Talk:Ivanka Trump

Senior Advisor to the President

@Vjmlhds: please discuss here why you want to us to call her a "Senior Advisor to the President" instead of following the WP:RSs. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I have 2 sources (CNBC and CNN) which note her as a senior advisor, and there's plenty more I can add as well. This isn't something I pulled out of the sky. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please present the sources here so that we can discuss and gain consensus instead of engaging of verging into an edit war. It would also be nice if you revert back to the consensus version whilst the outcome of this discussion is still pending. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

[1] [2] I've added BOTH sources to the article, which if you had just taken a second and stopped to see instead of blindly reverting, you'll see I'm in the right here, and it is you who are causing the problems. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Where do these sources say that she is "Senior Advisor to the President" though? They are saying that she is an adviser who is senior, not that her title is Senior Advisor. The sources in the sources subsection show the actual title. Please revert to the consensus version instead of blindly causing problems. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW...the revision before this issue began had her listed as "senior advisor", and there was no consensus on anything prior to this - only one with a hang up about this appears to be you. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You added it with this edit [3] on the 1 February 2019. The version without senior had been longstanding since 2017 [4]. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about where it stood before this current dispute, which stood for over a week before you reverted. There was no real issue prior to today. You were incorrect in saying there was "consensus", because the issue never came up until recently, as a whole bunch of sources (as I documented) refer to her as Senior advisor. You're coming off as this is some kind of personal affront. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, you're the only editor that seems to have a problem with this. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that the one week where it stood discounts the year where nobody challenged it. The sources you have provided describe her a an advisor who is senior, none of them say her title is Senior Advisor. The fact that you reverted the other editors I made in the time with no explanation instead of just changing the bit about the title does make this seem a bit like a personal affront though. And you were the only editor who seemed to have a problem with following the sources in the over a year the version without Senior was up. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a you problem, then. If a third set of eyes wants to take a peak over here and chime in, I'd be fine with that, but you can't take it personal when one of your edits gets undone...price of doing business on Wikipedia. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine having a "third set of eyes" giving a view, but you still have not explained why you reverted the rest of my edits that were not related to the title of role, like the sourcing of an unsourced statement [5]. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

OK....[22][23][24][25][26] I can go on and on, but then it just starts looking like a (to keep it clean) urinating contest. There are plenty of credible sources that say both. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

According to official WH bio, her title is Advisor to the President. She is also a senior advisor, but senior is used there as an adjective, not as her title. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bangabandhu, so do you think there is consensus to revert back to my version? Perhaps adding mention that she has been described with the adjective, senior? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What I'm finding is all of the government-related websites list her as Advisor to the President. It is the news articles that describe her as a senior advisor to her father without listing her formal title. Therefore, I agree that this necessitates a revert. KyleJoan^talk 04:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

KyleJoan, are you willing to revert then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! KyleJoan^talk 04:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Yael Kushner"?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is her legal name? I've only ever seen her called (both by herself and others) "Ivanka Trump". Jews frequently have a Hebrew name for religious purposes in addition to a secular name, and the secular name is their legal name. Is there any actual proof that she is legally "Yael Kushner"? After all, we don't say that Jared Kushner is really "Yoel Chaim Kushner" (which is his Hebrew name) Lovesaver (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the long-term stable version of the intro sentence until the present discussion reaches consensus. Wikipedia goes by WP:COMMONNAME, not official or religious names, so that I think the proposed change is unwarranted. No objection to mentioning her religious name later in the sentence. — JFG ^talk 09:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I should say upfront that I'm not convinced "Yael Kushner" is actually her legal name, so (given the lack of coverage) we shouldn't use it. That said, MOS:FULLNAME is actually confusingly-worded on this point. (It might require some clarification.) It says In some cases, subjects have had their full names changed at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given in the lead as well, but it doesn't specify how or which one should be given prominence (as noted, I'm dubious that her name was legally changed, and she doesn't seem to publicly use Yael, so it's hard to see a justification for including it here.) MOS:LEGALNAME says For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym., but (keeping in mind that we have no evidence that this is her legal name), even if it were, I would say that if the possibility for exceptions implied by that 'usually' ever applies, this would be a case to apply it. I'm inclined to say that, absent any indication that this is her legal name, and absent any indication that she publicly uses or prefers it, it's just a non-notable Hebrew pseudonym and therefore not something that should be covered in the lead (only notable pseudonyms go there.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Lovesaver has been consistently doing this sort of thing re: Judaism across many articles, usually without sourcing or source-hijacking. They are prominently naming people as Jewish in the lead section. It must be held to a high bar of sourcing quality and demonstrate an understanding of our naming guidelines and self-identity guidelines. -- GreenC 13:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never made any other Judaism-related edits Lovesaver (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you misread Lovesaver's comment. Regardless of what they said on other articles, in this one they're arguing against using "Yael Kushner" in the lead, on account of us not having any sources supporting the idea that it's her legal name. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Then I am confused. -- GreenC 15:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You've confused me as well! Are LissanX and Lovesaver the same person? --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Two red link users editing at the same time on the same thing got me confused. Carry on :) -- GreenC 18:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like LissanX is doing this to a lot of Trump-related articles, he edited Vanessa Trump and Lara Trump to say that they were Jewish, even though neither of them is. Lovesaver (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

First Daughter is not a recognized Federal title. It does not appear in the Order of Precedence that governs protocol rank within the government. This is a fictional title and should be removed from the page. Awrush (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: First daughter does not need to be a recognized Federal title to be used in Wikipedia. The term need only be used by a large portion of sources. The term 'First daughter' meets this requirement, as its use is widespread, having been used in the past and with other presidential daughters including Chelsea Clinton, Amy Carter and the Bush sisters.  Spintendo  09:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, this has been removed from the infobox (by another editor).[27] Rightfully so, as the infobox should only list office titles. No prejudice to mention that media have been calling her "first daughter" in the article body. — JFG ^talk 10:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Investigation For Felony Fraud: Trump SoHo Hotel

This is probably a controversial subject, and I'm not exactly sure how Wikipedia handles subjects like this, but I think this page should include her involvement with the Trump SoHo Hotel Project, as she was an instrumental role in it.

