Jump to content

Talk:Jared Kushner/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

BLP?

Linking to an article entitled "Observer Sold to Jewfia Family" is anti-Semetic, and perhaps slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.172.12.36 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 January 2007

I agree and will edit this ant-semitic comment out. Also slanderous is the comment he bought way into Harvard.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox? Conservative?

Article lists Kushner as Conservative Jew. The reference (#5) to this lists him as Orthodox. Any comments? I will change later if no objections.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Citations needed regarding his political affiliations. I can read that "Between 1991-2006, Kushner was a contributor to the Democratic Party: he contributed over $100,000 to various campaigns in this time period.[30]" meaning that unless it can proved otherwise, he is a democrat.

"Pay for Admission" Claims

The argument that Kushner's family paid for his admission to Harvard as well as the family's donation to NYU prior to his admission there are now noted as claims and references are provided. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions about the veracity of the claims. The entry maintains its neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TippTopp (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Trip to Israel

About: 

   Kushner has served as "an emissary to the Jewish community," helping to plan
   a trip to Israel (that would be cancelled) and to write Trump's speech delivered
   to AIPAC.

The wording "... helping to plan a trip to Israel (that would be cancelled)" might be interpreted to mean that the cancellation was actually part of the original plan. But, assuming that such was not the intended meaning, I would have expected instead something like "... helping to plan a trip to Israel (that was, however, subsequently cancelled)". Toddcs (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox

Edit removing "orthodox Judaism". Summary: "rv Orthodox -- not mentioned in brother's article" - not mentioned..what? From Citizen Kusher: MR. KUSHNER grew up as the oldest son in a large Orthodox Jewish family in northern New Jersey. ... (he was sentenced to serve time there because of a special program for Orthodox Jewish prisoners). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible Tweaks...

In the Real Estate Section there is a reference to "Kushner Companies"... Is that supposed to be Kushner Properties? Or is a poorly formatted reference to multiple businesses collectively referred to as Kushner companies?

Also on the Observer's page there was a motion to remove the "The" from it's title as the user making the motion insisted that it's not part of the title if tge publication. Should that decision be replicated here as it appears to have been executed there?

Feel free to correct these matters yourselves, just wanted to clarify before altering the article personally however...

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.87.223 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am reading an article online by Cosmopolitan that states that Jared spoke to something called The Real Deal (don't know how reputable that is)in 2014 and stated he never got a law degree when his father went to prison. He changed his mind about law. Don't know if he ever completed his MBA either. Someone might check on that.2601:200:8101:D400:85D7:BEB6:4FF5:57EC (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity: Jewish

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. If I'm wrong, that means I can convert my *ethnicity* (various flavours of European, currently) to Judaism, right? Of course not. This is Zionist (AKA "Jewish supremacist") claptrap. It has no place here, or anywhere for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.40.226 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

'Jewish' may be considered as a religious description or an ethnic one, or both; see Ethnoreligious group. In this case, Kushner appears to be both ethnically and religiously Jewish, so there shouldn't be any need for dispute about his categorisation. Robofish (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Net worth

There seems to be quite a bit of unsubstantiated activity surrounding his net worth. Can anyone find a citable reference for it, or something else to do about it? CPMSmith (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

200 milion $ http://gonetworth.net/jared-kushner-net-worth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.195.249 (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content RE: facebook remarks

While a facebook post may not itself be an appropriate source for WP content, the discussion of Kushner's facebook statements in the mainstream press is indisputably well-sourced and appropriate. This content should be restored to the article. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments of estranged cousins on facebook are just not notable for a WP:BLP. The story itself, allegedly the a tweet was antisemitic, is barely notable. Then you are adding coverage of facebook posts about a tweet. The fact it is repeated by secondary sources is not sufficient to included it - thousands of pages are written about every twitter posts Kim Kardashian writes, but those aren't considered notable either. Avaya1 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
As you should know (because it's previously been explained to you) the standard for article content is not "notability" but rather noteworthiness, or significance. Please review the relevant policies and guidelines. As you also know, the content you've now removed 3 times was sourced to the Washington Post, not to facebook. WP doesn't cite any old thing that an individual posts on facebook. WP does cite mainstream RS discussion of such publication, where the treatment in the mainstream press e.g. Washington Post indicates that its significant (not necessarily WP:NOTABLE per se). Please respond to the substance of this objection, rather than simply reasserting your view, which is being challenged here. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's worth repeating WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." --Nbauman (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yglesias article

