Talk:Steve Bannon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

picture

Can someone add a picture of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillazWarfare (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone did, but it makes him look really unprofessional, more like a drunk lolling in some back alley. Can't we do better than this?Alcuin of York (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This one[1] is more encyclopedic, and also recent (not six years outdated). It is an AP photo, and thus under copyright still, but if somebody can please upload it to en.wikipedia.org (not commons.wikipedia.org which won't accept it), then replace the one currently being used which dates from 2010 and is decidedly bad-looking, that would be helpful as a temporary measure until we get a libre-licensed 2016-era encyclopedic photo. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Conservative

I've added to the lede that he is a conservative, per two reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is beyond childish. The addition of a comma fixes it, but childishly edit warring was chosen instead. Unbelievable. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit doesn't have WP:CONSENSUS. Both User:Capitalismojo and I have now reverted it. Rather than editing warring, I would recommend making a policy-based case for inclusion here on the talk page. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. The two of you reverted different versions. I have produced solid sources, and the guy is a major conservative political operative (perhaps even the conservative operative) in American politics. You are just edit warring because you don't like it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not required to use the exact language of our sources. In fact, we are expected to paraphrase. Does anyone really want to argue that the subject of this article is not conservative? Also, please see WP:DRNC. Hugh (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If he is the major conservative operative in the U.S., as stated above, I'm sure that would be thoroughly discussed in the body of the article...oh wait. Huh. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In BLPs we have to have refs, reliable source refs, that support the material. We can't include editor's suppositions or theories about people. Policy doesn't allow it. Specifically the ref doesn't say it. Titles of articles are not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You obviously didn't even bother to read the two references I provided. For example, one of them said, "But in February he moved into office space in Santa Monica that is being provided gratis by a friend of his, Stephen K. Bannon, who is a conservative filmmaker and a former Goldman Sachs banker." Why don't you want it to say "conservative" in the lede? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand the desperation of some people to get the word "conservative" shoved into the lede. It serves as a warning label and preps the unsuspecting reader for the notion that he is going to be reading some terrible evil coming from the subject of the bio. I have read dozens of bios of liberals which allow me to read and form my own opinions about the subject without some conservative trying to tar the person with a label, helping me in advance to understand the person from the "proper" point of view, while I have never seen a single bio of a conservative without this label. I think it is completely unacceptable to put it in the lede, just as it would be unacceptable to put "he uses a wheelchair" in the lede. This label belongs where the "liberal" labels go--in the body of the article--where most conservatives allow it to remain without tarring the subject with labels of "evil" and "bias".Alcuin of York (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your attempt to prevaricate Bannon's conservative views, associations, and current appoint as a Republican is ridiculous. Bannon is a conservative, as the plethora of sources show. Daaxix (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a few sources indicating Bannon's conservative credentials (and I threw in extreme conservative sources as well). As the head of conservative Breitbart, an award winner from the conservative Liberty Film Festival (and a member of their advisory board) and a charter member of the conservative Groundswell group -- there appears to be a lot missing on the subject. Per the suggestion above, this should really be added to the body of the article. But until then, simply adding the uncontroversial "conservative" factoid doesn't require any more substantiation than his middle initial or place of birth. It just needs to be properly sourced. (I added a source in which he self-identifies as a conservative filmmaker.)

• Believing they are losing the messaging war with progressives, a group of prominent conservatives in Washington—including the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and journalists from Breitbart News and the Washington Examiner—has been meeting privately since early this year to concoct talking points, coordinate messaging, and hatch plans for "a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation ... Among the conveners listed in an invitation to a May 8 meeting of Groundswell were Stephen Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network

• the Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood's first conservative film festival, are pleased to announce a historic partnership. The Liberty Film Festival is merging with the CSPC to create the premier conservative film and cultural organization in America. ... The Liberty Film Festival's Board of Advisors includes film financier Steve Bannon (Chairman, Genius Products)

• Started last year, the Liberty Film Festival, co-founded and co-directed by Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, is Hollywood’s first and only conservative film festival.

• The festival is the brainchild of Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty, husband-and-wife film devotees who are on a mission to establish a conservative beachhead of cultural influence in the movie business. ... the festival's spinoff Libertas website (www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas): To say that the site is defiantly right wing would be an understatement.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think all those sources make it clear that "conservative" should certainly be in the lede, since it is pretty much the driving position behind his entire career. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, lede sentence of lede section. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sources listed above don't approach being WP:RS status. The idea that being conservative is "the driving position behind his entire career" is a subjective opinion not supported by the available RS. I agree it's notable and his self-identification should be presented in the article, which we're currently doing. But the effort to put it in the lead strikes me as incredibly ironic given that the editors pushing for that made loads of arguments against a somewhat similar proposed edit here Talk:Media Matters for America#Lead description. You could take all of the same arguments you all made there as reasons not to include conservative here. It frankly seems a bit WP:POINTY. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the content of this article here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. No one has made any policy-based arguments for why it is WP:DUE to add a conservative characterization to the first sentence of the article. Based on the available WP:RS, it seems like a notable fact to include in the article, which we have done, yet no one has offered a policy or source-based argument that being conservative is the #1 most notable thing about this individual. As such, the edits (and the editing behavior of WP:WIKISTALKING me) seem WP:POINTY. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The policy-based argument you are looking for is plain for all to see. Stephen Bannon is a notable conservative. Indeed, his conservatism (and conservatism activism) is the most significant feature of his biography, because most reliable sources writing about the individual are doing so because he is a significant conservative political operative. It would be an astonishing violation of WP:UNDUE to pretend this isn't his most significant biographical feature. Are you denying these clear facts? And to whom are you addressing your bad faith accusation of wikistalking? My first edit here came about because I read an article about this man I'd never heard of before in Bloomberg Politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like this person has a pretty far-reaching biography--military, film, investment banking, politics, media. If you want to say that his conservatism is the most significant feature of his biography, than you'd need to find a source that says that. It's not clear that that's the case from the sourcing, and it's not our job to decide what he's most notable for. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources already in use in the article make it clear. He's a conservative film maker, a conservative political operative, a conservative media mogul. The sources already say those things, but there seems to be a desire to ignore this fact by certain editors. I find it very peculiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but the sources don't say his conservatism is the most notable thing about him. You're personally of the view that it is, only the sources don't say that. Therefore it's POV. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is true the sources don't specifically state his conservatism is the most notable thing about him (although two of them arguably do), but they certainly indicate his conservatism is significant enough that it should be in the lede. Most sources describing his as a film maker, for example, say conservative film maker. Even his own website claims this. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

By my reading of the sources, he's most often noted as a conservative filmmaker (including by his own company, as you say above), but not particularly as a conservative businessman, etc. That's why I made this [2] edit. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems appropriate to me. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems fine to me as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Consensus! Now we need to work on world peace. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Whirled peas? I love whirled peas. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a disruptive pattern in Wikipedia and can be called the "health warning" labelling. I brought it up on MOS talk page a while ago but not too many were interested. Usually (without pointing any fingers) in the US political wikiscene, editors with a liberal slant are adding the descriptor "conservative" to articles and editors with conservative slant are adding "liberal". The obvious aim is to show "hey, this guy's atleast not neutral and no authority on the subject". --Pudeo' 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate when "conservativeness" or "liberalness" is a notable characteristic of an individual (or an organization, for that matter). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to surface disruptive editing patterns, but this particular dust-up simply involves understanding that the lede summarises the article, the lede sentence summarizes the most notable aspects of the subject, and the article summarizes reliable sources. I don't see any attempt to undermine anyone's authority. Hugh (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"this guy's at least not neutral and no authority on the subject". That comment doesn't even make sense. Someone who is "neutral" is an idiot and not worth their own existence, and a right-wing conservative like Bannon would be an authority on right-wing conservatism and its causes. That's what makes sense, and documenting it is not a put down or slur. It's simple fact. I doubt that Bannon is ashamed of his right-wing conservative views, and editors need not defend him. Such defense is a disservice to him.

Everyone has biases, and those involved in politics and political activism, be they right-wing or left-wing, make a point of pushing those agendas, and that is a perfectly legitimate endeavor. Society demands that various POV fight for their right to be heard. Bannon has taken over the banner after Breitbart as a right-wing conservative running BNN.

I don't understand why this would even be controversial. It's childish, and I get the feeling that some children (literally) are involved here. I have nothing against young editors (I have met an administrator who was 13 at the time, and who did excellent work), but children should not edit or make pronouncements in areas of which they are ignorant. Stick to other stuff. There's plenty of it. They should learn from older and more experienced editors if they wish to learn and grow. Skirmishing over obvious facts backed by RS is disruptive, and maybe someone needs to be taken to AN/I or made the subject of an RfC/U. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what happened to world peace/whirled peas? I thought this issue was resolved and consensus had been reached. What are we still talking about? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither left nor right but an STEM scientist who is greatly amused that there are enough editors ashamed of the label "conservative" that they feel obliged to deny in the lead that Bannon is a conservative, even though they have no objection to the article itself pointing out that Bannon himself claims to be a conservative. Who exactly are these editors who are unable to accept that Bannon is a conservative? Are they from the left or the right? And if from the right, what does their shame about someone being a conservative say about the right? That's hardly a ringing endorsement of conservatism. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC) a

Date of Birth?

The only D.O.B. here is that calculable backward from an age stated at a certain year. Orthotox (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Source for Goldman Sachs employment

I just checked the source referenced for the statement that he once worked for Goldman Sachs (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/10/blowing_up_stuff.html), but nowhere can I find an confirmation for this assertion in this article. Are there any reliable sources for this claim?--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Einar Moses Wohltun: Thanks for finding the erroneous citation. I did a Google search on "Goldman Sachs" Bannon, which did provide lots and lots of sources for the statement. I picked out one that looked good, and put it into the article, replacing the problematical citation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@John Broughton: Thank you. Now the source better.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign CEO

"CEO" has an accepted meaning (expected to entail substantial legal responsibilities, IIRC), and his title is contrary enuf to normal usage to have evoked press sarcasm about his duties bearing any sensible relationship to the (IIRC relatively recent) role of the term in business management practice. (e.g., "Chief Executive" was at one time never heard without meaning "President of the US" and is explained by the more general term, Head of State).--Jerzy•t 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

In the news stories I've read, I've not seen the term "Chief Executive Officer" (referring to Bannon's position in the Trump campaign) put inside quotation marks; accordingly, I've removed those quotation marks in the article. I strongly recommend posting sources that do use those quotation marks here before restoring them in the article, since Wikipedia is intended to be a mirror of the way the world is, not to take a reasoned stance on matters (see WP:NOR). That some of the press is sarcastic of Bannon's duties meriting a CEO designation isn't the point - the point is whether a large number of good sources actually uses the quotation marks.

That said, I do agree that Bannon's title should in fact be something like "campaign manager" or "chief strategist" or "senior advisor", and that a title of CEO has little relationship to the traditional use of that term. That's why I removed the link to the article chief executive officer - because I don't think we want to encourage readers to click through and find a misleading (in the case of Bannon) description of what a CEO is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Residency

It seems that the "Residence" section of this biography (Currently: "Washington, D.C., New York, NY, Miami") is now under considerable media scrutiny. The controversy, which is thus far one sided, is mentioned in the "Personal" section, but it's presence there may be eclipsed by it's effects on his new career. Either way, documented evidence of his current or past residency should be found, or the section in the quick bio may need to be edited or removed. So far the only reliable news sourcing places him as living in Santa Monica in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jz4p (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

After further research, I've trimmed the list to two reliably sourced locations, one from the LA times, indicating residency in an LA Suburb, and another citing his spokeswoman.Jz4p (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Bannon&action=edit#

Senior Counselor for Trump

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-names-priebus-as-chief-of-staff-bannon-as-chief-strategist-231304

https://twitter.com/AP/status/797916130325237761

2A02:8108:940:255C:85EC:C64:C6E5:D6B4 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

First spouse

We're currently missing any information on Bannon's first wife. Anyone know who it was? gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was Cathleen Houff Jordan, formerly Cathleen H. Bannon, with whom he had a daughter, Maureen Bannon. I have yet to find any dates for their marriage/divorce. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

United States Navy Officer

Suggest adding the United States Navy Officer relevant information to the bottom of the infobox in the top right corner of the start of the article as is customary when there is that sort of military service info for people that have an infobox on their page. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Source: www.sec.gov "Mr. Bannon served for seven years in the United States Navy, where his career included extended deployments on a destroyer in the Pacific Fleet and the attainment of the position of Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations. Mr. Bannon was awarded the Navy Expeditionary Medal in 1981 for service in the Persian Gulf during the Iranian Hostage Crisis." -- Haven't yet found info on his ending rank or the precise years of service. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Profile in The New York Times. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Bio description from MilitaryTimes. "Stephen K. Bannon, a conservative business mogul best known for his work as chairman of the Breitbart News website, spent seven years in the Navy as a surface warfare officer. His military career included a stint at the Pentagon, where he served as a special assistant to the Navy's top admiral." -- Again, this one does not say his ending rank or the specific date range of years of service. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

White Nationalist publication

Someone keeps changing the description of Breitbart from "alt-right publication" to "alt-right, white nationalist publication". I think this description is somewhat misleading if not outright false. This could be a nominee for a protected article.

