Talk:Jared Kushner/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Admission to Harvard

That Kushner was accepted to Harvard due to his father's relationship with the school is pertinent and basic bio info. The content in question is sourced to reporting by ProPublica and the Guardian, so is perfectly fine. The content should not be deleted.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Kushner and Harvard

I removed a bit sourced to the opinion of one journalist, about Kushner's acceptance into Harvard, which was reverted, self reverted, and then reverted again naturally by Snooganssnoogans. If editors think such content is warranted, we may need to revisit the Hunter Biden, George W Bush, and the countless other sons and daughters of prominent and rich people who get into Ivy League Schools. Who cares what Daniel Golden thinks about Kushner? This doesn't belong in an encyclopedic BLP. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Snoog for some reason I didn't see your above topic. Note that Trump's kids all went to Ivy League Schools. How in any way is that content relevant? The content is sourced to one journalist. What does one journalist's opinion matter? People can say anything they want. Thanks for opening a talk page discussion. Should we merge these two? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ernie. Otherwise we'd need to include opinions as to why Jared Kushner is the mideast peace mastermind and Melania is in charge of anti-Bullying, etc. A slippery slope. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Or why Michelle Obama was in charge of school lunches. Or why Hunter Biden was on the board of a formerly corrupt Ukrainian energy company. Yeah, we all know why. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both the articles for Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton link their initiatives as First Ladies to their position as First Lady. I'm pretty sure all the other figures you mention make very clear that they are the children of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. So I'm not sure what point is being made. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ernie, what exactly was your point? All the first ladies have taken on a mission on a matter of special concern to them. And Melania has taken on a mission of no apparent concern to her. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please merge the discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why other notable people who got into prestigious universities due to donations by their parents should not have that noted in their BLPs if it's substantiated by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lean include. Seems due, so long as it's attributed. And yes, other BLPs where this is due should include such. As for the comment on Hunter Biden, his article contains quite a bit about Burisma Holdings. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

We really don't know why or how anyone gains admission to Harvard, but this matter was extensively and long covered by RS so it could be used with attribution, specific or general. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. All of the material comes from Golden's book. Here's the kicker - "Of the 400-plus tycoons on Harvard’s list — which included people who were childless or too young to have college-age offspring — more than half had sent at least one child to the university." Mr Ernie (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So include? SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I still think no, because it's singling Kushner out when he's not the only one, comes from a single source (Golden's book), and could therefore be seen as a BLP violation of UNDUE. But it seems consensus is against me. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources for this. Perhaps Snnogs already has them in his computer. It's not singling out Kushner to put Kushner's biography in the article solely about the topic Jared Kushner. In the article about Pope Francis, we don't list all the other pontiffs. UNDUE is not about other topics, it's about whether content is adequately represented in mainstream sources. In this case, it is widely and long established in sources. Thanks for your reply. Looks like a green light on this one, properly attributed. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The Golden article in Propublica never says "Kushner was accepted due to his father's donations and history with the school." [quoting our current article] It merely suggests that as a likelihood, not a fact. We are told his father gave a big donation, that unnamed sources at his high school were surprised he got in, and that it is common for "the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations." The Harvard admission page advises potential applicants: "There is no single academic path we expect all students to follow..."[2] We do not know what factors Harvard considered, we just have surmise and anonymous gossip. This claim does not belong in the article.--agr (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes this should be included. Many reliable sources and fitting. Also brought up here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jared_Kushner_%E2%80%93_father_made_$2.5M_donation_just_before_Harvard_admission ContentEditman (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bring that current BLPN discussion to my attention. I've replied at the noticeboard. --agr (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Unsubstantiated text regarding Jared Kushner's role in the White House administration response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Amandaesq (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Amandaesq. Amandaesq (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

create a "In popular culture" section?

Create a "In popular culture" section.

