Talk:Steve Bannon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Survey: Should "alt-right" be described as "alt-right, linked to White Nationalism"?

I'm seeking consensus for describing the alt-right as linked to white nationalism in the lead. Please indicate your support or opposition (and reasoning) below. - daaxix

Support

• Yes - Prominent sources describe it as such. The Washington Post, The Guardian, The New York Times, NBC News,Slate, Mother Jones, Mic, Reuters, Orlando Sentinel, Seattle Post-intelligencer, San Francisco Chronicle, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, Fox News, [1], [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7].

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 the "alt-right" as white nationalists.

When the founder of the National Policy Institute coined the term "alt-right", the "alt-right" is associated with white nationalism : [8].

When Professor George Hawley, who is doing in depth research and writing a book about the "alt-right" movement, states "The people who are really pushing the alt-right have a similar vision, in terms of what they want, as the earlier white-nationalist movements." [9], there is a link to white nationalism in the "alt-right" movement. 131.236.53.247 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think you need to look closer at a lot of these sources. Many of them do not discuss Breitbart or Bannon at all, and just discuss white nationalism in general. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• No as it would be stating opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and "linked to" is pretty vague. Interested readers can simply click the alt-right hyperlink and read a neutral take on the subject there. Sarysa (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• No I agree with Sarysa. I researched the first line of links provided above. They are copied from the section on "Breitbart being 'far-right'". They do not speak to this subject either. I believe that editor should be disqualified from working on this piece since they clearly have a political opinion rather than fact. We want Wikipedia to be based on facts. The goal should be to make Wikipedia a reliable source, rather than a questionable amalgam of opinions. 72.201.85.55 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• No. I also agree with Sarysa. It is unnecessary to include the "linked to White Nationalism" part, and since this is a very controversial topic, and because white nationalism is a very loaded term (like fascism or communism), including this phrase will do more harm than good. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong No. The question assumes alt-right belongs in the lede which is debatable. According to our own article "alt-right" implies mens rights activism and neo-monarchism equally. A description so nebulous is more confusing than informative. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• No. The alt-right, much like many other ideologies, is comprised of many factions with different foci. Describing the alt-right as linked to white nationalism in the lede is as intellectually dishonest as describing communism as linked to genocide in a lead about John Bachtell or Islam as linked to terrorism in a lead about Muhammad Ali. -70.162.247.233 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Steve Bannon graduated from Harvard Business School in 1985r NOT 1983.108.20.185.52 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 108.20.185.52 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Student newspaper of Harvard says 1985.[10] Boston Globe says he *started* classes in 1983,[11] and NYT says the *stopped* being in the Navy in 1983. So looks like 108.20.185.52 was correct, per a little googling to cross-check. Ping MSGJ, can you update mainspace? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Turns out protection had been lifted already, I changed this myself.[12] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request Efn and Notelist

Please create a section above "References" for "Footnotes". Please place {{Notelist}} in that section.

Please then use {{Efn}} to wrap the huge lists of citations in the intro into one footnote per statement that then those footnotes will display all those references.

That way the intro will look much better.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: perhaps you could make your suggested changes to Draft:Steve Bannon otherwise I might make a mistake? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Y Partially kinda done. I wrapped things with the Template:refn tag, to make them visually cleaner. It would be preferable if the refs themselves could be given some explanatory surrounding text, assuming my workaround is not reverted. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

I would like to change the "designate" to "designate/nominee" in order to prevent confusion of the two words. Trump for President 2020 PoliticalGuy (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why nominee? It's not a position that requires confirmation or a vote. We don't use slashes. If we mean "and" we say "and". Please don't post promotional material on Wikipedia. - MrX 21:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Parking links here for future use

• http://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/stephen-k-bannon-indie-film-distribution-wellspring-breitbart-1201748020/

KConWiki (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Executive profile at Bloomberg.com

Rich (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5300:2D7:5105:C6B5:F0F1:61DE (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Cites in the intro

I get it that there's been a lot of back and forth over this article.

But does the intro really need that many citations?

Can we maybe limit it to three citations per statement in the intro?