No substantive info

Wow, this article says almost nothing about Bannon's political philosophy, his policy positions, his written work, etc. The article needs to be expanded by several paragraphs so readers get substantive information on these topics. Hope someone can do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.182.155 (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

voter registration

Basically, Bannon claimed Florida residency to take advantage of their sweet, sweet low taxes but the property he registered at does not seem to be lived in. According to one of the articles linked, lawyers often suggest to their clients to register to vote in FL to help establish residency. There's no hint he's being investigated for tax fraud. The entire story seems to have petered out. Quote: "Election officials in Miami-Dade County confirmed Tuesday that the local state attorney's office requested Stephen Bannon's voter records last week.

"I know that there is an investigation but I know very little about it," said Rosy Pastrana, executive assistant to the county's election supervisor. "They requested voter records for him, which is why I know there is an investigation going on."

Pastrana told NBC News there was nothing obvious in Bannon's voter record that suggested fraud to her, especially since he had not voted in Miami-Dade since registering there in April 2014.

"There is nothing here that I see that he did wrong," she said." As it stands, this should *not* be in a WP:BLP. Does anyone object if it is removed? NPalgan2 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox position titles claims have sources for those 2 different claims?

1. Counselor to the President and
2. Senior Advisor to the President of the United States

Do we have sources backing up these claims that he will hold both of these two positions?

Or just one?

69.50.70.9 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH

"Bannon's ... aforementioned alleged anti-Semitic remarks about choices of schools, have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators,....[40][41][42][43]" This is WP:SYNTH or misleading (for all accusers listed except Reid). The washpo mentions the exwife's allegations as allegations and definitely does not say they "contributed to". Proximity is not enough to say "contributed to". His connection to the alt-right and controversial "renegade jew" stuff Breitbart has published are what the SPLC, ADL generally note and wikipedia should follow. If you disagree, please provide an RS quote saying the exwife's claims "contributed to" the WN accusations. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Take your pick. I don't see how linking antisemitism and White Nationalism is SYNTH to begin with, but here are a few:

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-steve-bannon-criticism-20161114-story.html

NBCNews(they segue from wife remarks to ADL): http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-breitbart-s-steve-bannon-leads-alt-right-white-house-n683316

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/white-nationalists-on-bannon/

Probably the best to unequivocally validate the wording is the NBCNews link, but frankly we're splitting hairs at this point. Sarysa (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's Synth because you're linking *the wife's claims of antisemitism* to the splc's et al accusations. Do you have a suggested language from the NBC link to use? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"contributed to" was supposed to be the compromise term. I agreed with your complaint about "led to" being personal conjecture, but "contributed to" merely needs to have the two mentioned together to be valid. In NBC's case, they segued directly from that to further antisemitic remarks. This is what I mean by splitting hairs...do you REALLY expect me to go hunting for a source that spells it out like "the ex-wife's accusation was among a string of..." or the like? Just do a page search on the NBCNews link for "wife" and note the segue. It's clear that they were making said link even if they didn't spell it out so bluntly. Sarysa (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• You say: "It's clear that they were making said link even if they didn't spell it out so bluntly" Sorry, but you've just admitted that the claim is WP:SYNTH: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.“ If Washpo and NBC mention the wife's claims it's for background and if they do not make an explicit link then wikipedia should not either as we should follow RSs. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sarysa, do you dispute that this is SYNTH or have an RS that makes the connection? I want to get consensus, considering this is a highly visible BLP. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2, I dispute the claim it is SYNTH and I maintain that the NBC News article makes it clear that the ex-wife's statements contribute to the allegations. All our back and forth has amounted to is "nuh uh, uh huh". You need to make a more convincing argument. Sarysa (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The ex-wife's claims of antisemitism should not be cited as a reason for "accusations of white nationalism..." unless sources say exactly that. I'm not sure his ex-wife's opinion is encyclopedic anyway.- MrX 14:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I actually agree with that last statement you made. My argument is based mainly around the standards set by the ex-wife's statements being in the article to begin with. I find it troubling that what amounts to gossip is on a Wikipedia article to begin with. (but when in Rome...) Sarysa (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, the question is not whether you just *feel* that NBC making an implicit connection. If there's not an explcit connection, it's WP:SYNTH. Read the policy. "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.“ It's that simple. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

NPalgan2, when I say I *feel* it means "I am making a judgement call". Likewise when I earlier said *I did research* it doesn't mean OR, it means "I read a bunch of potential sources for use on Wikipedia". The NBC News article IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS the ex-wife's statements with other examples of antisemitism along with the ADL's response. The only argument you have for SYNTH, frankly, is that they broke the paragraph between those two statements. Even then, the fate of those two words have no bearing on its actual content. I can't think of a better way to phrase it, but the two controversies were mentioned together in almost all articles and are in some way linked as far as the accusers are concerned. If you have to replace "contributed to" with "often being cited along with" or something, fine...but don't just go and erase it completely. Sarysa (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The allegations of domestic violence are also cited in Washpo and NBC so how about this: "The allegations of Bannon's misdemeanor domestic violence have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators...". The fact you can't find any RS that explicitly links the exwife's claims with the accusations of white nationalism is exaqctly why it is SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's one hell of a misrepresentation of my argument. It's not the domestic violence angle, it's the antisemitism angle. Antisemitism is a well documented trait of white nationalism. Sarysa (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore I think you have a biased agenda based on said misrepresentation, and you've further validated my concerns of neutrality in the process. Even Wikipedia's own article on white nationalism acknowledges the link between the two. Sarysa (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-serving, undue content

The following is very WP:UNDUE given that these are opinion of the subject's employees, sourced from the subject's website.

On the other hand, David Horowitz wrote: "I have known Steve Bannon for many years. This is a good man. He does not have an Anti-Semitic bone in his body." Joel Pollak, defended Bannon, writing: "I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people... Steve is outraged by antisemitism. If anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf."

References

Avaya1 has inserted this content three times over the objections of two editors.- MrX 21:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Bannon is actually on leave from Breitbart. Both are notable authors, both are extremely relevant to the subject, and the website is the topic under consideration itself. Why would we want to censor the content which is most relevant to the discussion itself (i.e. Breitbart). If you are worried about undue weight - this notable content constitutes 4 sentences within the article.

The objection of one editor MrX was Undue - which has been addressed by shortening the quote. The objection of the other editor (who has vandalized the Breitbart article earlier today), was Self-publishing, which is not relevant to the subject, since the material has not been published by Bannon. Avaya1 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's an RS that quotes Pollak, at least. One defending quote would be WP:DUE. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-presidency.html NPalgan2 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Avaya1's shotgun response is unconvincing, but I could live with quoting or paraphrasing Pollak. Two quotes sourced to Breitbart is unacceptable.- MrX 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to single out one of the quotes in particular. Maybe just cite http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-breitbart-s-steve-bannon-leads-alt-right-white-house-n683316 as well as the nytimes link and say something like "Bannon and friends and colleagues of Bannon denied the accusations yada yada" But if Avaya1 wants to include the Pollak quote, eh, it's no big deal. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Zionist Organization of America is not a fringe source. It is one of the largest Jewish groups in America.

The Zionist Organization of America, argued "To accuse Mr. Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism... We urge Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL to withdraw and apologize for their inappropriate character assassination of Mr. Bannon."

References

Avaya1 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I retract my assertion that it's fringe, but it is a WP:PRIMARY source and it should not be used in a BLP unless it is backed by secondary sources that cite it.- MrX 01:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's primary, but it's directly from the organization, with a quote from the president. It's an official press release.Avaya1 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So what? We don't build BLPs from primary sources, and certainly not from press releases. Please read WP:RS and actually follow its advice. While you're at it, read WP:EW and WP:BRD. Thanks.- MrX 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For a direct quote, it is fine to use primary sources, if you actually read the policy. The problem is only if you are interpreting them. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" It's also notable, or at least not any less than the statement from the ADL. NPOV demands that we publish both sides. Avaya1 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree - I think that we can include the quote. In any case, it's the only quote in the article defending Bannon at the moment, so deleting it would be undue weight (since he is not universally vilified). StAnselm (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a BLP and requires solid sourcing from publishers with a reputation for fact checking. WP:FALSEBALANCE says "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". A good way to achieve WP:DUEWEIGHT is by measuring the extent of coverage in sources. Appearing in one source has little weight; appearing in multiple sources has more weight. If this is not obvious, we can raise the question at WP:NPOVN.- MrX 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were no other quotes to defend him, a reputably published press release would be OK, but we have the articles from the NYTimes and NBC above which are full of people defending Bannon. These RSs decide which quotes deserve weight and so far no RS secondary source has used ZOA's quote. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ZOA is an official body, representing tens of thousands of American Jews. It is an official statement. It is more notable than merely quoting his friends. If you mention the ADL, then you have to mention the ZOA. Avaya1 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

once again, you are saying that if the newspapers that wikipedia takes as RSs for contemporary american politics quote ADL and pollak but do not quote ZOA then you get to ignore them and quote ZOA. you need to either start your own online encyclopedia or abide by wikipedia's rules. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a newssource with the ZOA cites. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/zoa-head-wants-adls-greenblatt-to-apologize-to-bannon/2016/11/15/ 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources?

Could someone elaborate to me why including another Jewish conservative's opinion (Ben Shapiro) on Bannon in an article on his website (The Daily Wire) is inappropriate? The undoing revision mentioned primary and secondary sources. I'm sorry if this is a noobish question. TheEfficientMan (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In order to avoid endless battles over questions like how many quotes from supporters and detractors of Bannon to include, wikipedia policy is to follow the balance of reliable sources (in this context the stuffier sorts of newspapers with pulitzer prizes, ombudsmen, etc - basically the kind that at least try to be objective in their news articles. so to judge whether Shapiro's quote is notable, we wait and see whether the new york times, the wall street journal, the times of london and so on quote him. Try reading WP:NPOV. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We should not be using Shapiro's blog, nor zoa.com and breitbart.com. Folks need to read WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPSPS, and WP:PRIMARY.- MrX 01:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For a direct quote, it is fine to use primary sources, if you actually read the policy. The problem is only if you are interpreting them. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "[P]rimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" It's also notable, or at least not any less than the statement from the ADL. NPOV demands that we publish both sides. Avaya1 (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To the first to comments: thanks for the insight. I understand it well now. However, addressing what Avaya1 has said, I think the other side should be heard, especially from Jews defending Bannon. The National Review has highlighted Shapiro's comment; would that suffice? TheEfficientMan (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

National Review isn't bad but it is unashamedly partisan conservative, so we prefer someone like NBC who tries to be neutral (even though in practice they lean a bit left). See my comment at the bottom of here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Bannon#Self-serving.2C_undue_content NPalgan2 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to adding notable opposing views, but not any that are solely sourced to a primary source. The importance of these opposing views is demonstrated by coverage in (multiple) secondary sources. NPOV does not "demand" that we publish both sides, is one side is a fringe viewpoint. WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. The National Review is a usable secondary source. The issue I have with Shapiro is that he seems to have taken both sides, or maybe he's walking back his previous comments about Bannon.- MrX 02:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Avaya1: Yes we can use a primary source, but editors should not sift through them to find a quote favorable to a particular point of view. Secondary sources help us sort such facts so that we have independent analysis of what's important. If you are allowed to add an editor-chosen quote from ZOA or Breitbart, then can I add one of my own from Stormfront or Harry Reid's Twitter feed? See the slippery slope?- MrX 02:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An official statement on the Bannon controversy from ZOA is highly notable. A quote from an internet forum like Stormfront, is not notable.Avaya1 (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If ZOA is as notable as you think, some RS will quote it. You have not provided any such RS quote and you do not get to include ZOA until you do. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. An editor claiming that a source is notable carries no weight unless accompanied by evidence.- MrX 14:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know why you feel it is necessary to point out that Shapiro is Jewish, which seem totally irrelevant to this discussion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@MrX I'll try to find that NR link and insert it. To your point, though, I don't think Shapiro is walking back, and he still has some harsh things to say about Bannon. @Furious it's important because Bannon has been accused of being anti-Semitic, so Shapiro would be on the lookout for that. TheEfficientMan (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Echoing @GorillazWarfare:, is there really no fair use picture of Stephen Bannon? This guy is all over the news these days...I think an encyclopedic picture is needed ASAP. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

The sources for line 2 on the first paragraph of the page stating that (Brietbart News is) "noted for its connection to the alt-right" are very left-biased. All of the articles listed make claims that Steve Bannon is a part of a Neo-Nazi group known as the "alt-right", which there is no evidence. ClaytonMayo (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

CBS and USA Today are "left-biased"? Nah... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Politics/Controversy

I think that this page would benefit greatly from two additional sections describing the political position of and controversy generated by Stephen Bannon. As it stands, the reader does is not really given enough information to understand the relationship of Stephen Bannon to the American political sphere. It is my understanding (unsourced, not yet fit for inclusion in the actual article) that he is an American Conservative/Libertarian commentator come politician, it would be helpful to quote some of his written statements on size of government, liberal bias, abortion, climate change, and other issues of significant interest to the American/International public. Moreover, comment should be made about the controversy surrounding (unsourced and not yet fit for inclusion in the article) accusations that his media platforms were unprofitable/heavily subsidized by the Koch brothers, accusations that he courts the support of extreme nationalist groups like the KKK and the nazi party, and the language he has used to describe refugees, women's rights activists, and minorities' rights activists.