There's been so much written about Kushner that it's hard to find an article with something new and insightful, but I think this article by Matthew Yglesias, who was in Kushner's 2003 Harvard class, is one.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/21/13651942/jared-kushner-donald-trump
Why Jared Kushner is Donald Trump's truest heir and most trusted adviser
Two rich bridge-and-tunnel kids out for revenge on a cultural elite that mocked them
Matthew Yglesias
Vox
Nov 21, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vox is not a RS and even if you find a RS, this is clearly not worthy of a mention in an article. You are really scraping the barrel here. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 03:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"Matthew Yglesias, who was in Kushner's 2003 Harvard class" My gut tells me we can't use it without introducing WP:BLP issues. I think Yglesias is too close to the subject to use his primary source article to support potentially controversial claims about Kushner on Kushner's BLP. See what happens in a few days. If academics and journalists start covering Yglesias's article, that will demonstrate it's not WP:NOTNEWS and there will be secondary sources to cite. —PermStrump(talk) 03:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know what evidence you have that Vox (website) is not a WP:RS. It hired journalists like Ezra Klein from the Washington Post. Matthew Yglesias is a well-established journalist who was on the staff of The American Prospect and Atlantic Monthly. They get funding from NBCUniversal.
I don't know what there is to wait a few days for. Daniel Golden's book got massive coverage in WP:RS, as the entry (and Yglisias) says. I added that quote because it was relatively sympathetic to Kushner and was defending him.
As to whether it belongs in the article, according to WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Kushner's admission to Harvard despite his poor high school performance has been published by many "mainstream publications" as defined in WP:SOURCE. Those mainstream publications may or may not have been unfair, but under WP guidelines and policies, that subject is verified well enough to meet WP:BLP and belongs in the article. I thought that the coverage was possibly unfair, and Yglesias' opinions were sympathetic to Kushner. So that was my way of establishing WP:NPOV under WP guidelines and policies. --Nbauman (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Vox article is an opinion-piece, it's not a reliable source. It is Yglesias' personal opinions.Avaya1 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the Vox article is an opinion piece rather than first-hand reporting of news? --Nbauman (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Yglesias is writing his opinions down, in his own blog Vox (which is generally op-ed content). The piece has no footnotes and no evidence of in the field reporting, and no interviews or quotes - it is the definition of an op-ed. Avaya1 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not true. Vox is not his own blog, it has other journalists and it's owned by a corporation that employs him. He does have links (which serve the same purpose as footnotes) and quotes. He links to and quotes Time, Politico, New York Times, Daniel Golden's book, Boston.com, Harvard Crimson, Gawker, New Republic, and Independent Journal Review.
So besides that, what evidence do you have that the Vox article is an opinion piece rather than first-hand reporting of news? --Nbauman (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Frisch record and Harvard admission

Some editors want to suppress one of two point of views which are held about this issue:

  1. "He was an exemplary student, who was accepted at Harvard based on that."
  2. "He was an average student, who was accepted at Harvard based on a donation, as was customary at that time."

Both points are justified by several reliable sources. (Although I agree that the point could be made that a spokesperson for Kushner companies can hardly be considered a neutral source of information.)

Wikipedia's content policy asks for a neutral point of view NPOV, so both arguments must be present, since both are verifiable. Please abstain from pushing your own point of view by suppressing the other arguments. It violates Wikipedia's standards.

Extended paragraphs with contested or unverifiable claims are about college admissions are really not due or WP:BLP, in an article about a business person. It merits maybe a sentence - but college admissions are just college admissions. The fact Goldhagen used him as an example as part of an argument in a book on college admissions, doesn't make it more significant.Avaya1 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

666 Fifth Avenue

"At the age of 26, Kushner purchased the office building at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007..." No: his father's company bought it. He wasn't made CEO til the following year. That is why he is not mentioned in articles about the purchase in The New York Times. zzz (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

For his middle school education, he went to Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy and graduated from there in 8th grade 73.29.90.189 (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

membership in the committee of the Friends of Israel Defence Force

I think it would be worth mentioning that, as exposed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Kushner was (or still is) a member of "a group raising money for the Israeli army" (Friends of Israel Defence Force, FIFD):

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.767416

His name was removed from the organization's website as soon as Haaretz submitted questions on the matter; however, it is not clear whether Kushner still has a role in the organization. The google-cached version of the page still shows his name: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EZt8Zu89ACkJ:www.fidf.org/page.aspx%3Fpid%3D709+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

Udippuy (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Government relations