" In June, 2008, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka, alongside their brother Eric, gathered the foreign press at Trump Tower in Manhattan, where Ivanka announced that sixty per cent had been snapped up. “We’re in a very fortunate position where we have enough sales, and now we are strategically targeting certain buyers,” she said.

None of that was true. According to a sworn affidavit by a Trump partner filed with the New York Attorney General’s office, by March of 2010, almost two years after the press conference, only 15.8 per cent of units had been sold." Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump-jr-avoided-a-criminal-indictment

Other sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html https://uk.reuters.com/article/trump-investors-dollar-idUKN26147420080626 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/travel/30checkin.html?module=inline https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/ivanka-and-donald-trump-jr-were-investigated-for-felony-fraud https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-soho-criminal-fraud-case-ivanka-don-jr-dropped-after-campaign-donation-2017-10 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/17/ivanka-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-organisation-subpoena https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/560849787/trump-soho-a-shiny-hotel-wrapped-in-glass-but-hiding-mysteries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demtrivaldez (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ivanka is incorrectly spelled Ivana throughout this article. I could not log in on my old account (forgot password) so created a new one (forgetting I still could not edit this article).

Someone needs to add 'k' to all the Ivanas, which should read Ivanka (excepting those Ivanas which are referring to her mother Ivana), since I cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MutualAssuredDestruction (talk • contribs)

No, the article is currently correct. Please do not edit it. Dbfirs 16:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Parents were married

In this diff [28] User:Trillfendi you sound personally offended or something ("Stop. Just stop"). Please know this is not the case to upset or offend you. It is normal in biography articles to clarify that the parents were married. Indeed, Ivanka Trump was not born out of wedlock, her parents were married. The easiest way to convey this information is by saying they were married. So I am confused by your reversions of this information. How might we resolve this? -- GreenC 21:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: It wasn’t personal offense to the obvious fact that they were married but more to the manual of style for the scope of the WikiProject(s) this article is involved in. For a while now I’ve been correcting it yet for some reason people insist on putting it back. Long story short, it’s not particularly relevant how many times the man has been married, Ivana Trump is notable for her own career therefore you have to lead with that career rather than that gendered ownership language which WikiProject says. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Ivanka Trump not Ivana. The sentence is about Ivanka's parents (plural). It is important to note that her parents were married when naming them. I don't know anything about gendered ownership language, the sentence is attempting to communicate that her parents were married. Can you please find a way to clarify that her parents were married. -- GreenC 02:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares. It truly does not matter when describing someone as progeny. Tiffany is no different. If that were the case you're going to have to go through every child of a famous person's article and put this "first wife" bullshit instead of the standard of their job. Stella McCartney, Zoë Kravitz, Lily Collins, Michael Douglas, Wolfgang Van Halen, Colin Hanks, countless examples exist. So for every man that has ever been divorced that now has to preface their notability. This is called sexism. Trillfendi (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I get that it doesn't matter to you, but it matters to people if she was born out of wedlock and the way it's currently worded it's unclear if her parents were married or not. If you don't like 'first wife' there must be another way to word it. I'm giving you the opportunity to find a way to say that her parents were married. It is conspicuously missing which is an open question creating a BLP problem. -- GreenC 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Section in Early Life about Presidential Inauguration

This has zero to due with her early life and should be removed. IEditThingsForYou (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree ~ not removed but moved to 2016 presidential campaign and election ~mitch~ (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Moved to 2016 presidential campaign and election section ~mitch~ (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Should the lead section say Ivanka's parents were married?

Should the lead section say that Donald and Ivana Trump (parents of Ivanka Trump) were married? -- GreenC 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Specifically to resolve this 16-month revert series by one user:

• July 5, 2019: "Donald Trump and his former wife model Ivana Trump"
• June 20, 2019: "Donald Trump and his first wife, Ivana Trump
• May 2, 2019: "Donald Trump and Donald's first wife Ivana Trump"
• March 17, 2018: "Donald Trump, and his first wife, former model Ivana Trump"

More discussion above in Talk:Ivanka_Trump#Parents_were_married. -- GreenC 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom, and seeding survey. I attempted compromise wording June 25: "She is the daughter and second child of formerly married President Donald Trump and model Ivana Trump", but it got reverted by a different user back to the "first wife" language. We need to establish some consensus to avoid this slow motion edit warring. It is also a BLP problem, there is no clarity that her parents were married it opens questions if she was born out of wedlock ie. illegitimate. -- GreenC 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I Support your edit ~ 'She is the daughter and second child of formerly married President Donald Trump and model Ivana Trump"," I've been watching, and I can only chuckle ~ back and forth etc.. ~ I'm glad we can finally resolve this issue ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I went to Maureen Reagan and found the following: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (January 4, 1941 – August 8, 2001) was the first child of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and his first wife, actress Jane Wyman. I suggest something similar here.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the lead simple per Maureen Reagan example. The compromise wording is awkward. A more detailed description can be laid out under Early life. Glendoremus (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)