Full disclosure: I am politically opposed to Stephen Bannon generally, but have made a good faith attempt to describe the needed additions to this page in NPOV; I would not be upset if somebody took issue with tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.236.67 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It might help if you supplied some proposed sources. Please keep in mind the stipulations of the immediately prior section. - Brianhe (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently, the NYT (reputable, but almost certainly not neutral on the subject) have been publishing lots of anti-Bannon material (see ex: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html), but have less targeted articles since 2014 (ex: '“The Hope and the Change,” directed by Stephen K. Bannon and produced by Citizens United, the conservative political advocacy group' from the article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html mentions the Koch connection). My issue is this leads either to liberal cherry-picked quotes and issues, or requires that Pro-Bannon secondary sources also be used, and these tend almost exclusively to be non-NPOV. I'm not a regular editor, I just found this page to be particularly substandard. Perhaps topics and quotes from his documentaries would provide good material for Politics Section (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0052442/) and more recent NYT articles for the controversy?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.236.67 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We should mention that he is associated with the promotion of a number of controversial positions, as noted in the SPLC page about him.[3] While it is not the purpose of articles to be attack pages (I hope now the electio is over things calm down) readers want to know that he is controversial and why. While we may disagree on how that should be expressed, I see no reason why we should disagree that should be done. TFD (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Residence paragraph

I have removed this paragraph about Bannon's residence. We don't normally include such residential details in biographical articles, and there is nothing here to suggest which this article should be an exception. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the text is: Bannon was, as of mid-August 2016, registered to vote in Miami-Dade County, Florida, at the former residence of Diane Clohesy, Bannon's third ex-wife, but the residence was vacant and slated for demolition.[32] On August 26, 2016, Bannon’s voter registration information was changed to an address in Sarasota County, an address associated with venture capitalist Andrew Badolato, who has been involved in films produced and directed by Bannon.[33][34]

So - what? He had to move out of his home because the building was being demolished? He was slow in updating his voter registration? What's the point here? StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The content was about a story that was widely covered in reliable sources nationally: [4], [5], [6]. Definitely seems like it should belong. In any event, I'm not familiar with a policy against including residency information - lots of biographies have that information if it's cited to a reliable source. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The first reference, the Guardian, suggested that Bannon's registration as an "apparent violation of electoral law", but that didn't make it into our article. In any case (a) this sounds like tabloidy dirt-digging, and (b) the registration was corrected, and so this is no longer an issue (i.e. he did not vote while being illegally registered). Just because information is sourced, it doesn't mean it should be included. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

CBS News, the Atlantic, and the Guardian aren't tabloids. There was plenty of more coverage that you can turn up with a quick search, e.g.,: The Washington Post and The Miami Herald. I'm not sure what difference it makes that it "was corrected" - it was covered in reliable sources at the time. I do agree that it shouldn't be given undue weight and I think a sentence or two should be sufficient. However I'm not sure how you would justify not mentioning it at all, considering the amount of coverage it got. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

By "tabloidy" I meant the sort of journalism that trawls public records like this. In any case, the fact that it was corrected means that it now has no enduring historical significance. All it means is that he was late in updating his voter registration: it doesn't matter that it is covered in significant sources - it is, in retrospect, meaningless trivia. StAnselm (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it appears Bannon was being accused of a crime (i.e. voter fraud) but there was, of course, no conviction. WP:BLPCRIME possibly applies here: "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." (I don't know if Bannon would be classified as a public figure in the legal sense when those articles were written. If he was, it would come under WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article..." I would argue that the allegation is well documented, but not noteworthy.) StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bannon is a public figure by any standard, so I don't think that policy would apply (a public figure is a public figure - that's why we have early life sections on notable people, even if they weren't notable as children). As per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are definitely multiple reliable sources documenting the allegation. I'm not really understanding your reasoning for asserting it's not "noteworthy." If something got national attention, I think it should be included, even if it's negative about the article subject. It wasn't a false accusation, and Bannon made a mistake with the registration. Perhaps we should do a RfC on this? FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No, here at WP we adopt the US legal meaning for "public figure" - "pervasively involved in public affairs". In any case, the bit you cited from WP:PUBLICFIGURE has only the negative - it does not imply that if we do find "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation" we should put it in. Because we also have the requirement of noteworthiness. "Noteworthy" does not mean "getting national attention" (per WP:NOTNEWS) - it should have lasting encyclopedic value. Bannon will always be known as someone who was accused of anti-semitism; I doubt he will always be known as someone accused of voter fraud. Anyway, I'm happy to have an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This definitely should be mentioned in there. Perhaps an RFC is the best thing. AaronY (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Asians

Unless I missed it these aren't mentioned here. Since this page is contentious I thought we should discuss them here first maybe: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13653490/steve-bannon-trump-presidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa AaronY (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Better source with some stats: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bannon-too-many-asian-ceos-silicon-valley AaronY (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be added, this received extensive coverage in American media. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Please see the history of the ADL under current leadership. They throw the word "anti-semitism" around a bit too much, cheapening it and insulting anybody who's suffered from bigotry in any form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.124.196 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Some IP addresses/new users are involved in blanking a section on his antisemitic comments and the response to his views, seemingly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His statements which have been described as antisemitic have been widely reported on in reliable sources (it has even been covered by the hard-right Fox News which is closely affiliated with Bannon's own party[7]), and are based inter alia on sworn, written testimony by his own wife. We don't delete reliably sourced material just because some users don't like it. The news coverage in connection with his recent appointment is dominated by discussion of his racist and antisemitic views, as seen in this article: Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon, which notes among other things that "The Anti-Defamation League voiced its strong disapproval in a statement Sunday evening, calling Bannon's appointment "a sad day." " --Tataral (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this article should be semi-protected at least. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

note that ADL says they are not aware of any anti-semetic statements from Bannon http://www.adl.org/sp/stephen-bannon-backgrounder/bannon-backgrounder.html (scroll all the way down to the last paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeYoung9 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:NPalgan2 is now continuing his disruptive removal of sourced material based on some false idea that "the subject" gets to decide whether material is included in the article (it's a brand new account, so he probably has a limited understanding of Wikipedia policies). Certainly the Anti-Defamation League's condemnation of his appointment is newsworthy and should be mentioned in the article. --Tataral (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I started an RfC below. Hope it helps. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League's response

It's almost a misrepresentation of the Anti-Defamation League's response when all that is is said is that the appointment is "drawing criticism from" the ADL. Here is what they actually said:

"The ADL strongly opposes the appointment of Steve Bannon as senior advisor and chief strategist in the White House. It is a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the ‘alt-right’ — a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists — is slated to be a senior staff member in the ‘people’s house.’"

The original wording in the article was concise but accurate:

"The Anti-Defamation League called Bannon's appointment "a sad day.""

note that ADL now says they are not aware of any anti-semetic statements from Bannon http://www.adl.org/sp/stephen-bannon-backgrounder/bannon-backgrounder.html (scroll all the way down to the last paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeYoung9 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

--Tataral (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The ADL's statement has been widely reported.[8][9][10] I think we should include the entire quote.- MrX 13:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Tataral (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added cair to the splc+adl please the reason that RSs generally seem to be citing - the alt right's connection to WN. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• And here is a conflicting response which I think should also be mentioned: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/zoa-head-wants-adls-greenblatt-to-apologize-to-bannon/2016/11/15/ 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"neo-nazi"

There was no citation nor am I aware of any credible source to justify describing Mr. Bannon as a "neo-Nazi". I removed the moniker. Popefelix (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way over the top. User warned.- MrX 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This article and talk page are covered by 2 sets of discretionary sanctions - post 1932 American politics and those at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons ]. Please read the notice at the top of this page and the edit notice when you edit the article. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight in Trump administration criticism

I just reverted an edit from Avaya1. As I said in my edit summary [here], adding six sentences or so from Bannon's defenders while there is a single sentence of the initial accusation of Bannon's alleged racism is not due weight. If you think it's necessary to include more detail, then both sides need to be expanded. Adding direct quotes from one side is not adhering to WP:NPOV. I also don't think it's appropriate weight, as national organizations (i.e., the ADL) and senator statements were more heavily covered in the press then statements from a rabbi and a personal friend. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's also bad writing style to simply quote every person who defends Bannon.- MrX 01:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FuriouslySerene that direct quotes from a large number of defenders is undue, unless those defenders happen to be highly notable (e.g. Paul Ryan, Trump). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The layout of my latest edit, assigned more or less identical space to the allegations (one paragraph) and to the defending statements (one paragraph). This is due, and reflects the published material. Currently, it's mentioned multiple times in the article that he is allegedly associated with antisemitism, without any response being quoted, except for Dershowitz, who labels him a bigot and writes critically 'no compelling evidence'. This is NPOV, especially considering that the ADL have stated today that there is no evidence of him being antisemitic. This is a BLP, in which extremely serious allegations are made in a politically charged context, and yet one sentence quotes in response are supposedly undue. Avaya1 (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. It's not reasonable to quote every single person you can find that has made a statement defending Bannon. It's poor writing. I think this version is balanced and reflective of the sources, without going into mind numbing detail and clichéd quotes.

As to your claim that the ADL "have stated today that there is no evidence of him being antisemitic", I have not seen that, so a link to a source would be helpful. Keep in mind, the ADL never said Bannon was antisemitic; they said he "presided over the premier website of the ‘alt-right’ — a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists". There's a difference.- MrX 12:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If Dershowitz is to be invoked in Bannon's defence, he should at the very least be quoted correctly, instead of selectively and manipulatively. Dershowitz's key point, worded slightly differently in different articles, is that "People of good will, Jews and non-Jews, must condemn with equal vigor all manifestations of bigotry, whether they emanate from the hard alt-right or hard alt-left. That is why I cannot support Bannon’s appointment"[11] and that "because bigotry against any group should be disqualifying for high office, I cannot support his appointment"[12] In other words, that he does not support Bannon because Bannon is a bigot (even if primarily bigoted towards other groups than Jews in D's opinion). --Tataral (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP violating edit

Addition of multiple WP:BLP violating categories https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Bannon&diff=750296783&oldid=750287746 added by User talk:BenStein69 - I have warned them - bGovindaharihari (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a BLP violation. Those categories are perfectly plausible for this article; there are plenty of sources that support them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not Category:American white nationalists - the article says only that he was accused of being one. Nomoskedasticity, please do not re-instate BLP violations like this. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I get that the notion of plausible deniability is an annoying, weaselly concept, but people are innocent until proven guilty and as editors for a neutral encyclopedia, we must accept plausible deniability and leave those categories out. We can't be branding living people. Sarysa (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mad Max!!--Malerooster (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I ninja'd out my last sentence too late. I was under the mistaken impression the allegations against him were taped. Sarysa (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

At least I've made a case for the dangers of hearsay. Also unnamed actor-director's case still parallels Bannon's to a degree. Sarysa (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

New Section proposal: "Views"

There has been a lot of reporting in recent days about Bannon's views. Some of this information is interspersed throughout the article. I propose that we put that information together under one section, and title it "Views" or "Ideology" or similar.