Kuioooooo violated DS and re-inserted the claim that Kushner has dealings with the government of Israel because his company has loans from a bank in Israel. He then claims that because the bank is regulated by the government that is a government relation. In that case, any loan is a government connection. I have given him the courtesy notice of having him revert, or risk being reported. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not violated DS. And it was a legitimate edit. Thank you.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you were the one who first removed the well-sourced content, and having been reverted, you now need to gain consensus.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. And your claim that any bank is a government bank is ludicrous. I am in middle of writing up the complaint. I suggest you self-revert and seek consensus or you risk being blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
That's how it works, in case well-sourced relevant content is removed, and the remover is reverted, the extant version stays while the remover attempts to get consensus. And I never claimed that "any bank is a government bank"--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
See, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." You reverted me without obtaining consensus. And please explain to me how Bank Hapoalim is connected to the Israeli government merely for being regulated, same as any other bank in the world. Again, you need to revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"via reversion" means if you add something and get reverted, don't add it back without consensus. It's not if someone say vandalise Wikipedia and remove well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article, that you can't revert him. Here due to discretionary sanctions, you can revert once. And then the person who got reverted needs to get consensus.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel. And how so is also clearly explained--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So is every bank in the world. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
On top of that, where is the source that Kushner has a loan from Hapoalim? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
NYTimes source very reliable. And foreign bank controlled by foreign government is serious conflict of interest.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The bank is not controlled by a foreign government. How many times must it be said. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Saying it for the last time to you: Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, so is every other bank in the world.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Even if your assertion is correct, that doesn't change the fact that he's linked to a foreign government. And how so, is also clearly explained. So nothing is wrong with stating facts!--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
of course it does. How does having a loan translate to a foreign government connection? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I have re-removed some of this information under WP:BLPDELETE. It is ridiculously poorly sourced; relying on synthesis and original interpretation of sources to reach a conclusion not found in any of them. As Sir Joseph has pointed out multiple times, all banks are regulated by their respective governments; a relationship with a private bank is not a relationship with the regulating government. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Could we rename the section to "links with foreign firms" and add the information back without synthesising anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
If we were to change the title but restore the content without change, the synthesis issues would remain. We were taking reports of a business relationship with a bank, and combining that with the bank being regulated by a government to suggest a relationship with that government. If the content were changed to suggest only a business relationship with the bank, then that may be fairly unworthy for inclusion. "International businessman conducts international business" is not an overly encyclopedic inclusion.
The remainder of the section is also looking more than a little threadbare. Certain parts are not supported by the sources which we use as references; certain parts relate only to Ivanka and contain no content on whatsoever on Kushner. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the synthesis should be removed no matter what, unless the reliable sources also mention the link. See what I can do with the rest of the section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like someone else is violating the rules and restoring the reverted content. Can something be done with this? Ryk72 can you please revert and see if we can get ECP protection? Besides the faulty logic, Kushner does not have a loan out with Bank Hapoalim, his company does. Including it here is a BLP violation of negative insinuations. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Links with foreign entities". New York Times is a reliable source.--Adam Parori (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This statement, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s Bank Hapoalim." is incorrect. Regardless, you reinstated an edit without consensus and you violated discretionary sanctions. You must revert and discuss first. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So Sir Joseph used his friend Ad Orientem to do his job[1]--Adam Parori (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Adam Parori I am an admin. Part of my job is to help keep a lid on content disputes. In this case that involved enforcing WP:1RR. Please take a minute to review that link so as to ensure you know what you are doing here. Discretionary Sanctions are in place on this article due to the controversial nature of its subject. I neither know, nor care about the underlying content disputes. I do care about preventing edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to ping me or you can drop a line on my talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, Sir Joseph was the first one to violate 1RR and he has been edit-warring on this article with other editors as well. Shouldn't you be blocking your friend?--Adam Parori (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Two points. First Sir Joseph is not "my friend." The assertion of bias is offensive and a violation of WP:AGF. Secondly there has been A LOT of 1RR violations on this article. I view blocking as a last resort and it is for this reason that a number of editors have not been blocked. I am hoping that it will not be necessary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
plus blp violations can be reverted.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
and you just again reinserted content without seeking consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As evident from the above discussion, that content is not disputed. Plus, you violated 1RR 5 or 6 times, and should be blocked.--Adam Parori (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Guys please... stop the sniping. Both of you have crossed the 1RR line multiple times and I'm not interested in playing the "but he did it first" game. I STRONGLY encourage both of you to post any proposed changes to the article here on the talk page BEFORE inserting it into the article to see if there are any objections. If I get the feeling that there is any kind of POV or WP:AGENDA oriented editing going on I will raise the protection level on the article and I really don't want to do that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I have to step out for a while. Hopefully nothing requiring my attention will pop up tonight but if it does, I will be back in a couple of hours. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
just to note that blp violations can be reverted without triggering 1rr. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if we are talking about naked and incontrovertible BLP violations. If there is a reasonable possibility of another interpretation then 1RR still applies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