One minor example; Jared Kushner: Coronavirus Hero Boy on YouTube published May 6, 2020 Some More News

X1\ (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead should cover his role in the coronavirus response

It's indefensible to remove text from the lead about his role in the administration bungled coronavirus response. At this point in Kushner's life, it is the most notable and important thing he's ever done. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, no, it's not, and perhaps the fact that you wrote that with such a POV shows that you might want to take a step back from editing in this area. It's OK to have a POV but if you can't edit in a neutral manner then that becomes a problem. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I propose to add the following text to the lead: (i) Kushner played an influential role in the administration's coronavirus response, (ii) Kushner advised Trump that the risk of the coronavirus was exaggerated, and (iii) Kushner authored an error-riddled Oval Office address (the second of Trump's presidency). Is there any NPOV violation or violation of UNDUE in the proposed text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The body should cover his outside income

We should cover[3] how much he earned in outside income while serving in the White House, as reported by RS. It goes to the heart of the concerns raised regarding conflicts of interest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Revisionist biographical info about Charles Kushner

The wiki page for Charles Kushner states: In 2005, he was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. He resumed his career in real estate after his release from federal prison and halfway house. As is evident, Charles Kushner is no longer a "former" real estate developer, but describing him entirely as "real estate developer" brushes over the semi-interrupted nature of his career. As it stands, the description is at the very least not up to date with current facts present elsewhere on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.33.103 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation - Please Review - "Kushner helped write the Oval Office address that President Trump gave to the nation on March 11, 2020, along with Trump's far-right advisor Stephen Miller"

The citation for the sentence that reads: "Kushner helped write the Oval Office address that President Trump gave to the nation on March 11, 2020, along with Trump's far-right advisor Stephen Miller."

The reference is currently: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trumps-coronavirus-unity.html The above link mentions nothing of the sort!

I find that the actual reference exists, and it should be changed to: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-address.html This link to a New York Times article clearly mentions Mr. Kushner and alleges his participation in the construction of the address.

Please review, and if necessary revise, or if I'm mistaken, please give me some feedback!

Thanks to all, and keep up the good work! 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. But actually the cited source does "mention something of the sort". It says, "Drafts were written and rewritten, beginning around 5 p.m., with Mr. Kushner seen as in charge as the president’s chief speechwriter, Stephen Miller, wrote, and the communications office of the West Wing left out of the discussions." So I think we can leave it as is. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing I have removed from this sentence is the strange description of Stephen Miller as "far-right" here, which the linked source does not do. It refers to him only as Trump's chief speechwriter. - DoubleCross (‡) 16:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How to describe him in the lead sentence

The current lead sentence says Kushner is "an American investor, real-estate developer, and newspaper publisher who is senior advisor to his father-in-law, Donald Trump, the president of the United States." User:Northern Moonlight modified it to say he is "an American investor, real-estate developer, newspaper publisher and politician who is…" I reverted because IMO he does not meets the definition of Politician - he has never run for or held elective office, or been active in party politics - and I don’t think most people think of him as a politician. In a search I could not find any Reliable Sources describing him by that term. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue he is a political appointee, not a politician. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Influence on COVID-19 response

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find a strong consensus to include at least 1 and a weak consensus to include 2. The majority of editors oppose including 3. I am giving a bit more weight to recent comments since the related body section has changed somewhat since originally proposed. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead mention that Kushner:

1. played a leadership role in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response?
2. advised Trump in the early months of the outbreak that the media was exaggerating the threat of COVID-19?
3. drafted Trump's error-riddled March 2020 Oval Office address about the COVID-19 crisis?