Thoughts on this?[[PPX]] (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the nature of the most contentious content, I believe a Controversy section would be most appropriate. Also, previous people holding the same role who never held elected office lack a Political views section: Pete Rouse, John Podesta, and Ed Gillespie being the three most recent. Sarysa (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sarysa that a 'controversy' section is more appropriate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Views as a section title, is far preferable to controversies in regards to WP:BLP - if you want a views section then you should only be adding clear policy views, actually, you should wait to see what he actually does before you set out his alleged view, or report what opinionated press reports opine his views are. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

maybe you can add (weak) word

Truther because he using phrase "truth crisis" [13] but i cant find any of his position on 911 or even on 'shitting on the Moon' Which for anybody who aspire to the truther title are a minimal must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.42.242 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Top article on google news right now says Bannon is a white nationalist in the title

This only seems to be true of news.google.com and not other regions but it remains very much there. 2 hours and counting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-chief-strategist_us_5828e1d4e4b0c4b63b0d33d7

Saintpeace (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please read wikipedia's policy on reliable sources WP:RS, which is even stricter in biographies of living poeple WP:BLP.`NPalgan2 (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've edited in a blurb in the Personal Life section, framing these accusations as accusations and including sources. I did the research and they all stem solely from his alleged antisemitic remarks and association with the alt-right. Sarysa (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

President-elect Donald Trump is drawing praise from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups for appointing former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist.

“Perhaps The Donald is for real,” Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party, told CNN in an segment that included interviews with several white nationalists.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6B:C25:5D49:4D54:84E6:2AC9:5286 (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the "alt-right" : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.200.139 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the White Supremacy Claims

This is Wikipedia. Everything needs a reliable source. People need to stop spamming Wikipedia with partisan name calling. Stargazer7121 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

this read like zumpedfake, aka pro modus of to one from Norway. Even if sources portray quite white it smell like beige maci ~/ bleached. While sources exist the article is already too big so let to see how it elapse. The reliable source for this category should be from reliable right sector not from accusers or possible fake pumpers (which both may steam from same rot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.42.242 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bannon personally stated that Breitbart news is "the platform for the alt-right" to Mother Jones. The alt-right has strong ties to white nationalism, as the alt-right wikipedia article shows, and as various publications have shown over the past few months, for example http://www.npr.org/2016/11/20/502719871/energized-by-trumps-win-white-nationalists-gather-to-change-the-world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaxix (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United States

I removed this cat but it was replaced - please can we remove it again, it is a clear policy violation to include it - it clearly states at the cat that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States.. This category is for issues relating to Antisemitism in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media that are alleged to be antisemitic must not be placed in this category. Groups and individuals that fight against antisemitism can be placed here however. - also posted to the WP:BLPN - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Bannon_categorization - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree - it clearly goes against the consensus for what the category is for. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of White Nationalist/Supremacist Allegations

Since this is approaching the 3RR we need to discuss this issue here. These are well-cited widespread allegations that are as subjective as the anti-semitic remarks allegations from his ex-wife. I will grant that they don't belong in the Personal Life section and ideally a Controversy section would be appropriate, but the allegations date back months before his White House appointment and therefore don't belong in that section and should not be so vaguely worded. I've worded it in a way that does not violate WP:NPOV and frankly I'm politically neutral on the subject. Excluding it or burying the mention of it is also a violation of neutrality. Sarysa (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence you restored about splc is duplicated in the trump section immediately above. the phrasing in your version is also problematic because "these allegations (i.e. the exwife's claims) led to" is wrong. the splc does not mention them, washpo mentions in one paragraph but does not support "led to" at all; 'media outlets' is vague (which?). Harry Reid maybe worth a mention but simply listing every single critic needs to be considered against WP:DUEWEIGHT. But 'led to' is the most problematic, and should not be there. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Media outlets" is the reason I originally linked the Huffington Post article since it was the one to directly accuse. Not a reliable source, but a "media outlet" nonetheless. I opted not to include it this time because I believe the credible outlets refer to these less credible sources. Harry Reid being one of the most powerful people in Washington is easily the most mentionable critics out there. Sarysa (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

and your justification "related to content in this section" is absurd. it implicitly vouches for the allegations in wikipedia's voice. it is most closely related to the trump administration section because they are reacting to his appointment. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

When I say "related to content in this section" I refer directly to the ex-wife's accusations. If you read the ref articles, they refer to this one instance of alleged anti-semitism. Not only that, the way you word it in the Trump section suggests that accusations against him aren't spurred by his own actions, when in fact they are. Sarysa (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

1) the washpo article does not support "led to" the splc's decision. they mention it as related content. "led to" is your supposition 2) "accusations against him aren't spurred by his own actions, when in fact they are." This is just WP:NPOV phrasing. wikpedia just presents the facts. If RSs in their own voice support splc/adl's opinion, cite them when you add that material to article. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ok, harry reid's spokesperson cites the exwife's claims. but splc does not even mention them. please reread washpo article. where are you cites for "media outlets" (plural)? placing this sentence in 'personal life' section rather than the section about trump connects them to exwife's claims inappropriatelyNPalgan2 (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

re: 1, then I suppose "contributed to" is the more appropriate wording. If it had no bearing, it would have been left out. re: 2, the way you phrase it suggests that the outlets are accusing alt-right groups and separately accusing his association with it. My sources accuse Bannon directly for his direct contributions to the alt-right movement. A neutral interpretation must make it clear that they are accusing the man himself, not only the movement. re: 3 (calling 2nd reply "3"), it really belongs in a new Controversy section. I even mentioned this before. It IS related to "personal life" and you yourself acknowledged the splc's article. I will seek out additional credible sources and append them to the list. Sarysa (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarysa: Suppose Melania divorces Donald, saying that he's been unfaithful to her. RSs would report that Donald has admitted also being unfaithful to his previous wives. That's relevant. But there's a long way between 'relevant' and 'contributed to' - they would not say that Donald cheating on Ivana "contributed to" him cheating on Melania. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Of course they wouldn't. You reversed the point of view: You're using the term "contributed to" to speculate on the accused. I used it to summarize the accusers' arguments. Sarysa (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have requested additional commenters on BLP noticeboard. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to give a cliff's notes of my arguments for people coming in: The accusations are directed at the man himself as well as the groups he's associated with. Accusations have been tied to his wife's anti-Semitic remarks allegations. Accusations go back months before the Trump appointment. The allegations are pretty widespread, and my motivation for even getting involved is to ensure neutrality on both sides...the allegations exist but they are just that: allegations. (though many of my cited sources have used accusative tones which is why I keep flip flopping between "accuse" and "allege". Also I do think a new Controversy section needs to be constructed and all references to these allegations belong there. Sarysa (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to keep track of these discussions and the edits to the page over the last 24 hours, but my two cents: (i) It's important to characterize the wife's allegations as allegations. I could go along with a compromise to keep them out of the lede, even though those allegations are one reason why his appointment is being condemned. (ii) It's absolutely crucial to note that Breitbart, under Bannon's tenure, has promoted racist conspiracy theories, and espoused anti-Semitic and nationalist views. The content of Breitbart News is absolutely essential for the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding onto my cliff's notes, I also feel that the anti-Semitic remarks controversy also belongs in a Controversy section, not Personal Life. It's just too difficult right now to make such an edit with all the back and forth. Sarysa (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the language in the lead of the Breitbart News article should be more robust, but that discussion should be in that article's talk page and our language in the Bannon article should mirror the lagnauge of the Breitbart article. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is correct that his wife's statement regarding his anti-Jewish comments is an allegation, albeit a sworn testimony and widely reported. His involvement with the website which the Anti-Defamation League describes as "the premier website of the alt-right" representing "white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists" is not an accusation however. It seems quite logical to cover both in a section on political views or something. --Tataral (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Far right White nationalist supremacist anti Semitic guys in the most powerful political positions in the States, this needs reporting for certain. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

KKK, American Nazi Party praise Trump's hiring of Bannon

President-elect Donald Trump is drawing praise from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups for appointing former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist. "Perhaps The Donald is for real," Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party, told CNN in an segment that included interviews with several white nationalists.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6B:C25:5D49:4D54:84E6:2AC9:5286 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Honest to goodness legit neo-Nazis are praising the man and you people are looking for clues with a microscope. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.80.252 (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-non semites are praising you, you are now a jew supremacist and hate non jews. Your logic. Thus there is no reason to take heed from someone according to his own logic is a genocidal murderer who wants to murder non jews because others who hate non jews said they supported him.Weinstein11 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is a new Dog-whistle we should not deploy in a Blp

(Redacted)

(Redacted)

@KINGOFTO, you are mistaken. "alt-right" was not coined by the media, it was coined by the group themself. This can be easily ascertained by reading both the references in this article, the alt-right article, and the Breitbart article. What do you think we should call them? They certainly aren't conservatives in the normal political sense of the word. Daaxix (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think kingofto doesn't know much about how "dog whistles" actually work in the US. The term denotes [racist messages] -- so it's a bit silly (to say the least) to apply the term in this way (dog whistles about dog whistling??). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you on this one, KINGOFTO. Alt-right was invented by its proponents and Breitbart did embrace the term at one time...not sure if they still do. That alone justifies Wikipedia's use of it, regardless of the fact that it's getting increasingly negative connotations. sarysa (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

well, ok. looks like I'm wrong about this being a political "dog whistle". KINGOFTO (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"(Redacted)

"pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material into the vein of the alternative right"

(Redacted)

It's straight from the source. Your edit is a straight up case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You also did not add it to the section on Breitbart News as you claim. Furthermore, your edit [14] also blatantly misrepresent the sources - in fact, it removes material straight from the source, and instead replaces it with something that is not in any of the sources, this "liberterian-conservative", wth that is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

When you're right, you're right ... well, partially. Yes, you're not the one who put in the "liberterian-conservative" in there, that was an IP edit right after yours. My mistake.

However, the fact remains that you still removed material directly from the source, while saying it belongs in the Breitbart News section. Can you follow through and put it there then? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

It's a quote. It's in quotation marks. We should identify the Time authors.Capitalismojo (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

In External Links at the bottom of the page the "Appearances" CSPAN link is a 404. The correct URL should be https://www.c-span.org/person/?stephenbannon Edmund.vonderburg (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Done it. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Presenting far-right as an accusation and moving it out of the lead

I'm starting this survey because MrX's poll did not address two serious concerns. The main concern is the use of the term far-right in the definitive voice, since it has connotations including white nationalism, Nazism, and fascism which both Bannon himself and Breitbart have denied. I propose changing it to the accusative voice, phrasing as:

Breitbart News, a conservative news, opinion and commentary website[ref] which is frequently accused of being a far-right publication.[refs]

The second concern is whether or not the term far-right belongs in the lead (opening paragraphs) at all, but since it's only really a concern for the accusative voice (it's a cumbersome phrase) I'm only making a section for it there. Sarysa (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Change to Accusative Voice

Remove From Lead

• Change for the reasons I stated. Additionally, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia must be held to a higher standard of neutrality than that of news outlets. Emotions brought about by recent events call into question the neutrality of recent articles not labeled as opinion pieces. Wikipedians should take the safe route, accepting Breitbart's self-labeling while acknowledging widespread accusations. This can always be reviewed in a few months. Also, remove from lead since the long phrase is cumbersome for an opening summary. Sarysa (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Change. These political spectrum terms are very subjective and can be inflammatory. For example, I've seen Obama being labeled both a "moderate" and someone on the "far-left", and Trump has also been labeled both a "moderate" or "liberal" to "far-right". With this in mind, Wikipedia should not describe Bannon as beig "far-right" in its own voice. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Change. Seems like a reasonable compromise. I would like to point out that this discussion is pretty much a direct mirror of the discussion at Talk:Breitbart News which has the more detailed arguments. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Change. It should not be in Wikipedia's voice, as it is a contentious, inflammatory and opinionated term. Password123 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This vote does not count, it is clear from the edit history that Password123 is a sockpuppet account. Daaxix (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Change. Let's be careful to separate accusations from facts. Op-Ed's on politically opposing publications are opinions, not facts and the sources mentioned are less than convincing in their argument for X-phobe, X-ist publications Alt-right? Sure. Far right? One bridge too far. Kleuske (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Change per KINGOFTO Phatwa (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep In Lead

