Talk:Jared Kushner/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

1st opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Initiate review of sections

0 Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

1 Early life

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

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

2 Business career

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

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

2.1 Real estate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This source [1] makes it look like his father was the one behind it. I will look more into the issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

2.2 Newspaper publishing

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

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

3 Politics

3.1 Political background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not seen a source explicitly say that but I have seen sources like this [2] where it says Kushner is not trying to his politics to change his father in law. It is an unusual situation and I am surprised that with the huge coverage of Trump that a source has not made such a statement, but I will look further. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

John Oliver is a comedian and not a reliable source. There is an extensive reliable source literature of Kushner as unqualified as seen here [3], and here [4], and here [5]. This is an issue. Previously, JFK had RFK join his administration because RFK was qualified. This case with Kushner does not appear to have anyone speak of his useful credentials outside of being born into a wealthy real estate firm. This topic of Kushner being discussed as unqualified in the reliable sources press should be included. The article as a whole still needs a transition section also from 2014-2017 perhaps (or whichever years you feel best express this transition) to explicitly cover his move out of real estate and into politics as soon as you have a chance. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

3.2 Presidential campaign

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 Presidential transition

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

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

That's a good place to start. The other interview is the Barbara Walters here [6] shows where she interviews all the siblings together and gets all the siblings to admit that Ivanka was the favorite (see 1:07:00 in the YouTube file I linked above). JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

What do you think of this source [7]? It specifically states "Kushner is married to Trump’s favorite child, his daughter Ivanka." in its first paragraph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

3.4 Senior Advisor to the President

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

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

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

3.4.1 FIRST STEP Act

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

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

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

3.4.2 Russian investigation

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

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

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

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

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

4 Personal life

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

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

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

General comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick close of review subject to future improvement of this article

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2nd Opinion request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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