The content would summarize this section[4], the largest in the body of the article. original date: 18 July 2020 (UTC). Date for re-start of RfC: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment Also, the promised "do I need a test" software, promised for early March and illustrated by a flowchart hoisted by Dr. Birx at a press event, that was to be engineered by a company affiliated with Jared's brother in law. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• 1 and 2 Considering the amount of text devoted to the COVID19 response, it makes sense to give it weight in the lede. 3 seems just a little bit too specific. ~ HAL333 15:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Close summary of the New York Times article.Manabimasu (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC);Manabimasu (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  The Coronavirus pandemic section includes sources other than the New York Times article. Don't you think the lead should summarise that instead of cherry-picking one article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Emir of Wikipedia: Fine I will redact my opinion. Would you participate in the survey in my stead?Manabimasu (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, 2, 3. Being in a leadership role in an unprecedented and extended crisis which has killed 138K+ people in the US, destroyed the economy and affected every person's life in the US is clearly important enough to warrant a mention in the lead (1). In terms of specific actions, Kushner was a prominent voice within the administration downplaying the severity of the coronavirus which affected the administration's response (or lack thereof) (2) and he also played a key role in drafting what was only Trump's second Oval Office Address during his presidency, which was error-riddled and subject to several comprehensive deep-dives by high-quality RS, which indicate its importance (3). The content encompasses the largest section of the body in Kushner's article, thus justifying some content in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes 1, not sure of 2 and 3, because it needs to be kept short for the lead. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes 1 (qualified); No 2; No 3. I think these are all too specific, and the introduction needs to stay relatively ambiguous and general - since any detailed dissertation can all be laid out later in the main body. I would say "QUALIFIED" yes to (1) and change it by removing the word "leadership." Two reasons; 1) He's not a doctor, nor is he medically trained, making it dubious that he had the knowledge to lead in that manner; 2) It's too specific, and any allusions to his leadership of the situation can be laid out in the body later on. So I'd make it "Had a role in the COVID19 response. Let's remember, there is a White House Coronavirus Task Force and Mr. Kushner isn't even on the force, he's hardly "leading" that response, and in fact, Vice President Pence is the leader of the response and of the task force (I'm not hijacking this discussion - just pointing this out) which also lends credence to the word "leadership" being dubious. Also I would be careful about adding (1) without references and an expanded section in the body of the article. As the article stands presently, there is actually no support for the statement "played a leadership role in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response" and actually the topic of COVID-19 is nowhere in the article. So even if I agree that (1) is important, I would not add it. Also, you need references, and there are not any at the present. First - put the topic into the body. Second - add the mention (sentence 1) to the lead. Not before. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• The citations are in the body of the article. If you haven't read any of the article and are disputing that Kushner held a leadership role (despite what RS say), then I don't think much weight should be put on your opinion here. Politico: "Jared Kushner... has emerged as perhaps the most pivotal figure in the national fight against the fast-growing pandemic."[5] NY Times: "President Trump’s son-in-law has become a central player in the administration’s effort to curb the pandemic."[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I checked your links, and the references you're using, and they appear to be indisputable. I'm confused as to why your suggestions (the three options) only mention the term "COVID-19" when that term appears nowhere in the article. Would it be somewhat more prudent to change that to terminology consistent with the rest of the page that we're working on? That would prevent some confusion, since at least one other editor was confused by it as well (and possibly others). Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Don’t be silly - there’s basically *NO* body content about this, certainly not a section-size worth, so clearly not WP:LEAD material. Should have at least put in the current “none” as an option. All these are just not BLP significant so shouldn’t be here - going into details about a single speech or individual remark ... relatively low WEIGHT so UNDUE, and there’s no enduring impact to his life so just not a big part of his BLP. Think there already was a reject of that speech, but not here  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Markbassett Sorry if I'm hijacking this discussion, but this answer (that you've stated) isn't what the survey asks. There is no "none" option, obviously, because the option of "NO" on each choice is just as valid as "YES" on each choice. There is no such thing as a "silly" question, in the academic sense, and I think you'll agree that this poll is truly an academic exploration of three options, given as an investigatory exercise in what the wording of the article is to consist of. Thanks for the feedback, and keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• This comment should be completely disregarded. Not only is there content in the body on this[7], it is the largest section of the body of the article. Your comment is not only false, but it's frankly mind-boggling that anyone could even argue that helping to lead the response to the coronavirus pandemic in the US is not significant or of enduring impact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett: a quick review of the page shows thats not true at all. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Snooganssnoogans & User:Horse Eye Jack! Thanks to both of you, for pointing these issues out, and for participating. I think I can clear this confusion up, if you don't mind. The issue is only that of terminology. The term that's used in this poll is "COVID-19," which appears nowhere in the article. What DOES appear in the article are the words "pandemic" & "coronavirus." This confused me as well. There's perhaps a need for abrogation here. Maybe the terminology should be consistent to avoid confusing people (even if it's only a minority of us). Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack Thanks for the ping. I apologise for being too quick and doing horridly there. I will try some more and hope to be clearer and less nutso. In general, still no ... I see the section is about Trump said this or Trump did that - the content is largely not about Kushner, and his bits are little nothings. On a side note the wording here would be Coronavirus not COVID if it’s to be a match, looking for COVID only saw one tidbit here. As to individual question..

