2.32 (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

hello @217.42.2.32

according to WP:RS you must have a qualifying source that has information on your statement untill then that footnote stands

if you have any questions feel free to contact me via my talk page---> (talk)

best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Paytonisboss, this isn't a factual issue that requires a WP:RS to be verfied. This is a style issue about what verb tense to use when describing a position she no longer holds. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

oh @ZimZalaBim my bad I'm still learning when to apply wprs and when not to Paytonisboss (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ivanka Trump/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CtasACT (talk · contribs) 17:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtasACT - Afternoon: is this ready to be passed? No rush, of course. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty Thanks: i have looked over it thoroughly as stated, but the only improvement i could say adding a bit more to the introduction part of the article at the top and adding sources for that if expanded, other than that the article meets all of the objective requirements to a Good article status, of course for featured article it would need to be a lot more different in structure and stuff since it is a higher tier of Wiki's standards for the Best of the Best, but for Mrs. Ivanka Trump all of the citation(s), images, layout manual and exc meets the bar test Wikipedia has agreed on for it to be rewarded a GA status. There really isn't anything to be said, unless someone else comes in, if not then i think it indeed passed. Wait for 3 days for someone to join if not then i think its finished. CtasACT (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CtasACT, the review below does not indicate which sources were checked to see if they supported the text and to see if there was any plagiarism. The article also has a lot of WP:Proseline and similar choppy prose, which does not suggest clear or concise writing. The article has a section which is entirely empty except for a main link; if this is an important topic that is enough to fail broadness on its own, if it is not important this should not be a section. The lead is incomplete, not covering some of the article's main sections, although the expansion to the lead does not need more sources as suggested. CMD (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Aha you're right, as WP:Proseline states 'Sometimes proseline is a bit sneakier,' so as we agree the sourcing is not the problem the structural integrity would be, so i would suggest you to give a throughout break down one some specific issues which sub-section/section(s): Because i do think that this could be fixed really quickly within 3 days and making this GA go through. Since on WP:Proseline it has a "Example of a proseline and a possible resolution" section which can help it. Well i will let the contributor know to fix this problem. Sincerely thanks! CtasACT (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• On CtasACT (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have let the nominator know about this, again i think this article is 90% done, only some minor structural changes are need as you said as sections and the Proseline, if the nominator is willing they could fix the problem within 2-3 days if not this article would need to be put on hold waiting for recommended changes and then i do think this article would meet any and all GA status requirements (It already meets the Verifiable, NPOV, Stable, Images). Thanks for your vigilance and discreet notice! @Chipmunkdavis CtasACT (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Since you have edited Wikipedia far longer than i have i would suggest for you to correct and all Broad coverage and well written categories within this review, please in you're free time give some fixs for @MSincccc if they are still confused on the instructions CtasACT (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not well read enough on the article subject to make a comment on broadness beyond what is immediately apparent in the article. If the Cultural depictions are important, that section should have a couple of paragraphs explaining them. If the cultural depictions are not that important, the section should probably be replaced with a sentence or two elsewhere. In the lead, at the least a sentence or two should be added to cover Early Life, Social and political causes, and Personal life. The current lead is weirdly abrupt, for example dropping "alongside Jared Kushner" without any indication of who Jared Kushner is. A few of the sources in the lead are not used elsewhere, which indicates the lead was not developed as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I have made changes according to WP:PROSELINE but I would greatly appreciate it if you could fix the "Trump campaign and administration" section as I am presently running short of time. I would return tomorrow hopefully. Regards @CtasACT and @Tim O'Doherty as well. MSincccc (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@MSincccc I think the article is going very well you did fix the section problem it appears on the GA advice, i think you could finish the Trump admin problem through today and tomorrow! And have thought out: thinking the likelihood this article would be given a GA status by me would be by March 20 or most likely the Maximum, of March 21 if the changes are put in! CtasACT (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtasACT I think I have made the changes you suggested. Please go through the article and let me know of your decision. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Passed "good article" nomination

1. Well written?: Meets Wiki guidelines specifically passes the WP:Proseline

2. Verifiable?: Pass (Only small amounts of primary which are used with caution sources Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, the majority are from News sources which meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass (It gives her personal life well without going to deep in addition to giving good in dive but yet the summary point of view in her political activities, again since she had a relatively normal executive position, the in-depth dive wouldn't be necessary as the extent of Presidents or Secretaries of State for example (Even for them broad coverage at an extent is required), which this article balances in it's generalization, which is good in this article and it follows)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass (Overall gives and leans more to the objective factual side rather than lean towards any political or social ideological views of either sides: it gives occurrences, political events, social events and such and responses of such rather than opinion and only opinion which follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