Keep as Definitive Voice

• No, this is a nonsensical proposal which falsely claims the website is "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice – an extreme claim that runs contrary to mainstream reliable sources. Would we describe Der Stürmer as "conservative" too? Also the premise of this discussion is false; far right simply means "right-wing politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right" (as it is defined by Wikipedia), it is a broad term not implying any specific ideology. The website has also declared itself the platform of a movement (alt-right) that is universally considered far-right. Also, we've just had a thorough debate over this exact matter and this seems like a disruptive attempt at a rematch before we've even concluded our discussion above. --Tataral (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to mainstream reliable sources huh? NYtimes NYTimes, LATimes The Hill Associated Press Reuters (which also calls it "right-wing") Newsmax Abc news Politico Fox News If you're comparing Breitbart News to Der Sturmer then you very much prove your bias. Also, the site does not self identify as alt-right, so that is false http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-breitbart-news-20161116-story.html http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/bannon-breitbart-anti-defamation-league-backs-down/ Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

True, I'm not a far-right extremist, but I don't see why this should demonstrate any "bias." Reliable sources describe Breitbart as a far-right website promoting white supremacism, racism, islamophobia and so on – Rolling Stone just called it "toxic hatred "[15]. Even though Der Stürmer only targeted Jews, while Breitbart perhaps more often targets African Americans, Mexicans and Muslims, it doesn't mean Breitbart is any less extreme. --Tataral (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Drsmoo (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• No per Tataral. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• No This is whitewashing of main stream, reputable sources, as well as Bannon himself. Additionally, a consensus was already reached for this very topic above. Daaxix (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• No - See the survey above in which 33 very reliable sources use the term far-right to describe Breitbart. The existence of other more specific political ideologies within the broader realm of far-right is not a valid reason not to use the broader term as many, many sources do. Yes, it should be in the lead per WP:LEAD.- MrX 15:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @MrX: check the discussions below. I analyzed your 33 very reliable sources and whittled it down to a maximum of 9 (one of which supports my argument for being careful with the term far-right) as there are duplicates, opinion pieces, quotes of accusations(not in the RS's own voice) and non RS (tabloids, subjective publications) mixed into the 33. Perhaps next time you overwhelm people with information, you should vet it first. sarysa (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I reject your analysis as flawed. You dismiss sources that are regarded as reliable across Wikipedia, for example New York (magazine) and Vanity Fair; You call the Seattle PI aricle "blurry"; you falsely claim that sources are attributing 'far-right' to third-parties (not that it even matters). You call The Washington Post article a "third-party accusation". The article says:

"President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, Stephen K. Bannon, has been called a racist, an anti-Semite and a white nationalist. And that’s just since Sunday, when Trump announced that he would be giving Bannon, the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, a central White House role."
— The Washington Post

The first sentence is a third party attribution; the second sentence is statement of fact. The BBC article attributes the far-right description to the highly-respected, highly-cited Southern Poverty Law Center. The Mother Jones article is not opinion; it is an analysis that claims as a matter of fact that Breitbart is a "far-right conservative site".- MrX 14:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Other

Discussion

• Incidentally, I think we might need an administrator's intervention on the subject. I got into a heated argument with someone whose edits were diminishing criticism of Bannon and now it seems the opposite is happening. The "notavote" template seems almost pointless since I fear a tyranny of the majority is what will end up being the "consensus". Sarysa (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Be sure to check out this similar discussion as well, and post your opinions there. (it's the same, except "in the lead" isn't a concern) Sarysa (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Tataral: Wikipedia's own article on the far-right in the third paragraph of the summary makes it clear that it is a loaded term, with only the first two aspects being professed by the Bannon and Breitbart with the others being so inflammatory as to justify more scrutiny than media outlets are actually giving it. Also, while this isn't a RS by any means, this video clearly shows its impact as a dog whistle term -- one that even an American audience understands full well. Sarysa (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Further evidence of far-right connotations of of "akin to Hitler": This article uses far-right and neo-Nazi interchangeably. This article demonstrates a business owner's fear of allowing a "far-right" organization to host an event due fear of association with Hitler, and aforementioned organization is not labeled far-right on Wikipedia! Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hitlerum are documented fallacies that prey on peoples' fears of being compared to Hitler. The line between the term far-right and Nazism is so blurred (including by reliable sources) that the term's use must be put under extra scrutiny. It's a very unusual case but using far-right flippantly is a violation of neutrality. Sarysa (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• What do any of these links have to do with Bannon? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm establishing that far-right is a loaded term and should not be used carelessly. Sarysa (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sarysa, you may think so, but your opinion doesn't carry more weight than mainstream, reputable news sources. Daaxix (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of who uses them, these political spectrum terms are very subjective and loaded. While I'm not disputing the reliability of mainstream news sources, they do tend to lean left-of-center, and thus are more likely to use "far-right" for conservatives, just like a right-of-center publication is more likely to do the opposite for liberals. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, you don't get to dismiss reliable sources because of "whatever". Speaking of which, here's a few "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Breitbart News emerged as a haven for far-right factions that actively pushed for the election of Donald Trump." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Until he left in August to work for Trump during the campaign’s closing months, Bannon was the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Under his leadership, the Breitbart website became one of the leading outlets of the so-called alt-right, a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve “white identity” and oppose multiculturalism." http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fbi-hate-crimes-against-muslims-up-by-67-percent-in-2015/ "But he also named Steve Bannon, the head of his campaign and of the far-right website Breitbart, as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/stephen-bannon-reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff "The far-right Breitbart site" http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/17/media/steve-bannon-breitbart-donald-trump/ "Breitbart continually defined the far right boundary of the Trump universe" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451 "According to Bloomberg, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker used the internet-y phrase "honey badger don’t give a s---" as the motto for the far-right website" http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stephen-bannon-breitbart-co-founder-trumps-new-campaign-ceo-2403094 And on and on and on. Drsmoo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, many sources call him "far-right" (whatever that even means these days). I support including these sources, but rather phrasing it in the accusative voice. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• We could say something like: "Bannon has been characterized by the media as belonging to the far-right". --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sad opinionated label hanging, to which I totally object Govindaharihari (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Daaxix: No it doesn't, so I've actually gone and analyzed the slew of links posted by MrX to see if mainstream RS is truly in consensus. Let me preface by saying dear god let me never have to do this again, I now know how Google Images content watchers feel, heh. With that in mind:

Third person accusations, reporting others' accusations, opinion piece, described as a tabloid here, editorial, actual RS, actual RS, describes a wing of the organization NOT its overall mantra, not a RS as the publication seems to have implied opinion bias, complicated, will have special mention, actual RS, third person accusations, "opinion" is in the URL, actual RS (edited in late, pretend this is an eighth RS in the list below), opinion, actually contradictory to the point, claiming it used to be a far-right site, editorial, actual RS, editorial, RS that validly defines it as a broad category, rather than using it the way this article uses it, blurry, using a vague prefix and speaking in a mixed voice, duplicate, opinion piece/title asks the question, association of an association is not a descriptor, opinion piece (also duplicate?), not used as a direct descriptor and lacks any kind of scale, the title is worded as an opinion piece, not RS, actual RS, actual RS, duplicate, and FINALLY technically levied at Bannon himself but I'll let it slide.

So the majority is dropped to seven reliable sources, eight if you count that one of the duplicates was of #4. (it's literally cut-and-paste) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Frankly I find the notion of seven casual mentions by RS warranting a very damaging definitive label on an organization to be ludicrous. Let me also make it clear that personally I hold a low opinion of Trump and Bannon, but I'm making this case because I understand the damaging nature of the term far-right and am concerned about neutrality.