CAUTION: DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS

Relations infobox

Donald Trump was removed as the relations section is not for in-laws. I think Donald Trump is a prominent relative and this should be mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

agree. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

Jared Kushner did not receive a B.A. in Sociology from Harvard, and neither of the references associated with that statement make that claim. I suggest replacing this: "In 2003, Kushner graduated cum laude from Harvard College with a B.A. in sociology." with "In 2003, Kushner graduated cum laude from Harvard College with a B.A." Akillewa (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Court Jew

In this edit, Home Lander reverted an edit by an IP. However sources such as http://forward.com/opinion/345183/is-jared-kushner-the-court-jew-of-donald-trumps-realm/ mention the term "Court Jew". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that; I caught that edit in Huggle. With it having no attached source (and no edit summary), I viewed it likely as simply an attack on him. Home Lander (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I just read the Court Jew article and I have to say that I seriously doubt it meets the sourcing standards for BLP regarding negative content. It reads like a politically motivated hit piece. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we use that source as a reference, but I am saying that as per MOS:NAVLIST it is a somewhat appropriate link to place. Of course if their is consensus to leave the term out I am happy to keep it like that, but I don't feel justified to have it removed just because it was an unexplained IP edit that now has been explained. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Considering that the term Court Jew is a de-facto pejorative, I think we should not add it anywhere in the article absent some WP:RS support for a link between it and Kushner. And I don't believe the Jonathan Levi op-ed can be considered as RS. Of course I will bow to consensus whatever that may be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
BLP aside, this opinion piece is using "Court Jew" as a literary device, making very broad comparisons that cannot be taken literally. For example, we have no RS that says Donald chose his daughter's husband, thus "marry off" is not to be taken as a factual statement. There is a lot of RS material that discusses the anti-Semitism of some Trump supporters and Trump's unwillingness to renounce this convenient circumstance, but the use of the term "Court Jew" is unverified, for the purposes of WP. 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, firstly, the Forward is an opinion piece. Secondly, Kushner in no way relates to the historic definition of Court Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion in infobox changed

I changed the religion from Modern Orthodox Judaism to Judaism. FIrstly, MO is a denomination within a religion, and the infobox calls just for the religion. In addition, I'm not sure we should start micromanaging the label, since it will then become a big deal everytime he does something that might conflict with the rules of the denomination. We should keep it simple, his religion is Judaism. In the article it goes into detail though. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the religion as per the recent consensus at the village pump. I think his religion is not prominent enough to mention in the infobox and I am fairly sure that other infoboxes have even removed the parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
His religion is of course notable and prominent enough. He is the son in law, and one of the most trusted advisors to the President, and his religion comes up plenty of times. There were even news articles about how Trump tweets on Saturday much differently than other days when Kushner is not around. The only question is if to include his denomination, or just religion. The RFC was that if it's not notable, then it shouldn't be mentioned, but in this case his religion is very prominent and notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, just a housekeeping thing, if religion is supposed to be removed from all pages, then have it removed at the template level which would remove it from all articles. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The article currently just specifies that he was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, but not what type he is? How do you resolve we fix this if not having it in the infobox? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? He was raised Orthodox which is fine, but his religion is Judaism. There are many denominations, same as with Christianity. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree that he is Orthodox but I am saying that the infobox specified he was a Modern Orthodox. This information is nowhere in the article. Do you feel going that specific of a denomination is worth mentioning in the article, or do you think as per your original comment that we should keep it simple? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think in the infobox, we should keep it simple. In the article we should mention that he is Modern Orthodox, I will look for a clearer source that mentions it. It shouldn't be too difficult to find, the school he went to (named after his grandfather) is a MO school. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a ref to MO and added it so it's a bit clearer now. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sergey Kislyak russia meetup during campaign

Considering the WP:CURRENT status of this, going to hold on adding, but would be good to see this added.

"WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, then Donald J. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, had a previously undisclosed meeting with the Russian ambassador in December to “establish a line of communication” between the new administration and the Russian government, the White House said on Thursday.

Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and now a senior adviser, also participated in the meeting at Trump Tower with Mr. Flynn and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. But among Mr. Trump’s inner circle, it is Mr. Flynn who appears to have been the main interlocutor with the Russian envoy — the two were in contact during the campaign and the transition, Mr. Kislyak and current and former American officials have said.

..

“They generally discussed the relationship and it made sense to establish a line of communication,” Ms. Hicks said. “Jared has had meetings with many other foreign countries and representatives — as many as two dozen other foreign countries’ leaders and representatives.”

The Trump Tower meeting lasted 20 minutes, and Mr. Kushner has not met since with Mr. Kislyak, Ms. Hicks said."