5. Stable?: Pass (No edit wars or conflict regarding article material, only minor edits)

6. Images?: Pass (Reasons:All images have valid copyright tags that meet Wikipedia's Copyright and a non-free rational use: All images are Public Domain or Creative Commons licensed images or audiovisual)

Discussion re: cultural depictions

• I don't think this article should be promoted until we figure out the cultural depictions content. See Talk:Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. Also, as a major contributor to Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump, I don't appreciate that one editor seems adamant about merging the content without appropriate attribution, as I've pointed out. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @CtasACT and Randy Kryn: Putting this comment on your radar, in case you wish to weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also User:Chipmunkdavis, since you commented on cultural depictions above. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Another Believer I am ready to help but failing this review is obviously not an immediate solution. Its still very much early in the process. Lets sort it out all and see if we can get it promoted to GA status. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting a fail (yet). I've only suggested a wait on promotion until this is addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the Cultural depictions article should be kept and expanded, and the parent article (Ivanka Trump) should have a brief summary of cultural depictions. You've said you're ready to help, but from my perspective, all you've done is merged "my" content re: cultural depictions without attribution, flagged a page I've worked on for deletion, and reverted my trimmed version of the cultural depictions from Ivanka Trump. Not exactly constructive collaboration... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Another Believer Lets focus on the present. Now that we know each other I hope the two of us can together work towards a successful GA as soon as possible. Let me know of any changes you wish to make and do make any changes you think are constructive and will take us to our desired goal. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did. I trimmed the Cultural depictions section at Ivanka Trump because I think the Ivanka Trump article only needs a brief summary of Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. If you want to collaborate, then I would ask you to: 1) remove the PROD tag, 2) trim the Cultural depictions section, and 3) expand the Cultural depictions article (if you feel inclined). Otherwise, no other editors have supported your effort to merge/delete, and actually Randy Kryn reverted your merge, so the onus is on you to get consensus to merge. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Another Believer PROD tag has been removed. Would like to know from you just how much needs to be trimmed from the Cultural depictions section of the main article. As for the third proposal, it has nothing to do with the GA review as long as it covers sufficient amount of information on her cultural depictions. I would be happy to help. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a few changes, and I believe Ivanka_Trump#Cultural_depictions is an appropriate summary of Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Another Believer Thanks a lot. Any further recommendations before the article is passed as GA? MSincccc (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I consider the 'cultural depictions' issue resolved for now, but I am not interested in reviewing the rest of the article, nor do I care about Ivanka Trump ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

Discussion welcome at Talk:Cultural depictions of Ivanka Trump ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Is ivanka trump jewish

Unclear
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Converting to judaism does not make you a jew. She is a giyoret. You are born a jew, not converted to. Elinias1 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Full name

The full name "Ivana Marie Trump" is mentioned at Ivanka Trump § Early life and education, but it is unsourced. If that is her full name, it should typically be in the lead sentence per MOS:FULLNAME:

...the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)

The middle name "Marie" was added to the article as early as 2006 by Gilliam.[16] I'm not sure if it's not currently in the lead sentence due to any concerns with WP:CITOGENESIS? —Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking for sources, this appears right off the bat: Town & Country which says "Ivana Marie Trump" is the name listed on Wikipedia for both mother and daughter. Not good for our WP:CITOGENESIS concerns. I'm still looking. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've found:

1. Donald Trump’s Family Tree: All About His Parents, Siblings, Wives and Children. April 15, 2024. People.
2. Did You Know That Ivanka Trump's Real Name Isn't Ivanka?. October 10, 2017. Forward.
3. Ivanka Trump, Archives of Women's Political Communication. n.d. Iowa State University.

None of which precede the edit by Gilliam in 2005 but don't offer Wikipedia as a source as mentioned in my earlier example above (and which also appears in a lot of other sources). Not definitive, but People is at WP:RSPS and given the subject of the article (Family Tree: All About...) I think we can use it? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

People is a reliable source according to WP:RSPS. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The risk is that "reliable sources" often repeat unsourced information already in Wikipedia, leaving us to wonder if the information, especially if published after it was introduced in Wikipedia, was truly vetted.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I found a 1998 source. I can add it later if nobody else gets to it.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

But it got reverted as "Nothing to do with her birth name". Shrug.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)