Sagecandor (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but in my experience, as soon as you cut it down to, say, three cites, somebody will jump in and use it as an excuse to try and remove it because "biased sources!" or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks quite ridiculous and unencylopedic. In WP:10 year test time an encyclopedia article on a person would never have that many cites. Maybe wrap them in one footnote? Sagecandor (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a way to group the sources so that the reader sees only one link (i.e., one number) but when they click on that link the multiple sources are revealed. I'll research further.Haberstr (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As of today, I don't think it looks bad (because there are not a bunch of cites all lined in row), but each cite refers to a specific fact. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The cites should stay for now (unfortunately). Just a couple of days ago someone yet again reverted the consensus in the lede that Breitbart is far-right, and reverted it to "conservative populist." The RfC on this was long and took a lot of time, for stability I think we need the cites for now. Daaxix (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as somebody objects, there is no "consensus," although there might be a "prevailing opinion." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

Breitbart is not a "far-right" group like the KKK, it's shameful wiki would put a valid news organization into that same category. Under that premise, wiki needs to label CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC CBS etc. a far left organization. 134.205.198.82 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart may not be a far-right group like the KKK, but they are a far-right website. That's what more than 40 reliable sources say and that is what a consensus of Wikipedia editors have decided. I would also add, that they are not regarded as a valid news organization for Wikipedia's purposes. See WP:RS.- MrX 13:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

String of cites

Some enterprising editor, or editors, has subsumed a group of citations into one little number in order to substantiate the description of Breitbart News as a far-right publication. I checked one of them, the Associated Press story by David Bauder and could not find any place where Bauder described Breitbart as "far right," though he did quote somebody else as saying so. Therefore, I removed this citation. I suggest that the other citations be checked also. In addition, I don't believe we need a string of cites; all we need is a few Reliable sources that describe Breitbart as far right. Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Same remark for the Time magazine article (Time was quoting somebody else). I removed it as well. Unless the other citations directly back up the appellation of this organization as "far right," it might be best to remove this description: It seems to be controversial. What do you say? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are around 40 readily available references that directly refer to Breitbart as "far right". They are listed in a a recent RfC. Here's a source from just yesterday [13].- MrX 12:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just asking ... Would those same persons who are calling Breitbart (and Bannon) "far-right" be equally willing to label themselves or others as "far-left"? When you can call neo-Nazis and the KKK the "far-right", and in another breath call Breitbart a far-right news outlet, it must strike some people as propagandistic. It does strike me that way, at least. I really wonder if you did a frequency check on WP whether there might be a large disparity in use between the two terms, with "far-right" taking the lead. It's such a convenient way to dismiss an entire ideology. Dynasteria (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here has said Bannon is far-right. Our sources have described Breitbart as far-right. If you think they are wrong, you can take it up with them. Our role is to summarize what sources have written, not add our own opinions, viewpoints, biases, or interpretations. - MrX 16:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Since January 29, 2016, Bannon serves as a member of the National Security Council's principals committee.[25]

The correct date is January 29, 2017. Please see reference # 25. MateenMunaf123 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed! sherpajohn (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

The current version states the following: “Bannon produced 18 films[27] from the 1992 Sean Penn drama The Indian Runner to executive producing Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. “ A more accurate description: He was one of three executive producers of The Indian Runner [14] and one of three co-executive producers of Taymor’s Titus [15] Pete k 1948 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Bannon's spouses

The article is inconsistent with the name of Bannon's first wife, using her maiden name in some places and her married name in others. What name does she, herself, use?

The article has incomplete data for his marriage and divorce dates. I followed the sources to fill in the gaps, but sources are just searches on sites such as geni.com, which don't seem particularly authoritative. Surely there's a better source for this data. I thought a bio at breitbart.com would be a good place to look, but they don't have bios. I also looked for an entry for him at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/senior-leadership, but there's nothing there yet.  :(

Rich (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The marriage data may require a careful search of public records, as he was not a very public figure until Breitbart.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

picture, request number three

Cropped non-encyclopedic photo, from 2010.

Grainy bad-lighting low-rez screengrab, from 2014.