Shaded0 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Steve Bannon

With this edit an IP has deleted mention of Steve Bannon. Should we reinsert this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, assuming there is no WP:NPV reason to hide it. (There isn't.) Done: "[and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon]" zzz (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

The bio has some tags at the top which have not been clearly explained. Neither template:POV tag nor template:Unbalanced tags conform to required guidelines. According to those guidelines, the editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.--Light show (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think the article is neutral, then feel free to remove the tags. I was annoyed at having to correct the same biased error twice, but I certainly can't be bothered to argue about the rest of the article. Thanks zzz (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How rich is he?

Can anyone find a good number how big is his fortune?وسام زقوت (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean his net worth, or his estimated combined joint assets with his wife? If the latter then please see Ivanka Trump#Personal life. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe $700 M? link--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That is his estimated combined joint assets with his wife, and not a personal net worth. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. "She and her husband are worth up to $740 million, based on recently released ethics filings." - May '17 Vanity Fair--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This article alone says he had lones of one billion. ChrisMerritt16 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Public image as a (youthfully) senior "outsider elite liberal"(?)

... we haven't seen anything quite like the Kushner wing in the White House. And with all the fur flying around Trump's ostensibly reactionary rebellion, we're apt to miss the real revolution unfolding in our midst. ... liberal elites who would never have gotten a seat at the table in any Clinton or Obama administration of elite liberals. Goldman Sachs haters (or fans) might object that the company's alums are never more than a power lunch away from political power in America. But taken as the unit they now are, the configuration of New York non-conservatives clustered around Trump — despite being so well-established in global economic, financial, and cultural circles — is uniquely green on the scene in Washington. James Paulos op/ed @ This Week

Interesting contention. Let's keep a watch on it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Family fortune

The text According to Forbes, in 2017 Jared Kushner and his parents had a personal fortune of around $1.8 billion. is included twice in the article. It is firstly included in the lead, and the exact same words are included in the "Real Estate" subsection of the "Business" section. Should we really be repeating this information word for in the lead and the body? And even if we do, should we include it the "Real Estate" subsection or would it be more appropriate to place it in the "Family history, early life and education" or "Personal life" sections? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Avaya1: Any words you would like to share? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's notable, from Forbes, and it relates to real estate, so it should be the first fact in the real estate section. Whether it should be in lede is an open question. In my opinion, it's the most notable fact about him aside from his political career begun only 1.5 years ago. Avaya1 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Remove. Fortune says, "The Kushner Clan: Jared, Josh and Charles", not "Kushner and his parents". Josh's net worth accounts for at least 13% of the total. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
36% of the "clan's" net worth doesn't relate to real estate, and the majority of the remaining 64% may relate to Charles's net worth rather than Jared's. So the (corrected) text can't go back in the lead until we find out how much of it does relate to the subject. The subject's brother's net worth isn't important enough for the lead. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Challenged edit: substantial assets

@Fixed245: With this edit, you removed the information stating that Kushner has divested substantial assets. Even if this is not worth being in the lead, as it is superseded by the revelation of his conflict of interests, could you please reinsert it somewhere into the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The link doesn't work anymore. I'm happy to include the information if it's accurate, but according to this article, his plan was to "transfer ownership in some of his assets—not all of them—to his brother and to a trust overseen by his mother." Whether that's worth including is debatable, especially since all of the articles I've found refer to his plan to do so, without confirmation that in fact he has done so. --Fixed245 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Business partners in lead

The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. One noteworthy controversy is the subject's partnership with George Soros, headlined in the Wall Street Journal front-page story, "Trump Adviser Kushner's Undisclosed Partners Include Goldman and Soros".