1. played a leadership role in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response? - No, the content doesn’t portray that at all. It states that he was an “influential advisor”, but other than he still had the “Senior Advisor” job there’s really nothing shown here of his having a leadership role in the response. HHS and then Pence got tagged to lead the response, Trump and Fauci and Birx did speeches and responses. Kushner had no leadership position, is not in charge of anything, and is not shown as a decision maker. Got to be one third of a team writing a speech, made a couple comments that got reported ... meh.
2. advised Trump in the early months of the outbreak that the media was exaggerating the threat of COVID-19? - it’s a trivial amount in the body of a single line non sequitur, reproducing the entire thing in lead is unwarranted both because it’s not a key item and because it looks UNDUE even in body. This seems another saying nothing much again... Is there any doubt that “in the early months” the threat assessment - by WHO, Congress, etcetera - factually was not big ? In addition, is there any doubt that the Trump administration routinely holds the media in low regard ? I’m seeing this as ‘Kushner in had the then-low official estimates of many sources and voiced the usual disbelief for media as exaggeration’
3. drafted Trump's error-riddled March 2020 Oval Office address about the COVID-19 crisis? - again, what’s unusual or noteworthy here ? Isn’t he usually part of writing things and isn’t President Trump often criticised for such? That part seems again talking about Trump, not Kushner.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Your response on the first point is just straight-up gaslighting. RS very very clearly say Kushner had a leadership/key/central/influential role in responding to the pandemic. Politico: "Jared Kushner... has emerged as perhaps the most pivotal figure in the national fight against the fast-growing pandemic."[8] NY Times: "President Trump’s son-in-law has become a central player in the administration’s effort to curb the pandemic."[9] WaPo: "Trump told the group... he’d installed a team of “geniuses” led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner to handle much of the response"[10] Vanity Fair: "White House insiders describe... Jared Kushner as a “de facto president” who has played a key role in the administration’s response to coronavirus"[11] USA Today: "Kushner has played an influential role in guiding the administration's response."[12] I find your doubling-down to be disreputable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But within the article there is no stated leadership role, not statement of leading the teams, no stated decision authority, and not even stated the someone making speeches. And outside the article it seems no actual leadership role, no actual running the CRT, no actual decision authority, etcetera. Body that relates he was a part of a muffed speech and website is not proper to characterize as “playing a leadership role”. That’s overstating. He was a senior advisor before & during the events, but not particularly in a leadership role for the response. Elsewhere in the body it states he was given lead for an innovation office and that Trump regrets following his lead for the First Step... but the article doesn’t have him leading here.... mostly it seems talking about President Trump, not Kushner. And if I go to the article about the pandemic, I see Trump, I see Fauci, .... I don’t see Kushner. Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1 and 2, no to 3. All are true and probably relevant but I just think 3 is pushing it a bit far, he’s produced *a lot* of error ridden work so I just don’t really see the notability of mentioning that his COVID work had errors. If Kushner ever drafts something that isnt error ridden that would be notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 and 2 per MOS:LEADREL. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1 there's no need to discuss details in the lede, that's what the main body is for. a single line emphasizing that he played a "significant role in the Trump administrations pandemic response" would be better than mentioning his "leadership role" in particular. Xcalibur (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 The first option (1) is more appropriate because it is short enough for the lead and it is not very necessary to indicate more details in the lead. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, without details. No on #2, strong oppose to #3. Re #1, Kushner has been described as running a kind of "shadow coronavirus taskforce" within the White House, to the point where people weren't sure who to obey or who was calling the shots; I hope that is in the article text. But not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't in the article text, but it is now. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Yes to 2 and 3 Intro line already mentions he is a senior advisor to Trump. I don't think a vague statement like played a leadership role in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response is needed. I mean what is this leadership role? On the other hand assertions 2,3 are statements of facts, echoed by reliable sources, and very relevant presently, for readers to know. - hako9 (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, though definitely mention all three within this article. I just don't see the purpose in overburdening the LEDE with the excessive details of 2 and 3.Kate Riley2019 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 (no to 2 & 3)-- 1 should suffice and it summarizes the content in the most neutral manner. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1,2 and 3 - As per Snooganssnoogans clear and fair reasoning. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1,2, and 3. A huge part of the body is devoted to extensively-sourced coverage of this topic, so the key points naturally need a mention in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 & 2 NPOV requires some details of performamce if we mention leadership Spudlace (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 & 2, but 3 seems a bit nit-picky for the lead. I don't feel super-duper strongly about this either way other than "yes to 1 at least" is pretty much mandatory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 & 2 - The 3rd is too much detail for the lead. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2021 (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.