Please see my suggestion at Talk:Steve_Bannon#picture for a picture that could be uploaded as fair-use, while we wait for an NPOV libre-licensed picture to get uploaded. Current one is worse than not having any portrait whatsoever, it makes wikipedia look bad. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asking "someone" to do it instead of just doing it? Brianhe (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Because, not autoconfirmed? Because, lazy and slothful? Because, WP:FFU and WP:FUG are about as painful as the acronyms suggest?  :-) But okay, if you insist. I've submitted a request via the proper channels, so with luck the fair-use specialists will get to it eventually. But asking here on the talkpage seemed more likely to get a prompt response. And in a way it did 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain, I've been scouring the net for something Commons compatible for Sid Miller (politician) or Wilbur Ross, not wanting to go through the fair use rigamarole. Sorry if my reply came across as 'tude. - Brianhe (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No offense taken, and you did get me to file the request, so consider it a well-posed question that irked me in a way which might improve wikipedia.  :-) And although we complain, the annoyingly-heavy fair use restrictions do have a point, which matters long-term, than we want a free-as-in-free-speech encyclopedia not just a zero-cost one. I'm less worried about Ross, we'll have his picture in a month if not earlier, and a blank space until then may encourage people to help out, and thus suck them into becoming wikipedians. (I'll comment on Sid Miller over on your talkpage, might be something we can do about him.) Missing info reminds people that wikipedia is not completely baked, and needs more cooks in the kitchen still. But biased pictures like Bannon remind people that wikipedians as a whole are NOT sufficiently careful about our very own pillars, and I would argue *hurts* the ability to attract new wikipedians. So although we will also have a Bannon pic in a month or thereabouts, I do wish we had not had the biased 2010 pic around so long, it speaks poorly to quality control. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Good news: Texas Agriculture replied to my email inquiry that this Miller portrait is public domain. I will forward to OTRS and see if we can start using it. Brianhe (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Cf WP:FFU, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP.

Please make the following change to the infobox:

• now: |image = Steve Bannon 2010.jpg
• new: |image = Image-No portrait-text-BFD-test.svg

Note that there is a hidden HTML comment 'invisibly' included above, which reads "Wikipedia does not have an appropriately-encyclopedic freely-licensed imagefile; if you can help, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload ... to participate in the discussion please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Bannon#picture,_request_number_three". Also note that Template:infobox_officeholder suppresses the placeholder image from actually appearing in mainspace, per 2008 decision.

• Rationale for this change, is that the current photo is unencyclopedic and makes wikipedia look bad, both aesthetically and in terms of perceived bias.
• Nothing in the way of an actually encyclopedic portrait-type photo on-wiki,[16] just these: non-encyclopedic 2010 + cropped non-encyclopedic 2010 + POV photoshop 2010 + video 2011 + video 2012 + action video 2012 + low-rez video 2014 + grainy bad-lighting low-rez 2014 screengrab + non-portrait protest-sign.
• Nothing suitable on flickr,[17] just three non-encyclopedic ones.[18][19][20]
• Nothing suitable on images.google,[21] just repeats of what the others already offer.
• Talkpage conversations in the past have been either asking for a picture, or negatively reviewing those found thus far: nov.16th, nov.26th, dec.19th, and now it is January 1st.