The material recently added to the lead had said, "His current business partners include Peter Thiel, George Soros, and Ryan Williams." It should be reworded to say something like, "His most controversial business partners include George Soros and Goldman Sachs. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think either sentence works. The first one borders on irrelevant without an explanation of context (and business partners change all the time). The second has an almost conspiratorial connotation, and I'm not sure those partnerships have gained very much attention in the first place. Fixed245 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fixed245: "The second has an almost conspiratorial connotation, and I'm not sure those partnerships have gained very much attention..." The second is paraphrased from the headline of a front-page Wall Street Journal story -- above the fold. "Trump Adviser Kushner’s Undisclosed Partners Include Goldman and Soros". The same data appear in the lead sentence of a page 2 story the attached graphic, "Cadre’s Connections". ("Jared Kushner, a senior White House official, has a stake in real-estate company Cadre, as do Goldman Sachs and billionaires such as George Soros.")
From WP:LEADELEMENTS: "Articles should start with introductory text (the 'lead'), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more."
That said, you still can't hypothesize on a Talk page that the data appear to connote the presence of a conspiracy. WP:BLPTALK. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) 17:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Light show: You removed this (as yet unchallenged) material: 'His originally undisclosed business partners include George Soros and Goldman Sachs'. You explained that you "trimmed names not needed in the lead". But WP:LEADELEMENTS says that the lead does need to mention significant controversies. And Kushner's undisclosed business relationships -- with, in particular, Soros and Goldman -- are one such controversy. Also, WP:LEAD says (in its own lead), "A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows." We need to keep from teasing the reader by neglecting to name in the article lead just who the most prominent undisclosed partners are. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A lead shouldn't be used to report news items, over-citing or duplicating sources already in the main body. Keep the lead as a summary of the article without giving undue weight or attention to news stories. Per guidelines, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lead paragraph. --Light show (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Light show: You wrote that "a lead shouldn't be use to report news items [per WP:NOTNEWS], over-citing or duplicating sources already in the main body". To the contrary, WP:NOTNEWS says that if a statement about a living person is likely to be challenged, it must have an inline citation each time it's mentioned -- including within the lead. The policy says nothing about "over-citing or duplicating sources".
You also wrote, "Keep the lead as a summary of the article without giving undue weight [per WP:RSUW] or attention to news stories". The WP:RSUW essay explains that "an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". Kushner has reportedly provided personal guarantees on nearly $300 million of undisclosed debt, and it appears that this is more financially significant to the subject himself than any other personal liability yet reported. It thereby becomes significant to readers who want to learn more about the subject. (Also, Soros reportedly provided the most significant credit line -- $250 million -- to the subject's startup; and this too was not originally disclosed.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kicker Aha: You removed this (unchallenged) material: 'His current business partners include Goldman Sachs and billionaire George Soros'. Citing the "Real Estate" section, you explained that they are "no more important than other partners or assets" and that it is "not clear why this cherry-picking information belongs to lead". The Real Estate section doesn't name any other important partners. (The subject has sold his shares in 666 Fifth Avenue.)

Also, WP:CHERRY recommends finding facts that don't support a particular bias, positive or negative. The facts found in the cited sources are just data, neither positive nor negative. Moreover, WSJ ranks as one of the two least ideologically biased news sources. (See "Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group".)

The data should be included in the lead (1) per WP:CHERRY and (2) per WP:LEADELEMENTS, which requires that the lead mention significant controversies. The article does describe other controversies, but none are as quantitatively significant to the many readers who want to learn more about the subject's current financial interests. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does the lead no longer mention Kushner's emerging conflicts of interest? The text is changing constantly, mostly due to your edits, and there needs to be some measure of stability. Fixed245 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fixed245: I removed this text per WP:BLPREMOVE:
Kushner and his parents have a personal fortune of around $1.8 billion.
I explained that the claim is false. The source says "The Kushner Clan: Jared, Josh and Charles", not "Kushner and his parents". Josh is his brother, not his parent.
I also changed 'He ... continues to draw concerns about potential conflicts of interest', to 'His private financial interests remain a subject of controversy'. I explained that "conflict of interest" is an easily misunderstood legal term. (To illustrate: Kushner's form says, "Conflicting assets of this interest have also been divested". It's hard to understand just what he means by "assets of this interest".)
Also, you cited three RS; and one of them doesn't mention any concerns about conflicts. Instead, it emphasizes (in the headline and lead) that "Kushner Reportedly Failed to Disclose Stake in Real-Estate Tech Start-Up". He
may have left a key investment off his government financial-disclosure forms. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Kushner did not list his part-ownership in a real-estate start-up called Cadre, whose investors include a Goldman Sachs fund ... and George Soros, the Democratic megadonor...
The RS mentions conflicts only in the last paragraph. It says, "Kushner divested from some of his vast business holdings ... to avoid conflicts of interest". He divested from just half of his stake in Cadre. His remaining stake is the only business holding discussed in the WSJ stories. (He has does have 200 others, but they weren't noteworthy enough to be mentioned.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Material not about subject's own finances

This material doesn't seem to pass WP:BLPREMOVE: "According to Forbes, in 2017 Jared, Joshua and Charles Kushner have a personal fortune of around $1.8 billion."

Forbes doesn't say or imply anything about anybody's "personal fortune". See the headline: "Wealth Snapshot: Breaking down Jared Kushner and his family's $1.8 billion fortune". And see the dictionary definition: "fortune: A store of wealth owned (as by an individual or a family)".

Also, the same writer reported just two months earlier that "FORBES estimates that Jared Kushner, his brother Josh and his parents, Charles and Seryl, have a fortune worth at least $1.8 billion." ("Here's how much Jared Kushner and his family are really worth".)