NPOV/ Tone should be more encyclopedic

"Trump put Kushner in charge of brokering peace in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, despite the fact that Kushner had no foreign experience or experience in the Middle East.[107][108][109]"

I would say adding the bit "despite the fact that Kushner had no foreign experience" is not NPOV and is as irrelevant as it's unencyclopedic. Moreover, it's already mentioned in the lede that he is a recipient of nepotism something not mentioned in any of the children of Democrat politicians (I wonder why that maybe - sarcasm).

So if this is relevant I will go ahead and adjust Hunter Biden's page to say he had no experience to warrant serving as a member of the board of a Ukrainian energy/oil company. Not to mention Kushner successfully negotiated peace settlements in the Middle East that notable politicians such as John Kerry had deemed not possible to be done - so please inform me why this bit is relevant or in the least not mean it should be similarly mentioned on Hunter Biden's page... I'll wait.

Pformenti (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pformenti, how is that POV? It's factual, it's been mentioned in the sources (though I haven't checked, I would imagine it says so in at least one of the three sources presented in the article, citations 107-109), and it's relevant to say he had no experience in the area when he was appointed. This article mentions the Abraham Accords, so what exactly is the NPOV violation here? Hunter Biden has nothing to do with Jared Kushner, don't WP:OTHERSTUFF. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I just read through the countless discussions of you and other Wiki editors whitewashing Hunter Biden's page, the fact that you mention he has no experience and is a recipient of nepotism here but not on Hunter Biden's page is why people think Wikipedia is a joke. Pformenti (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Change sub-heading "His security clearance" to just "Security clearance", unless there's some reason to include the pronoun that I'm not seeing.

Wikipedia headings typically don't use such pronouns - "Conflicts of interest", not "His conflicts of interest"; "Usage of WhatsApp for White House duties", not "His usage of WhatsApp for White House duties"; et cetera. Unless there's a readily apparent point to the increased specificity, such as to contrast "his something" with "another something", the latter versions sound rather clunky, no?

- 2A02:560:4237:4900:F00E:51C3:169F:63D6 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Completely reasonable request. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)