Plenty of non-libre imagefiles exist, we just need to request that one be uploaded by a copyright-holder. (My request for a fair use copyright-exception to upload an encyclopedic-but-proprietary imagefile was already denied.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The current image does not violate WP:NPOV in any conceivable way. While it's unfortunate that Bannon's mouth is open in the photo, overall it is representative of how he appears. That is what makes it encyclopedic. If a better free image becomes available, we can replace it at that time.- MrX 14:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per above response from MrX.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again MrX, we definitely disagree that the imagefile cannot conceivably give the readership the perception that wikipedia is non-neutral. Usually that would be just an opinion, but I actually have an RS that portrait-selection is noteworthy as a controversial thing in wikipedia political articles on Trump and Clinton.[22] "The world is using Wikipedia to read up about Clinton and Trump, so we owe it to everyone to present information that is factually accurate, verifiable and neutral as possible" was a quote from one fine wikipedian, just above the paragraph where WaPo talked about the imagefile controversies. I agree that the current imagefile is factual, accurate, verifiable... it is a portrait of the topic of this BLP... but it is distinctly not what I would call "as neutral as possible". I understand that it is as neutral-as-libre-licensing-currently-permits, but I'd rather have no imagefile in mainspace, than one which will (conceivably) give wikipedia a bad rep. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OK we disagree. You have not made a convincing case that the current image is so non-neutral that the article would be better served by having a gray rectangle with some words in it. Such an approach does not follow common practice on Wikipedia. I very much doubt that Wikipedia's reputation will suffer by retaining the current photo of Steve Bannon.- MrX 17:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No argument here that wikipedia's reputation is currently less than stellar in terms of neutrality in this specific area, but every little bit of improvement helps. (As of 2014,[23][24] we are ahead of most news media but still trail paper-encyclopedias significantly in reader-trust.) On the technical matter of what exactly is being suggested, to be clear, the grey-rectangle-with-words does NOT actually appear in mainspace; because of a template-rule implemented in 2007/2008, that specific imagefile (and two dozen others) are effectively invisible, except on talkpages. You can see the effect in preview-mode, where (in mainspace only) no grey-box appears, despite being specified. One could also leave the |image= param blank, obviously, and the readership would not know the difference, but as I understand it including the 'invisible' specific imagefile may help alert some wikipedians that monitor for use of that sort of "libre-license photo requested" placeholder. In looking deeper, there is also Template:reqphoto which seems to be the modern technique. I will stick that onto the talkpage here, which may help. But I'd still rather we use no imagefile, or equivalently an invisible placeholder, whilst we wait for some as-neutral-as-possible libre-licensed portrait to get uploaded. (Cf Wilbur Ross where we have no photo as yet, albeit for copyright reasons rather than for perceived-neutrality-plus-aesthetics.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What i never understand is why famous people, who surely know about WP, dont simply take a decent photo of themself and upload it. problem solved. it may be about wanting to control copyright on their own work, which is understandable, and why we have so few really good sports photos here, as those are worth big bucks. I dont see why this image is "biased", its just him not looking so great. we have lots of people with shitty photos here, its not a bias, its just reality. I am not a fan of him, but i would totally like to see a studio quality image of him here, along with some informal photos showing him at functions. come on press corp donate some!!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize that US politics are more polarized and emotional than usual, and that's why it's so easy to claim bias in matters like this. However, let's face the fact that this is just what Steve Bannon looks like. His personal habits have been hard on his body and by all accounts his attention to personal grooming is at best lax. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If Bannon were a vain man, the photo 47.222.etc. wants to see would at least exist, somewhere, perhaps under copyright. He is unlikely to have taken a "nice" photo since he was under military orders (about 35-40 years ago). Clearly, his grooming is not a priority, nor have I seen any "nice" photos of him in the media anywhere, so I fail to understand your belief that such a photo exists. As for the existing photo detracting from WP's neutrality, his photo looks like hell, though he looks around 40 years old, not 63, and the article clearly points out that he is smart as hell.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

From some pictures I've seen in the news since the election it looks like he's gotten a shave/haircut and some new threads. These pictures are all under copyright though. His dermatological issues remain. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know if there will be a White House official photo taken, but if it is then it should substitute the current one. Ralphw (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Biased picture

@Axxxion: The picture is not biased. It is literally a photograph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The question is whether a particularly unflattering picture was chosen. Despite his issues with grooming and health, there are better looking recent photos of Bannon, but they are all under copyright. Consensus seem to be to stick with the current picture until there is some kind of official photo. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This was the edit in question. He was not in the image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• 
  The image in question

Considering you can find similar pictures of protests against almost ANY prominent politician, left or right, I would have to agree that it's biased unless we put protest pictures on all the other politician's pages. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me, unless their is already enough images in the articles. I think the pictures would have to be free enough for Commons and can't be used under fair use though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• • This is a BLP article, not an article about a Lesbian Uprising that is now being instigated by the old hag. What is the purpose of this photo that does not even show the person in question? Unless it is propaganda. The photo does not belong here.Axxxion (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not say it was the Menopause March or a lesbian uprising, but that it is not edited from what happened; merely a representative photograph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This piece clearly violates Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy in order to push the agenda of people who demand that the phrase "far right" be attached to Bannon at every instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101B:C048:72CD:60FF:FE76:65BE (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the Senior Counselor title still valid?

This article lists Senior Counselor as one of Bannon's titles, based on the fact that his appointment as Senior Counselor was announced shortly after the election. This title doesn't appear to be in active use, though.

The memo announcing his appointment to the NSC lists his title as "The Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist" -- the title "Counselor" doesn't appear anywhere.