But, $Jared + $Josh + $Charles + $Seryl ≠ $Jared + $Josh + $Charles, unless $Seryl = 0. (WP:CALC.) So the material doesn't seem to pass WP:OR § STICKTOSOURCE either. "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it to imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you're engaging in original research." You especially can't use it to imply an unsupported conclusion that would be important to a reasonable investor in making an investment decision. Like, a decision about whether to invest in Seryl's or Jared's business projects. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Name drops"

@Dervorguilla: The people who have been "name dropped" are Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel.

Schmidt is an "authority" on the online world technology, due to his role as former CEO of Google. He is also unconventional in politics, having been a citizen diplomat to North Korea.

Thiel is a adviser, donor, and support of Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Both names are just dropped into the passage, leaving it unclear to the reader how they connect to the subject. Also, the cited source itself questions whether Schmidt's claim is authoritative. And Thiel may (or may not) be an authoritive source of information on Kushner's project -- but Wikipedia can't use him as one.
1. The RS does say that Schmidt helped design the (losing) campaign's technology system. Judging from the context, though, the RS doesn't seem to respect his knowledge or opinions on the subject of the Trump campaign. ("Authority: Someone whose knowledge and opinions on a subject are respected because of proven scholarship and expertise [concerning that subject].")
2. The RS does describe Thiel as the only high-technology startup funder who publicly backed Trump. It also says that he and Kushner knew each other. But it describes the two as "co-investors in Cadre" -- indicating that Thiel has an apparent conflict of interest. (Financial considerations have the potential to compromise his professional judgment.) Per WP:NOTRELIABLE, Wikipedia can't use him as an authority on Kushner. Questionable sources are those that ... have an apparent conflict of interest... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: I hear your concerns, but to me it seems like clarifying how they are authoritative rather than deleting the comments could be the better option. With regards to the questionability of Thiel no concern is raised in the source, so this seems like speculation to me possibly bordering on WP:OR. However I am open to hear what Wikipedians have to say on this matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Neither claim is authoritative in any way.
1. Schmidt says the subject "actually ran the campaign ... with essentially no resources... Jared understood the online world in a way the traditional media folks didn't." This information would be important to a reasonable investor in making a decision about whether to invest in the subject's "online marketplace". But the Forbes reporter himself questions it. And he ought to know (see WP:SOURCE).
Schmidt goes on to say that the subject "managed to assemble a [winning] presidential campaign on a shoestring... That's a big deal. Remember all those articles about how they had no money...?" The reporter questions this information, too.
Wikipedia does not confuse its readers by republishing a doubtful statement out of context in a way that makes it look like the reporter had let the information go unquestioned.
2. The reporter points out the fact that "co-investors in Cadre include Thiel" and notes that Kushner calls him "[one] of my friends from Silicon Valley..."
WP:V policy says, "Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources." Accordingly, Wikipedia does not consider Thiel a "suitable source" for any article information that promotes Kushner. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: But can't we just include the context in the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: OK, here it is-
"No resources at the beginning, perhaps... FEC filings through mid-October indicate the Trump campaign spent roughly half as much as the Clinton campaign did... This wasn’t a completely raw startup. Kushner’s crew was able to tap into the Republican National Committee's data machine."
FEC filings through December 2016 show Trump's campaign spent $343 million, Clinton's $585 million. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dervorguilla: I think we should also mention the role of Schdmit in the Hillary campaign and that Thiel was a delegate for Trump as well an investor in Cadre, but I am grateful for you including the mention of the campaign spending. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Political affiliation

Is he an Independent according to this source? --EngiZe (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say he's an Independent? It clearly says he's a Democrat. It would be interesting to see if he registered in DC and how he registered. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Note A related discussion took place above at #OK what's the story (tracking down history of K's party affil.)?. Please read that first and don't rehash comments from that, but provide other evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jared Kushner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Identifying the subject's children

Per WP:MINORS, someone who is incidental to an article, but significant enough to mention even without identifying them, should not be identified "even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice." So let's remove the kids' identifying info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Template:Infobox person stipulates:
children | Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable... For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable.
You may proceed accordingly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to corroborate WP:MINORS. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Note A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Ivanka Trump#Identifying the subject's children. Unless some exceptional reason is giving both articles should follow the same conclusion, as they are about the same information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protected following recent vandalism and breaches of the policy on biographies of living persons. Apologies to any genuine IP editors who wanted to contribute; for the next little while please consider posting legitimate edit suggestions here on the talkpage for review. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thanks for protecting this article temporarily, but as the logs indicate this is the fourth time this year this article has had to go under. Next time it might be best to set it for the rest of the time that Trump is in office, as Kushner will likely still be a public political figure. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: yes, unfortunately. I didn't indefinitely protect it this time, in the spirit of open editing. But agree that's where we will probably end up. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

his father's donation to Harvard

Why is his father's donation to Harvard mentioned? It would be relevant to an article about Charles Kushner. Here, placed as it is between "Former school officials described him as a "less than stellar" student" and "Kushner matriculated at Harvard College in 1999", it seems like an implication is being made about how he got into Harvard. Is it true? Or at least is there a source for such a rumour? Otherwise I suggest the sentence about his father's donation be removed from this article.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: That is what is implied by the source.[1] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How did 'less than stellar' high school student Jared Kushner get into Harvard?". The Guardian. 18 November 2016.