As for 8 the special mention, that one RS actually goes out of its way to make it clear that they use the softer definition of far-right which is another source that supports my concern. Sarysa (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Two reliable sources is enough, let alone seven, I added more as well. Wikipedia is not post-truth. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and they describe Breitbart as far-right. Drsmoo (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Here are 7 reliable sources that describe Breitbart (6) or Bannon (1) as right-wing, which is in parity with my analysis of MrX's links: 1, 2, 3, 4 (bannon himself), 5, 6 (describes multiple, inc. Breitbart), and 7. Should we not use the term right-wing as a descriptor as well? Also, how is it not post-truth to use a term associated with Nazism to describe a website that covers a wide range of issues with a conservative bent? There are fallacies named after what the term far-right represents. Sarysa (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Far-right and right-wing are, obviously, not mutually exclusive. Again, in case you missed it: "During the 2016 presidential campaign, Breitbart News emerged as a haven for far-right factions that actively pushed for the election of Donald Trump." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Until he left in August to work for Trump during the campaign’s closing months, Bannon was the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/breitbarts-steve-bannon-might-be-trumps-chief-of-staff.html "Under his leadership, the Breitbart website became one of the leading outlets of the so-called alt-right, a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve “white identity” and oppose multiculturalism." http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/fbi-hate-crimes-against-muslims-up-by-67-percent-in-2015/ "But he also named Steve Bannon, the head of his campaign and of the far-right website Breitbart, as his “chief strategist and senior counselor”." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/stephen-bannon-reince-priebus-donald-trump-white-house-staff "The far-right Breitbart site" http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/17/media/steve-bannon-breitbart-donald-trump/ "Breitbart continually defined the far right boundary of the Trump universe" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451 "According to Bloomberg, the ex-Goldman Sachs banker used the internet-y phrase "honey badger don’t give a s---" as the motto for the far-right website" http://www.ibtimes.com/who-stephen-bannon-breitbart-co-founder-trumps-new-campaign-ceo-2403094 Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo:I didn't miss it. I was going to reply to it in its place but your edit came first. (I spent an hour+ sifting through MrX's links) Nymag is not a reliable source, as it is a New Journalism publication with an implied opinion bias. Chicago suntimes is one of the seven, guardian is a duplicate of one of the seven, there's already a money.cnn.com link among the seven, the politico link actually supports my argument that far-right is a loaded term due to its making it clear later on that they don't mean WN/WS/Nazis, and the ibtimes link is quoting a bloomberg editorial, so the count still stands at 7 unique RS, not counting the one that's more careful than this Wikipedia article. Also could you please condense that post? It's difficult for others to sift through this gargantuan discussion with that eight line behemoth being included twice. (I give you permission to move this reply over to the original) Sarysa (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• No, New York Magazine is a reliable source. International Business Times is a unique reliable source as well, the fact that they're quoting Bloomberg is irrelevant as theyre another source vouching for the term. The Politico article describes Breitbart as far-right, I don't even see how you tried to discount that. You're engaging in mental gymnastics, the biggest of which is the idea that seven reliable sources is somehow insufficient. Those are a LOT of reliable sources, certainly more than needed. But here's some more anyway "Breitbart is a far-right news site that traffics in racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant hysteria" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/donald_trump_s_pick_of_stephen_bannon_means_white_nationalism_is_coming.html "Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart News, a far right online outfit that made Fox News look fair and balanced, dainty even." http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/who-is-donald-trumps-trusted-adviser-steve-bannon-ex-breitbart-news-chairman-20161111-gsnsnf.html "One of Trump's most controversial hires to date, Bannon joined Trump's campaign as CEO in August after serving as the head of Breitbart News — a far-right outlet that is one of Trump's biggest backers." http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/donald-trumps-cabinet-picks-43643918 and so on Drsmoo (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• We ought to be particularly wary of using the descriptors used by Breitbart's competitors, many of which have professional and pecuniary motives to attempt to delegitimate a business rival. This has been particularly exacerbated by the association of Breitbart with the Trump campaign, which many of the publications cited actively fought against in their coverage. Under these circumstances, even ordinarily extremely reliable sources such as the NYT are suspect when dealing with characterizations rather than matters of demonstrable fact. We need sources that are distanced from these problems, however difficult that is, and until we get them, we should avoid using such highly charged terminology. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Drsmoo: Nymag is not reliable, as the article for New Journalism states It is characterized by a subjective perspective, a literary style reminiscent of long-form non-fiction and emphasizing "truth" over "facts". The ibtimes link is invalid because it is speaking in the third person voice -- in other words it is not speaking in the definitive, rather it is reporting on an opinion article's accusations. It's a RS for ACCUSATIONS, but not for justifying far-right as a descriptor. The Politico article, as I before stated, LATER ON in the article acknowledges that far right is a loaded term, but to be fair they're quoting someone else. ("far right politics but no major racial/anti-Semitic outrages") I mean you get 8 but I get that extra bit of validation regarding far-right being a loaded term and requiring explicit specification. Slate, I'll concede that one. I'll also have to edit it into my list of MrX's (I missed a few both RS and not), though I could easily find an eighth right-wing ref heh. SMH is a new one, I'll grant you that one though I can't help but think the writer is parroting the Bloomberg article referenced immediately after "far right" appears. ABCNews is yet another duplicate of #4. You need to better vet sources before posting them, but you seem to be doing better. That said, I agree with Gabrielthursday's concerns along with my concerns that the wording of opinion pieces are seeping into the vernacular of journalists' writings. Moreover, the majority of RS make a casual one-off reference to the term far-right without including its many, many negative connotations in the definitive, which still supports my argument that it's just not enough to warrant Wikipedia using a negative branding in the definitive voice. Also please compress your links...your posts are a nuisance to read with long URLs mixed with prose. The format is [http://url.com description] sarysa (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: As for the main point of your argument, it's not unprecedented for Wikipedians to reject language used by reliable sources. New York Times uses just "immigrants" to refer to illegal immigrants, which goes against Wikipedia policy (see #2 in linked section). In fact it's common practice, but NYT is a strong example due to how respected it is. Media outlets have been repeatedly criticized for inventing or promoting neologisms that have been rejected by the public. This is all relevant because reliable news sources must not be creative with language. Wikipedia relies strongly on print media, but reserves the right to use discretion when necessary, and the basis of my argument is that it discretion is necessary in this case. sarysa (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Incorrect, all of the sources I posted are reliable sources. You don't get to disqualify reliable sources because you don't like them. Wikipedia is not a post-truth society. If you have any question about any of these sources being reliable, feel free to ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. And yes, it would be unprecedented as the core of Wikipedia is reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a source, it does not have its own opinions, it uses reliable sources for everything. You do not ignore reliable sources because you don't like what they're saying. Please see Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. And btw, I am very confident that all of these reliable sources are fully aware of what far right means, that's why they're using the term. Drsmoo (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo:While I'll check that noticeboard re: Nymag, maybe you youself should see Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. Your argument above is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I don't hear you". RS quoting third person allegations cannot use those quotes to justify a definitive term. Multiple articles with the exact same text cannot be treated as multiple sources. And if opinion pieces become valid for slapping definitive labels then hell (which you suggested is the case on the Breitbart talk page) then I should get an English degree, write editorials and sew scarlet letters onto everyone and anything. sarysa (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sarysa: Nope, I didn't post opinion piece. The articles I posted are unique. I'm trying to help inform you as you said you're new to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, all the sources I posted are reliable. You do not get to discount a source because its liberal or "New journalism" or whatever you can try and think of. One or two reliable sources would be plenty, the fact that we have tons means this is open and shut. Drsmoo (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo:You actually might have posted an opinion piece among your more recent batch but that is to be decided. As for your advocacy for opinion pieces here, I said Those are all opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are not RS. You replied Incorrect, they are RS for the fact that Breitbart is far right in that they represent a consensus within the media. and then only argued for the questionable AP article. You literally justified commentators sticking labels onto people and/or businesses. You can't take that back. sarysa (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sarysa: Why would I want to take it back? Opinion pieces can be used on wikipedia as reliable sources for their authors opinions. So you can use opinion pieces to say multiple authors have described Breitbart as far right. HOWEVER, we have more then that, as a large number of reliable sources have also written objectively (not in opinion pieces) that Breitbart IS far right. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: that is a fallacy as you are using RS to justify non-RS and allow the non-RS to pad the results. Opinion pieces can only be used to validate accusative uses, not definitive. You're accusing me of bending the rules when you're doing it more blatantly and inexcusably. sarysa (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Incorrect, I've only posted reliable sources. Opinion pieces can be used to validate the statements of their authors, the non-opinion pieces are definitive. If there's any confusion, please feel free to inquire on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: You posted numerous unreliable sources for the issue at hand. Here's a hypothetical: Fox News, Politico, and Chicago Tribune at various times decide to label Washington Post as left-wing. A similar argument ensues on the WaPo talk page with opinion pieces padding the actual reliable sources for this case. We end up adding the left-wing label to the WaPo article. WaPo eventually catches on and lodges complaints, forcing the three to post a retraction. Now all the reliable sources are gone, but due to the opinion piece padding, Wikipedia becomes far slower to react (if it ever did, as said labeling was irresponsible to begin with) because it's unlikely anyone will take the effort to properly classify the opinion pieces. So now there's false information on Wikipedia supported solely by the whims of commentators. If you are a true "by the books" person who believes exceptions are invalid, you should reject opinion pieces for DEFINING ANYTHING just the same. Opinionated ACCUSING is fine, DEFINING is not. sarysa (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sarysa:It seems you still don't understand. All of the sources I posted are reliable sources. The opinion pieces are reliable for the opinions of the authors, while the articles that are written as statements of fact are reliable as statements of fact. If a multitude of reliable sources described Washington Post as left wing than Wikipedia should follow that. In fact, the article on the Washington Post already has mention of that. Drsmoo (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: So you finally seem to understand what I said. Why the hell are you touting opinion pieces in a discussion about a definitive? You still can't take back what you said on the other talk page unless you admit you were wrong. (oh, and the WaPo mention is an accusative, which is fine. my hypothetical was about a definitive.) sarysa (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sarysa:You're new to Wikipedia and instead of being willing to learn you're instead trying to lecture me. All of the sources I posted are reliable sources. The opinion pieces are reliable as to the opinions of their authors, they represent a high number of people in the media who view Breitbart as far right. However, there are also a multitude of reliable sources that write in objective terms that Breitbart IS far right. Both types of sources are reliable and acceptable. Since we're going in circles, I'm going to ignore you, however if you make an edit contrary to WikiPolicy you'll be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Drsmoo: I was going to suggest the same thing for the same reasons, but don't drop the mic with an insult. Eleven years on this site, thank you very much, and I own up to my mistakes. Both types of sources are reliable and acceptable is not a proper concluding statement for a discussion about a label. sarysa (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sarysa: As Drsmoo, MrX, and a multitude of others have shown you, the consensus in the media is that Breitbart is far-right. Your arguments are without merit at this time, both opinion pieces and serious reporting pieces have labeled Breitbart as "right-wing" or "far-right".[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] etc. Daaxix (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC), added more references the last one, by the Associated Press states "Steve Bannon, a leading force of the far-right..." Daaxix (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Daaxix: Have you even read our discussion? Again, opinion pieces have zero sway when it comes to defining a person or business. They can only accuse a person or business. I don't want to continue going around in circles with a different person. Oh, and a multitude of others agree that it's a loaded and unencyclopedic term. Ad populum is pointless here. sarysa (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Sarysa: That was the point, all of the articles that I just posted are not opinion pieces, but reporting pieces. Daaxix (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure of the labelling-people-with-crappy-media-tags-thing nor the convenience of doing in the lead of this entry at all, but you, and only you, are the one bringing a reductio ad-hitlerum fallacy here, Sarysa, reducing the term "far right" to represent just "nazism and fascism". From, what I see, the most problematic is still the tag "conservative", as the online site looks to be more of a bête noire of mainstream conservatism than a endorser of it.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm in a tough spot to be honest, Asqueladd. It's difficult to explain how loaded the term is with simply RS. It's not like there will be a NYT article titled "Study: Many people think of Nazis when they hear the term far-right". All I can do is make the case that it is a loaded term, see if there's a consensus and take it from there. This is one of those cases where Wikipedia's processes are liable to undermine its goals. Sarysa (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

FYI, conservative on Wikipedia means strictly adhering to reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Should Breitbart be described as far-right?

I'm seeking consensus for describing Breitbart as far-right in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below. - MrX 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Support

• Yes - Prominent sources describe it as such. The Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Independent, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, NBC News, New York Magazine, Politico, NPR, BBC, USA Today, Slate, Mother Jones, and Mic, Associated Press, Associated Press, Reuters, Orlando Sentinel, Seattle Post-intelligencer, San Francisco Chronicle, The Times of India, Chicago Sun Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and Fox News.

When Newsweek writes "His comments came two days after Trump appointed Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News Network, as his chief White House strategist." they are informing their readers that Breitbart is a far-right News Network. Our policies do not permit us to ignore this preponderance of sources because some editors happen to disagree with them.

When The Associated Press writes "Bannon was quoted before leaving Breitbart that he considered the site "the platform for the alt-right" — a movement often associated with far-right efforts to preserve "white identity," oppose multiculturalism and defend "Western values.", they are describing Breitbart as alt-right and far-right as a matter of reportage.

When Time magazine writes "But it was the announcement of Stephen K. Bannon, a former naval officer turned Goldman Sachs executive turned publisher of far-right vitriol, as chief strategist that signaled an astonishing departure from presidential norms." they are making an assertion of fact.

That Breitbart is a far-right website is a widespread view which means we should describe it as such in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:NPOV. - MrX 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - per the overwhelming array of sources cited above. Neutrality^talk 22:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - per the overwhelming array of news sources. Daaxix

• Yes per Reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes based on the very large number of reliable sources using the phrasing. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a wide enough range for us to put this in WP voice. But PLEASE do not include all these citations as footnotes in the lead. (Note also that this RfC does not cover reference to white nationalism in the lead.) StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it is described as far-right by all mainstream, serious sources. The insistence on describing white nationalism, antisemitism, islamophobia etc. as "conservative" is quite frankly politically extreme and has nothing to do with the common meaning of the word "conservative," not even with the meaning of the word in the United States. --Tataral (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, of course -- the sources are more than sufficient for this purpose. Other choices that some editors seem to prefer would be misleading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on this subject, yet there are still vandals removing the phrasing.131.236.53.182 (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• NO, the list of references shown in the first "YES" response is a good indicator of the weakness of the PRO argument.

I researched the first line of references to find how many of those left-wing publications actually called Breitbart news "far-right": Here are the results:

NBC News - called Breitbart "incendiary"

Bloomberg Politics - used "crusading right-wing populist website" Then Bannon is quoted: “Our vision—Andrew’s vision—was always to build a global, center-right, populist, anti-establishment news site.”v Washington Post - mentions European far right not Breitbart

The Guardian uses "far-right" -- there's 1

Independent - used "ultra-conservative"

New York Times OPINION Page used "far-right" - but this is a left-wing OPINION page, not news

Los Angeles Times used "conservative media"

CNN Money - claims Bannon is far-right, video calls Breitbart "right-wing"

New York Magazine uses "far-right" - there's 2

After finding so few references to "far-right" I stopped looking as I soon realized the author of the YES post has not actually read the articles they cited. It seems to be a campaign to color this Wikipedia article with a false narrative.

This section, and the section on alt-right, are fundamentally representative examples why I cannot allow my college students to use Wikipedia as a primary source. We should strive to make Wikipedia non-political and more accurate. Thomas-Mason (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Thomas-Mason

• no , not in wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV Govindaharihari (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment that's not a great argument. NPOV does not state that descriptive terms like this can not be used. It does say that they have to be fairly applied and with appropriate weight, when properly sourced. - Brianhe (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No need to label them as only far right imo, they are many things and there is a lot of opinionated sourcing, just tell it as it is, no need to assert they are only this or that. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• No In the Breitbart article it is referred to as conservative. Since this is not an article about that company I think we should just stick with how its own wikipedia article describes it. Even if it stays, there should not be 15 links to cite it. That is poor style. Jadeslair (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"In the Breitbart article it is referred to as conservative" yeah because an editor keeps changing it against consensus. The stable version described it as "far-right", which is accurate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Limited Use

• Restrict its usage. Two reasons: Far-right has strong worldwide connotations of concepts like Nazism and fascism, and second it's not a common term in the U.S. and could be considered a dog whistle, violating NPOV. Far-right is fine for accusations, but if it's not the organization's self-descriptor, it should not be used as a general adjective. Sarysa (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  Based on which policies and sources? This is really very simple: 1) Breitbart News is described as far-right by reliable sources. 2) Wikipedia is based on reliable sources.

  Also, your claims regarding the definition of far right are completely wrong and contradict Wikipedia's own article on far-right politics. The claim that only two specific ideologies of only two countries are far-right is a nonsensical claim unrecognised by reliable sources/scholarship, and the idea that the United States doesn't have any far-right political currents, ideologies, movements or people is absurd. --Tataral (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• See the loooong discussion below (and in the Breitbart talk page) for my arguments on reply #1, as for #2, here is Wikipedia's own definition, which is pretty loaded (only the first two descriptors are relatively benign and most righties are not "opposed to immigration", they're opposed to illegal immigration): The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies known for extreme nationalism and opposition to immigration, as well as Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views, which can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or perceived threat to the nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions. sarysa (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Restrict its usage: Many sources describe Breitbart News as being "far-right", and this article should thus mention this. However, political spectrum descriptions are very subjective and loaded, and thus, as Sarysa notes right above, the term has strong connotations to fascism or Nazism. These descriptors are thus almost meaningless. We should obviously include the term "far-right" because Breitbart is often described as such, but not as the general adjective. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Political bias masquerading as authoritative fact

In accordance with the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, I have removed the meaningless pejorative "far-right". This action has upset some people with an obvious "far-left" bias; which has also simultaneously exposed their position.