If you search the White House website for "counselor bannon", there are no hits, whereas if you search for "strategist bannon" or "counselor kellyanne conway" there are.

It seems like the intent was to name him Senior Counselor, but they decided to name him Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist instead. Given that, I think references to the Senior Counselor title should be removed from the article. Thoughts? Stephen Hui (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that the Chief Strategist is the most prominent in the case of Bannon, but Assistant to the President to the doesn't even have a page just a redirect. What do you think about merging the different assistants titles into a single page? This could eliminate this problem as we could merely use the Chief Strategist term and the rest would be a technical job title that is not required on Wikipedia except in the case of a monarch or office holder.

Update I have created a merger discussion at Talk:Assistant to the President#Merge discussion. Please share your opinion there.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

NSC appointment/s: Legitimacy

Breaking: obscure law requires Sen confirmation for WH aide like Bannon to serve on NSC. See: 50 U.S. Code § 3021 - National Security Council Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bannon May Need Senate Confirmation for NSC Role Esowteric+Talk 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also see #National Security Council. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

National Security Council

Page is protected so I can't do it myself, but Bannon was given access to the National Security Council yesterday. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/01/todays-news-jan-28-2017/514826/14243 Aubrey (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states Bannon was added to NSC in 2016. Needs to be corrected to 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.180.167 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:Notnews. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This is far more notable than most of the content currently in the article.- MrX 16:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

According to section (a)(6) of federal statute 50 U.S. Code 3021[25], a civilian like Steve Bannon will need to go through Senate confirmation. --1Veertje (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Trump administration does not seem concerned with (or possibly aware of) that statute. Bannon appears to be permanent fixture.. - Sleyece(talk) 04:31, 02 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether they are concerned or (probably( unaware is irrelevant if another branch does not keep them in check. I would propose mentioning that reliable sources have questioned his legitimacy, but I would not advise on explicitly calling him illegitimate as we must respect the sovereignty of Congress (particularly the Senate) and the Judiciary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lack of citation for "with honors" attribution in relation to Harvard Business School

I think the attribution that Steve Bannon graduated from Harvard Business School "with honors" should be removed if there is no citation given for the claim. The lack of citation does not seem up to standard and may inaccurately and possibly intentionally portray Bannon in an overly favorable light. HarrietMWelsch (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)HarrietM.Welsch, Feb. 2, 2017

A citation has been provided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Communism portal

Is the Communism portal undue weight? Bannon is a self-described Leninist, and I think we should take the man at his word. kencf0618 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He said he was a Leninist but that does not mean he is a communist or Marxist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Leninism and Marxism are both Communism variants. It is so noted on the page itself. kencf0618 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The connection between Bannon and Communism would have to be clearly explained with reliable source, in this article, before being included as a portal link. Further, multiple sources of substance would be needed to establish that this is a useful link. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Bannon was serious is calling himself a "Leninist", other than to compare his basic strategy to Lenin. His policy positions and overall history are not those of someone with communist beliefs unless he is acting as some kind of deep undercover Soviet sleeper agent. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources I've seen treat the comment as hyperbole. An off-the-cuff comment made for shock value and political convenience should not be overstated, but in the (unlikely) event that sources establish the connection more thoroughly, we can reassess. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, then. Thanks for the discussion. kencf0618 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so silly. He once talked about challenging corruption in government and referenced Lennon. He is not a Lennonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course he's not a Lennonist, he can't even sing. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He has called himself a leninist, so that should clearly be included. There is no evidence to suggest he wasn't serious; that trumpism is ideologically related to Soviet communism comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Soviet communism. Trump has also stated his hatred of NATO and his love for Putin, the KGB agent who builds statues of Stalin and glorifies Stalin in schoolbooks. --Tataral (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

1) This is about Bannon, not Trump, 2) There may be a legitimate way to include the quote in a section on his political philosophy, but the overall evidence does not point to his being a communist Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

rubbish photo

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Donald_Trump_signs_Executive_Orders_January_2017_Bannon_Crop.jpg