It is not a direct quote. It is the headline of an article where the writer references someone else who may have said that. Not first-hand quote. Should not be there and, as I wrote before, is irrelevant to his biography. How he performed at Harvard is another story. Biography should be factual, not annotated and obscured by political or social bias. Larrysbdoc (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Larrysbdoc: The ref quote does note that the subject's father additionally "discussed funding a scholarship program for low- and middle-income students." Has this annotation (or the text itself) somehow "obscured" the subject's biography by "political or social bias"? Do consider that the book's Pulitzer-winning author matriculated at Harvard too. (And he appears to have been well taught.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Married status

When stating that he is married to trumps daughter it should say "President Donald Trump's daughter" ChrisMerritt16 (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

1. In the section on family, there are references to "Kushner" or "Charles" which is confusing. Full name should be used unless the referenced full name appears in the previous sentence. 2. the reference to "less than stellar" among all the other positive reports of Jared's academic credentials and accomplishments is unnecessary, inflammatory, anecdotal and provides no valuable information.

Larrysbdoc (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Larrysbdoc Larrysbdoc (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done point 1, leaving point 2 for wider input. Do the words "less than stellar" appear in the referenced source (ie is this an exact quote)? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Yes, the referenced source includes it as an exact quotation. No opinion on whether it's actually necessary, so IMO this should go to a consensus discussion rather than an edit request (which requires consensus). Izno (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement on family history

Just creating a discussion section for an apparent disagreement. I added a brief blurb discussing Kushner's political history before the Trump campaign. The point of the section was to indicate that Kushner was a strong Democratic supporter before supporting his father-in-laws campaign, a significant change and worth mentioning. I included one sentence discussing his father as a prolific Democratic donor, certainly relevant in terms of giving a perspective of Kushner's upbringing (again, it is one, single sentence). User:Emir_of_Wikipedia seemed not to like this, simultaneously complaining about mentioning the father and about insufficient references. I have added the references. If Emir wants to comment further, he is welcome to.

-- MC

What Charles Kushner has done is not relevant in this article. Furthermore we like to use a maximum of three references except in special circumstances as per WP:TOOMANYREFS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Jared Kushner comes from a prominent family with a strong history of support and influence in the Democratic party. That one sentence barely scratches the surface of that fact, which is very relevant to Kushner's background. I cannot see a reason why that one sentence should be so upsetting (and certainly not how it can be considered irrelevant).
Regarding the references, with all due respect, I made sure it was well referenced since you made it such an issue by deleting the text (as opposed to using the "citation needed" template). I agree that this is more than necessary and you are welcome to cut down the number, as long as we agree that the statement is well referenced.
And mind you, I have no objections if you want to reword/rephrase things. I'm simply saying that I see no justification for the deletions.
--MC
I will see what the consensus of the other editors is on the whole section you have added, but I will not cut down the number of references myself as I do not wish to edit war. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I cut out the irrelevant bits, but did not cut down on the references pertaining to Jared himself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe this needs to be added back in, someone reverted it: Charles served less than half of the sentence in Montgomery, Alabama, where Jared flew down to visit him most weekends. [1] It is a relevant fact of his Jareds background that may have driven his future actions w regards to company growth and chris christie. Falazar (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Falazar: Good point. Some sources do interpret this fact as relevant to his future hostile actions towards Christie. But the simplest explanation is just that he would have needed to get his father's advice on handling numerous controversial business issues. "A face-to-face meeting may be [the most appropriate way] to handle a controversial issue." (Alred, 11th ed.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Family First: The Trials of Jared Kushner".

Espionage Act of 1917, and also Sedition.

Can someone add in some background on the Espionage Act of 1917?

Plus how sedition works in the USA.

Presumably the US President can pardon anyone at any time of any charges relating to Espionage and/or Sedition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done because it would be irrelevant to this article as it presently stands, and a potential breach of WP:BLP. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

www.washingtonpost.com June 1 2017: Explanations for Kushner’s meeting with head of Kremlin-linked bank don’t match up

Mention in the article ? (sry, I'm no native speaker) --Neun-x (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Kushner/Archive_1&oldid=1136836891"