Regardless, there is no place for political persuasion nor bias in the biography of a public person. I consider this a minor edit as the Wikipedia policy is clearly stated - (ICarriere|talk) 11:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@ICarriere: This is an irrelevant addition to the talk page, see the discussion which is ongoing above. Daaxix (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

N See discussion for consensus above. Daaxix (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• @ICarriere: I'm officially warning you to undo your last revert, it violates the arbitration sanctions in place on this article. If you do not do it, I'll report your account. Daaxix (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

When an editor calls others "far-left" for (correctly) referring to an openly racist website as far-right based on how it is described by reliable sources, it really says more about the editor in question than anyone else. I haven't encountered a single editor on this talk page or other talk pages related to the US election who came across as far-left. --Tataral (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"In any case, I see friends" - it is a mess here, there is a group of republican editors and a group of Trump opponents. It won't change the world, unlike a Trump presidency. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Breitbart is "openly racist", regardless of whether it is "racist" or not. Also, FWIW, the editor put quotation marks around "far-left" as well as "far-right". --1990'sguy (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Calling Mr. Bannon far-right is an opinion. It would be better to call Mr. Bannon as a "self-described right-wing populist". By using Mr. Bannon's own words, we can remove any potential political biases. 68.107.241.129 (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done Already under discussion -- won't be implemented as an edit request. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nowhere in the article is Bannon called far-right. If you want to add "self-described right-wing populist" somewhere in the article, we would need to see some sources that have said that.- MrX 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

Someone has inserted "indirectly" into the following sentence in the lede, : "Bannon himself included, is indirectly associated with the Internet-based alternative right, or alt-right."

This is incorrect, Bannon himself stated "We're the platform for the alt-right." This is direct association with the alt-right. Daaxix (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Not done: I agree with KINGOFTO. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Which source supports "indirectly"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Should "alt-right" accusations be in the lead?

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.

---

I'm seeking consensus for whether the "alt-right" (accusation of Subject's association with) should be in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below. - KINGOFTO

• No, I do not think it belongs in the lead. KINGOFTO (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Christ, not another one of these. You fail to cite any policy-based arguments and sources whatsoever to support your assertion. The connection of Bannon to the "alt-right" movement has been extremely widely reported on a global scale; in fact, many would argue that he is best known for his connection to the alt-right movement. The inclusion of this material is supported by a huge amount of high-quality reliable sources, so there is absolutely no reason to remove it. --Tataral (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, maybe its a NPOV issue re: "Alt-right" being unchallenged in the lead, although it has been by the Subject. I'll add something to address that and see if that is acceptable. KINGOFTO (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is an accusation. Alt Right from what I understand is a political view. People that are Alt-right often proclaim it. He says that is not his point of view. 1 Jadeslair (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2016 (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.

Personal life

" Bannon's association with the alt-right movement, along with his aforementioned alleged anti-Semitic remarks, have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Bannon denies the characterization.

• Ferrechio, Susan. "Reid spokesman: 'White supremacist' Bannon snags White House post". The Washington Examiner. Retrieved November 14, 2016.Amend, Alex. "Trump Campaign Hires Breitbart Exec Stephen Bannon, Cozies Up Closer to the Alt-Right". Southern Policy Law Center. Retrieved November 14, 2016.*Viebeck, Elise. "Trump faces backlash over appointing Bannon as a top aide, a choice critics say will empower white nationalists". Washington Post. Retrieved November 14, 2016.*DelReal, Jose. "Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon". Washington Post. Retrieved November 14, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)*Sarlin, Benjy. "Analysis: Breitbart's Steve Bannon Leads the 'Alt Right' to the White House". NBC News. Retrieved November 14, 2016."

I have removed this material on the following grounds:

• 1) There is already a long section under Trump Administration describing reactions to his appointment because of stuff in Breitbart News, his association with the alt-right, accusations of white nationalism and racism from the SPLC et al. Most peopler who denounce Barron do it for things he has unquestionably done and said rather than get into the weeds of unproved allegations. There is no need for repetition in the personal life section except if there is notable opposition which is based on the allegations of anti-Semitic remarks made by the ex-wife or other stuff which is *actually in the personal life section*.
• 2) Looking at the sources given, Harry Reid’s spokesman explicitly cited the domestic violence arrest and the anti-Jewish remarks. SPLC does not mention either issue at all, and their denunciation is mentioned above. The Guardian is pretty much a straight news article describing the ex-wife’s claims and doesn’t makes sense as a cite for the sentence given. Washington Post gives one standalone paragraph "Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence against his former wife more than 20 years ago; the charges included trying to prevent a victim or witness of crime from reporting, inflicting injury and battery. Bannon was never convicted, and the case was dismissed. His former wife also accused him of making anti-Semitic remarks, according to a court statement obtained by the New York Daily News.’” The ex-wife’s claims are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The other WashPo article does pretty much the same "Bannon’s personal history also has been mired in controversy...” but never says anything like the sentence in question.
• 3) The point is that "Bannon's ... alleged anti-Semitic remarks, have contributed to accusations of white nationalism from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other advocacy groups, commentators,…” is not supported by the sources given. The SPLC doesn’t say this. Who are the commentators and other advocacy groups who say this about the wife’s claims? The sentence would be accurate if it said “Harry Reid’s spokesman denounced Bannon, citing (among other things) the ex-wife’s allegations of domestic abuse and anti-semitism”, but I’d be skeptical that’s it’s notable enough on its own as in any case there’s already the ginormous paragraph above. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

Breitbart is not a "far right" opinion website. That term has been branded only by left wing journalists and academics. A better description would be a "conservative" or a "nationalistic" opinion website. 96.227.116.227 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia users. See WP:V and WP:RS.- MrX 20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please post in the discussion above if you have something to add. Daaxix (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

first

first from alt-right to hold position--150.216.128.190 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Redundant sources

There are far too many (i.e. redundant!) sources referencing the same events or content in this article. The article is short on content and far too heavy on references. I would like to prune some of them back, but the article is so highly contentious right now that I don't want anything I do to be mistaken for advocacy or vandalism. I will return in a few days or maybe weeks to remove some of the excess. In the mean time, if anyone else reads this, it would be helpful to remove some of the excess. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the primary reason seems to be claims that "there are no/enough RCs" to state things like far right in the lede. I agree with you, but don't want to get yet into another RfC on the same topic when a new editor shows up, so would recommend leaving them for now. We have already gone through 2-3 RfCs on the exact same topic. Daaxix (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Daaxix. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Bannon's voter registration

Should the page include a mention of Bannon's voter registration in Florida?

The discussion leading to this RfC can be found here and dif is here: [29]. The removed paragraph read:

Bannon was, as of mid-August 2016, registered to vote in Miami-Dade County, Florida, at the former residence of Diane Clohesy, Bannon's third ex-wife, but the residence was vacant and slated for demolition.[32] On August 26, 2016, Bannon’s voter registration information was changed to an address in Sarasota County, an address associated with venture capitalist Andrew Badolato, who has been involved in films produced and directed by Bannon.[33][34] -FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I believe the page should mention this in a sentence or two. The (relatively minor) controversy was covered nationally in a large number of reliable sources, including: The Guardian, The Atlantic, CBS News, The Washington Post and The Miami Herald, just to name a few. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't see a problem with the paragraph. The controversy deserves a mention for the reasons provided by FuriouslySerene. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong No. Let me get this straight: explaining Shmuley Boteach is a rabbi with the single word "rabbi", or that Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, is undue – but a paragraph on moving troubles is appropriate and encyclopedic? I don't think so. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to continue on this, and look at Harry Reid, there it does mention his title. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not following your logic. In any event, please see WP:HONORIFIC for why that was removed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - The sources linked by FuriouslySerene support including this content per WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Not worthy of a mention - this was reported in late August, nothing came of it and it has no legs, just apparent press drama about nothing of any substance or long term biographical encyclopedic value, this is a personal biography isn't it? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• No echoing above, this isn't anything that fits into a biography. Not everything that happened gets to be in the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• No - per WP:UNDUE. User:Govindaharihari sums up my concerns perfectly. StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Its definitely not something that should be censored and that's what we would be doing if we're being honest. AaronY (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Notable and informative. See no reason not to include. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• More reliable sources I don't think it should be there unless you can get sources that are not just news articles, which have bias. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• You're saying The Guardian, the Atlantic, CBS News, The Washington Post, and The Miami Herald are not reliable sources? What would you consider a reliable source? FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per FuriouslySerene's reliable sources. This is informative, factual, and neutrally expressed. Two sentences about residence and voting hardly seems to be to be "undue" within the context of a long article about a political figure. Neutrality^talk 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Yes - Seems like a silly non-story really, but it's got coverage. NickCT (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• No not encyclopedic at this time Jadeslair (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak no - would like to see more sources from a later date that consider it relevant oherwise it's a bit flash in the pan to be considered worthy of inclusion. If it is to be included, I do think it worth considering whether so much detail is appropriate.SPACKlick (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak yes, but only with more context. I think the encyclopedic/biographical context is that his appointment as strategist was met with immediate controversy. The current presentation, while neutral, doesn't seem notable, but as the multiple sources show, the controversy was. Chris vLS (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong No Dear God, is this still going on? Look, here are the facts: Bannon claimed Florida residency to take advantage of their sweet, sweet low taxes but the property he registered at does not seem to be lived in. According to one of the articles linked, lawyers often suggest to their clients to register to vote in FL to help establish residency. There's no hint he's being investigated for tax fraud. A couple of journalists got excited at the deliciously ironic prospect of nailing Bannon for voter fraud, but they quickly realised there wasn't anything there. Money Quote: 'Election officials in Miami-Dade County confirmed Tuesday that the local state attorney's office requested Stephen Bannon's voter records last week." I know that there is an investigation but I know very little about it," said Rosy Pastrana, executive assistant to the county's election supervisor. "They requested voter records for him, which is why I know there is an investigation going on." Pastrana told NBC News there was nothing obvious in Bannon's voter record that suggested fraud to her, especially since he had not voted in Miami-Dade since registering there in April 2014. "There is nothing here that I see that he did wrong," she said.' NPalgan2 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Yes, but more context. I agree with Chris vLS, this was covered in mainstream secondary sources. Daaxix (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'd just to to raise WP:PERSISTENCE in response to the many people noting RS sourcing. RSs may have covered this with a brief flurry of stories in August, but they quickly realised this story was a nothing-burger. 95% of the coverage Bannon has received (including many in-depth profiles mentioning many of Bannon's controversies) has come since the election, but approximately 0% of the post-election coverage has mentioned the voter registration issue, because RSs have dropped it. This is not encyclopedic. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a valid point here. Daaxix (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think that a biographer writing about the campaign chair announcement would describe the reaction to it, and the registration kerfuffle as part of that. Changing vore to weak yes, and only with more context. And, thanks, this was helpful to understand, am a better editor for reading this comment. Chris vLS (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• You are misunderstanding this policy. WP:PERSISTENCE applies to the topic of articles, and not content in articles. Notability does not apply to the content of articles. There's no policy that says a nationally covered news story must be in the news for a sustained period of time for it to be included in an article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

* You're right, but WP:BALASP does just as well. There was an isolated spike of news reports hinting at the possibility that he had committed a crime that, we can see after over three months, petered out (and we should be conservative about BLP crime allegations in the first place). In line with WP:WEIGHT, we should give as much weight to this issue as NYTimes and Bloomberg gave in their recent in-depth profiles of Bannon - zero. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

FEC complaint

I have removed

"On October 6th, 2016, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission which alleged "illegal in-kind contributions to Donald J. Trump for America, Inc." on the order of $280,000. On December 2, 2016, the Campaign Legal Center provided additional evidence of this violation to the Federal Election Commission, namely that payments were made to Glittering Steel LLC, a company with an address identical to Bannon’s consulting firm, Bannon Strategic Advisors, Inc."