Bannon watching Trump sign an executive order - this cropped photo is 80 percent suit and shows nothing of value in regards to the detail of "Bannon watching Trump sign an executive order" its just worthless of no added value - sadly it was replaced ,. what a crap wikipedia is, the user that added it has reverted it back again, unless case is made here for its inclusion I will remove it again as worthless, no added value at all. As a minimum I will go in and crop out the suit - Govindaharihari (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It could be replaced with this one, from which it was cropped:

- MrX 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that the original image could be a good compromise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is to be another photo, then it should be one in which Bannon is playing a visibly significant role, surely? Esowteric+Talk 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I can not find any photo but their is videos. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• The original photo is totally ok, I would be happy if it is replaced. I also agree with Ewsoteric - Bannon standing there doing nothing is of no added value to the reader. The cropped photo is rubbish and wp:edit warring [diff] it back into a wp:blp article is embarrassing, Govindaharihari (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Replace Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia, to Doris (neé Herr) under Early life, family and education with Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia, to Doris (née Herr) Yannsartori (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 08:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs partner

Is Mr. Bannon a former "Goldman Sachs partner"? It is widely reported that he was, but I tend to trust Wikipedia first. This article would suggest he is not. (Quite disappointing, really.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: It is clarified that he is not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Disappointing. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Second question, if Speaker Gingrich was in error about this. Is Mr. Bannon really a former navy captain? I found the rank of lieutenant in Quora. This article seems to have an early source that could not be specific at the time. Perhaps we could add the correct type of "officer?" -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Added. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I'm not the one to add this because I just read that a navy lieutenant is equivalent to an army captain. Evidently I'm not the only one confused (Vice President Pence's office made a correction, given at the end of that transcript). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bannon should be listed as a white nationalist and antisemitic in the category section

Steve Bannon described U.S. Jews as 'enablers' of Jihad

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.769511

There is no longer any denying Bannon is a racist. He can deny it all he wants, but the evidence is OVERWHELMING! AHC300 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz: Jewish leftist media. Great source you have

This topic seems to not be contributing to this page. I support archiving it. Sleyece (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

The removal of all instances of "far-right". The citation for this is just The Independent calling it far-right. There is no factual evidence giving merit to this label to Breitbart or the Steve Bannon. 88.98.86.113 (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry. You have no chance. The wikipedia bias is massive and in violation of all its own WP:Core content policies and its WP:FIVEPILLARS - also, ps, no one clicks on the links and 99 percent of editors here only care about their own bias. The good news is that the only people that actually read anything in a wikipedia article are wikipedia editors Govindaharihari (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources claiming Breitbart is far-right are businesses in direct competition, not only that but Breitbart has been viciously criticizing many of the cited news businesses, which make them more unreliable in this case. Breitbart is not "far-right" just because competing businesses say they are "far-right." This makes Wikipedia seem biased. Albaqualba (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The sources seem reliable – in my opinion, what is required would be competing sources that refer to the subject as something else. That would show that the subject might be something other than "far-right".  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was already reached on this topic by a long and drawn out process. There is plethora of RS which state this fact. Daaxix (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

The article says that Ben Shapiro defended Stephen Bannon against the allegations of antisemitism and listed 3 sources. The first source does not have any quotes or opinions by Ben Shapiro, and the other two sources only say that Ben Shapiro has "no evidence" that Stephen Bannon is antisemitic. But they do not indicate that Ben Shapiro believes Stephen Bannon is not antisemitic.

This assertion should be removed or sources consistent with the assertion should be cited.

Thank you -- Thorax11 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Sam Sailor 00:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Kenyon93 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Master of Time (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Darkness

It seems to me that it's an absurd violation of WP:WEIGHT for Bannon's facetious "darkness is good" quote to be in the lead at all, let alone take up so much real estate. What do other people think? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong in the lead, but then where should it go? Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The same material is already in the article body. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider it lead-worthy. —ADavidB 02:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for the lead. It's an old interview and is included in the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

B-class review

I've promoted the article to B-class. If you feel this is premature, please discuss. For example, one of the criteria for B-class is that the content has no glaring omissions. Thanks for your help. —Ringbang (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence, ill-advised Notes section

Edits requested:

• The sentence on Taleb and others as influences to SB's writings is misplaced, appearing as it does on this day, in the Personal life section;
• The notes and references should be combined: there is nothing acceptable and standard about a Notes section that has four entries—labeled a, b, i, l, with interposed bold headings under which one entry appears in each—where the sole items of content are citations. Moreover, the existence and content of the section's bold subheadings appear as bias. Merge the two sections (Refs and Notes), and be rid of this stylistically flawed and tendentious Note section, with its misordered labels and unnecessary subsections;
• The article is also in need of copyedit once-over:

• so all citations are presented in uniform style, with complete information—the article presently uses two author styles, at least two date styles, etc., and many authors, titles, publication names, access dates, applicable page numbers, etc. are missing—and so a "format citations" tag should appear on the article until this is done; and
• in general, where an example of the "in general" is the sentence in the Personal life section that begins the second part of sentence divided by a semicolon with a capital rather than lower case letter, "...Clohesy; They...".

Otherwise, nice work. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In re: Ref Ideas in Talk page heading

Removed two that already appear as references in the article. Added one. May I suggest, that if time is take to proposing references, that they be posted in good, standard format, such as cite journal or cite book? In that way, the current citation formatting mess will not get worse. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Evola

Is the wording "In a 2014 speech to a Vatican conference, Bannon cited Julius Evola..." really accurate? Yes, that's what the New York Times title says, but in Twitter the journalist who wrote it said he didn't write the title [26]. So what does the NYT article besides the title actually say? It tells about "a passing reference by Mr. Bannon to -- Julius Evola". In the Buzzfeed article to which the NYT article has a link to [27], Bannon is quoted: "he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola".

So Steve Bannon didn't quote anything written or said by Julius Evola, he simply mentioned his name when he said Putin's adviser (Aleksandr Dugin) harkens to Evola. Is this even notable for this article? I mean, sure the NYT did an article this, but this is just silly. Atleast change the word from "cite" because he did not cite anything by Evola. --Pudeo (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the article from "cited" to "did a passing reference" based on what the NYT article's actual text says. My edit: [28]. --Pudeo (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

But how is Evola relevant to Bannon at all? All he did was say his name once. He said nothing about Evola's philosophy. Pc Retro (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Breitbart News should not be described as far right. It is actually pro-Israeli and conservative. Conservative and far right are diametrically opposed.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. RS is clear on this issue, Breitbart is considered to be far right. Read the citations. Daaxix (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deconstruction

This may be worthy of mention: Steve Bannon outlines his plan to 'deconstruct' Washington. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede should begin with Chief Strategist

Bannon's current position in the US administration is more significant than his former roles as an activist, film maker, or businessman. I believe the first sentence of the Lede should be rewritten to say "Stephen Kevin "Steve" Bannon (born November 27, 1953) is the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist in the Donald Trump administration" His former roles should follow in the next sentences. Byates5637 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that this should be in the lede, however, let me be clear; this does not imply that the rest of the lede should be removed. Daaxix (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and ditto Daaxix. Please keep these titles lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support clear - easy support, no objection Govindaharihari (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi what happened to this proposal? Time to go for it, Byates5637. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Image

New image of Bannon from CPAC by Michael Vadon, can we all agree this is much better than the previous one? MB298 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, yes. Great photo of him that belongs in the infobox, for sure. Vadon really captures some good images. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

MB298, that's a good photo, this one is better. It has been placed in the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Biologist?

Running Biosphere 2 for a couple of years does not make Bannon a biologist. To be a biologist he needs to have had biology training and done biological research. I see no evidence of this. Biologist should be removed from the list of his professions. Arthur.Goldberg (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. have removed. Currently, his previous career (including Breitbart) has been moved out of lead sentence to the 3rd paragraph. This seems to go against WP:LEADSENTENCE. Does anyone object to moving his former professions back? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Twin daughters

His twin daughters are named Emily and Grace. (Dhserherhzrrz (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

Duplicate

"After his military service, he worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions Department. 'When he left the company he held the position of vice president.[24] When he left the company, Bannon held the position of vice president.' In 1993, he was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry and has produced 18 films since 1991."

Someone can fix it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.180.1.109 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplication resolved. —ADavidB 17:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate

Suggested edit: Remove "Bannon graduated from Virginia Tech in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in urban planning and holds a master's degree in national security studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. In 1985, Bannon received a Master of Business Administration degree with honors[24] from Harvard Business School.[25]" from top section as it is redundantly repeated in the "Early life, family, and education" section. Scheng23 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I reduced this duplicated paragraph to a "Bannon holds two master's degrees." sentence in the prior paragraph. —ADavidB 04:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2017

Adding his Goldman Sachs job in the occupation field of the office holder infobox. Teolemon (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Discuss 23:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Time magazine in lead paragraph?