Sources given are Salon, the CLC's own release and RedState. These are not RSs. Googling shows that The Daily Beast and Yahoo News (who are borderline) have covered this also, but no mention in NYTimes, WashPo, LATimes, WSJ, or the usual RSs we use. I say this should stay out until there is better sourcing, per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is just trash reporting, has no place in this biography unless anything comes from it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, worthless partisan reporting, no story at all, if anything comes of it then report then. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• I read "Salon" and in that moment, all credibility to the statement was lost. I'm not familiar with RedState, but, it's a blog and the reliable sources noticeboard openly scoffs at the idea of using it as a source. Thus, I can safely conclude that it doesn't meet WP:RS. Lastly, CLC is a primary source here. I'm not as concerned with CLC as a source, but, reliable secondary sources is the best way to go and this is a BLP. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mr rnddude, I didn't realise the first removal counted as a revert. NPalgan2 (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• We don't have an exact policy on what constitutes a "revert", but, our essay at WP:REVERTING defines it as; Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. This in effect means that any removal of content will constitute a revert, this is because the article will be inherently restored to a time prior to that content being added. Where ARBCOM sanctions are in effect I'm far more cautious to treat any removal of content as a revert - or at least a partial revert - as that is a technically valid conclusion that any administrator enforcing the sanction could come to. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm reinstating this edit with better sources, including The Guardian, The Independent, Politico, and Newsweek. Any further reversions of this edit will require an RfC. Daaxix (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm, no. As a recent addition that has been challenged, it should stay out until there is consensus to include it. I don't think it's just a problem with sourcing, it's also that is as yet an unsubstantiated complaint. I think it should be included if and when the complaint is upheld. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The initial objection was that the sourcing was inadequate. Additional sources have been provided. Now the goal posts are being moved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the additional sources, the only possible objection for inclusion here is whether it's WP:DUE. Since this is a notable organization I'd say it's due. The "no consensus" thing appears to be just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT obstructionism. Restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the RedState blog link should not be there. Salon should not be there, it is not a reliable source. The Newsweek article is exactly the same as the Independent article, so the duplicate should be removed. The November Guardian article does not mention the October FEC complaint so it should not be used as a source. Once the second source is removed from the second sentence, the only source given for the second sentence is the primary CLC link, so the second sentence should go until better sourcing is given. The 280,000 number is from RedState so be replaced with a newsweek sourced number. The issue is if a single story in Newsweek and a passing mention in Politico is DUE. I find it weird, as I said above, that the big newspapers who have covered Bannon so much in the past few weeks haven't touched this. I made a revert <24 hours ago so can someone else at least removed the Salon, RedState, duplicate link and info only sourceable to those sources? NPalgan2 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article states

Make America Number 1 paid Glittering Steel, a film company that Bannon heads which made an anti-Clinton film, $187,000 in October and November while Bannon served as Trump’s campaign CEO, unpaid. "These payments appear to be clear evidence that the Super Pac was subsidizing Bannon’s work at the campaign,” the Campaign Legal Center’s Noble said. Super Pacs are not allowed to coordinate their spending with campaigns.

at the end. It is a relevant source. The Independent and The Newsweek article are nearly the same. Salon is RS (although center left). Daaxix (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Salon used to be quite good (though very opinionated, which makes it problematic as a source for accusations against a BLP) but they've gone downhill. Way downhill. http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551 Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore,” wrote Laura Miller, one of Salon’s founding editors ... liberal intellectual and media circles it is widely believed that the site has lost its way. ... "They’ve become — and I think this is sad — they’ve definitely become like a joke, which is terrible for people who care about these progressive institutions.” OK, but the Guardian article wasn't being used as a source for 'Glittering Media'. Rewrite your proposed version (noting that the potential punishment would be monetary and giving the BLP/spokesman's denials) and see if it gets consensus on the talk page. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit request small protection template

Please add the small template to the top right corner to show the current protection level. Sagecandor (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News isn't "white nationalist publication"

Despite this claim inserted into the middle of sentence, and despite having supposed citations, even WIKIPEDIA ITSELF doesn't describe Breitbart News as a "white nationalist publication"! ((I'd simply wanted to know who this Bannon guy is, and I discover this falsehood.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4300:B3D:F14E:7904:CF33:C834 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

we need to discuss how to describe breitbart news once this page gets protected (reuqest already filed btw). here's what my googling got me: right-wing opinion and news website that some critics have denounced as a hate site

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/breitbart-reveling-in-trumps-election-gains-a-voice-in-his-white-house.html Breitbart News's close association with the alt-right https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/13/trump-draws-sharp-rebuke-concerns-over-newly-appointed-chief-white-house-strategist/ Bannon, who took leave from his job running the conservative Breitbart News site to run Trump's campaign, is a divisive figure. Breitbart, which had long promoted Trump's candidacy, has also given a platform to the so-called alt-righ http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-updates-trail-guide-trump-chooses-republican-party-chairman-1479072393-htmlstory.html crusading right-wing populist website (bloomberg long profile of banana) https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/

i think we should note the connection to the altright and controversial, as it seems there are enough RSs who do, but no more. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be like there should be some reference to actual quotes/headlines from Breitbart that have been judged to be anti-semitic or racist. For instance, this article http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/203888/donald-trumps-little-boy gives direct quotes from editor Milo Yiannopoulos that the writer (and many others) deems to be anti-semitic in nature: "... Jews control the banks..." "... Jews control the media...". If deemed necessary, a note about how not everyone agrees that these are anti-semitic remarks may be included. If this is taken to be getting too much into the specifics of Breitbart for it to fit Bannon's wikipedia page, perhaps a recommendation for readers to read more on the Breitbart page for details might be suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.11.247 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the alt-right : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?_r=0. Breitbart news itself, under Bannon, has stated that Breitbart is an "alt-right" publication, and the alt-right is based in white nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.200.139 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a tiny faction that had far more protesters than supportive attendees, not "the alt-right". -70.162.247.233 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC about anti-Semitic remarks in the lead

There is no consensus to mention anti-Semitic remarks in the lead. Many RfC participants noted that the RfC question was vague so there is no prejudice against starting a new RfC with a specific content proposal. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the anti-Semitic remarks be placed in the lead? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: this is not just about the lead, new User:NPalgan2 is involved in attempt to delete any mention of it from the article, despite massive coverage in reliable sources. He also deletes the Anti-Defamation League's strong condemnation of his appointment, which is highly newsworthy. The most important thing here is that significant material such as this is covered in the article at all, and that partisan editors don't get to delete any critical material. I don't have a strong opinion on whether we need to mention it in the lead as long as it's mentioned in the body, below. --Tataral (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove it from the article, as I clearly stated in the edit summaries. I moved it to personal life together with the allegations of spousal abuse as both came from exwife. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A section on "personal life" is not where one would expect to find a discussion of his problematic views on Jews, which is dominating coverage of his appointment and which is clearly political rather than personal in nature. And what happened to the Anti-Defamation League's response? --Tataral (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)--Tataral (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

also moved as i clearly noted in the edit summary. ctrl+f is your friend. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so why don't we add a controversies section? This guy's got so many that it deserves its own section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a general norm at wikipedia to prefer to organically place controversy/criticism throughout the article. so accusations of spousal abuse and antisemitic remarks from the exwife go in personal life. accusations of antisemtic writings go in the section of his media work - btw the article needs that plus a section on his career in the trump campaign/admin, etc. of course, if RSs cover any of these enough, they become their own section and get noted in the lede. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems noteworthy, considering the kinds of reactions it has garnered. I'd wait awhile before adding information in the lead, but if this continues to draw attention over the anti-semitic bit, then it may be worth adding. Dustin (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

generally, the decision about whether to add a particular controversy to the lede as well as the usual barebones bio of a BLP is determined by whether RSs when they profile the subject raise the controversy. so we include the antisemitism claim of the exwife in the article *body* because, even though it's only her word against his, lots of RSs covered it. OJ was acquitted of murder, but the trial is in the lede because that's what RSs do. So we should see if profiles, 'who is Bannon explainers', etc in RSs give WP:WEIGHT and space to the allegations - keeping in mind that wikipedia policy is always to lean convservative on inclusion in BLPs.NPalgan2 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely noteworthy to make note of the anti-semitic accusations leveled at him and the bigotry (incl. anti-semitism) that Breitbart has espoused under him:

NBC News: "That list also reportedly included Steve Bannon, Trump's controversial campaign CEO whose website, Breitbart News, has espoused anti-Semitic and nationalist views. Instead, Bannon will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president, Trump's transition team announced Sunday. Under Bannon, Breitbart.com has embraced racist conspiracy theories and become what Bannon termed "a platform for the alt-right.""[30]

LA Times: "Breitbart, which had long promoted Trump's candidacy, has also given a platform to the so-called alt-right, a loose collective of openly racist and anti-Semitic activists. "[31]

ADL: "It is a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the ‘alt-right’ — a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists — is slated to be a senior staff member in the ‘people’s house"[32]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations: "The Council on American-Islamic Relations also denounced the appointment and criticized Breitbart for trafficking "misogynistic and racist stories targeting women, people of color and immigrants."[33] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Too vague - This RfC is unlikely to lead to a consensus because the question posed is vague. "the anti-Semitic remarks" is undefined and open ended. I suggest starting over with a clear content proposal.- MrX 12:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I propose that we something along these lines to the lede (IP accounts deleted it last night): "Under Bannon, Breitbart News espoused racist conspiracy theories, and anti-Semitic and nationalist views." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I think we we would need several more solid sources that say that before we could place it in the lead. I'm not seeing enough that would support making such a claim in Wikipedia's voice and I'm not sure it meets WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 13:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to explain what you mean. It sounds like you are asking whether the article should be written from an anti-Semitic position, which of course it should not be. TFD (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Considering that the ADL today rescinded their claim of anti-semitism I think this should most definitely not be in the lead. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please provide a source for this unsubstantiated claim. Note that Breitbart.com is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.adl.org/sp/stephen-bannon-backgrounder/bannon-backgrounder.html 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Read the original statement here and this backgrounder and you will see the later post does not contradict anything said in the original press release. Indeed the very first sentence highlights what was originally said. I would caution you against blindly following Breitbart News articles in the future. FuriouslySerene (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Your bias is clouding your behavior here. For the record I don't read Breitbart. Now this is what the ADL wrote "We are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon." So, how can you put in the lead that he is a supposed anti-semite when there is no proof? You are violating BLP. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• You claimed the ADL "rescinded" their claims of antisemitism. Your claim was the exact same as a Breitbart News article, which was the only media source I found making this incorrect claim. I pointed out that the ADL never accused Bannon of personally making antisemitic remarks. The original statement, and the subsequent one, both say that he is the head of a website that has espoused antisemitic views. Finally, your point that "how can you put in the lead that he is a supposed anti-semite when there is no proof?" is off base. Nobody, to my knowledge, has proposed putting in a sentence that says Bannon is antisemitic. I would agree that should not be included here without reliable sourcing. However, this RfC is about statements he made about Jews to his wife, as you can see from this dif from the proposer: [34]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Snooganssnoogans' proposal, since this is one of Bannon's primarily claims to notoriety. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I would support Snooganssnoogans's proposal as well or similar version. Accusations of Bannon's supposed antisemitism and racism have been heavily covered in reliable sources. A substantial section of the article currently discusses that as well, so should be added per WP:LEAD. I'm not seeing any policy reason not to include it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - disgusting vicious attack on a living person, partisan attempts to use opinionated sourcing to smear a living person is an embarrassment to wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Are you guys really trying to report to the world that Neo Nazis and anti Semitic people are now in the highest positions of power in the USA? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• No Summoned by a bot, but familiar with the subject. While it may deserve mentioning somewhere in the body of the paragraph it does not deserve to be in the lead. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• No It is easy to find out that it is not true and I am not even sure why this is an issue. Posting that sources claim he says things but then not having items like a quote or even a link to an article that he wrote about being anti-Semitic should be easy enough. Am I missing something. Is there an anti-Semitic statement anywhere? Jadeslair (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, sort of: Information about the controversy should appear in the lead, since that's integral to the subject's notability. It is not necessary to quote the material directly in the lead. I agree this was a vague RfC, but a consensus can still emerge from it, because we're intelligent people, not robots.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. Agree with previous comment that this RfC is too vague and needs to be redrafted. What anti-Semitic remarks? How much of a mention? A paragraph? A sentence? A phrase? And what phraseology is proposed? Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Bad RfC - If you're going to start an RfC like this, please link to the edit or text that's under discussion. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose While the ADL did criticize Bannon's hiring. they did say that they are "not aware of any anti-Semitic statements from Bannon." Additionally, placing contentious remarks of that nature in a lede is not ok in my book for a BLM The Armchair General (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (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.