" Time magazine has called Bannon "the great manipulator".[6]" This is undue weight for the lead - let alone lead paragraph. This sobriquet may take off and become closely identified with Bannon, but we shouldn't anticipate that. Better to say that he is considered a highly influential figure within the admin. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal from NSC

The language about Bannon's removal from the NSC needs some work in my opinion:

Bannon was removed from the NSC role in early April 2017. White House officials said Bannon's service on the committee had been as a check against former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn and that Bannon no longer felt the role was needed after H. R. McMaster's selection to that position.

(1) The first sentence is passive. (2) Sentence two makes it sound like Bannon alone chose to leave, but that's only one part of the reasoning in the WP:RS.

I changed to this:

Bannon was removed from his NSC role in early April 2017 in a reorganization by National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, who Bannon had helped select. Some White House officials said Bannon's main purpose of serving on the committee was as a check against former National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn, who had resigned in February 2017 for misleading the vice president about a conversation with the Russian operatives. Hence, with Flynn gone, Bannon was no longer needed. Bannon had only attended one NSC meeting.

refs defined.

I am open to alternatives.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated "far-right" claim

The characterization of Breitbart News as a "far-right" website is a non-objective exercise in name calling. The only sources provided for the characterization come from political opponents. The remark is merely derogatory and aimed at marginalizing an opponent. Reference to such a statement might be appropriate in a section describing the character of political opposition, but it is wildly inappropriate to state it as a fact in the opening summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs)

This issue was settled here and here. It is unlikely to change, and certainly not without another RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. The correct solution is to report that many sources describe him so, for WP should not label at all. For that would be propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎82.250.23.62 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Lede sentence about his role

This sentence is not accurate:

In this capacity, he was identified as a regular attendee to the Principals Committee of the U.S. National Security Council from January 28, 2017[3] to April 5, 2017.[4][5]

He might have been "identified" as a regular attendee, but he was not, since he only went once. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This sentence previously stated that he was a regular attendee; I changed it to show that he was identified as a regular attendee, which he was, even if he didn't attend meetings. —ADavidB 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017

I conducted research into Steve Bannon's background utilizing over 100 different sources and citations. I uploaded a pdf copy of the biographic report at the bellow URL. The pdf document linked in the URL contains all relevant sources and citations related to my recommendations.

http://m.uploadedit.com/ba3s/1494216438278.pdf

Overall, I think there is a ton of information in the Wikipedia article that is out-of-date and vague, particularly the information regarding Bannon's employment at Biosphere Ventures 2.

I strongly believe that the entire section currently labelled "Earth Science" should be deleted and replaced with my content.

Original Content In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the closed-system experiment project shifted emphasis from researching human space exploration and colonization toward the scientific study of earth's environment, pollution and climate change. He left the project in 1995.

My Content In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Bannon's employment at Bisophere 2 was marked by turmoil and litigation. He was tasked with auditing the company's accounts and increasing company profitability; however, when Bisophere employees kicked the auditors off the property, he and the company's other managers took action. Biosphere 2 investor Ed Bass persuaded a U.S. District Court Judge located in Fort Worth that the company was significantly mismanaged. The court responded by issuing a temporary restraining order against key Biosphere personnel without hearing any viewpoints from the respondents, an unprecedented, legal first in corporate takeovers.

On April Fool’s Day 1994, when key managerial personnel were away on business, Steve Bannon, Ed Bass, Martin Bowen, and other SBCV managers launched their corporate takeover.They arrived accompanied by several off duty, armed police officers hired from the division of surveillance and organized crime within the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The officers secured the property, changed locks, altered computer access codes, and established an armed command post outside the Biosphere’s perimeter.

Steve Bannon then convened an all staff meeting where he announced that he and his colleagues were now in charge of overseeing all Biosphere 2 operations. Top managers within the company were barred from entering the facility and many including Margret Augustine (CEO), Marie Harding (CFO), John Allen (Vice President), Deborah Snyder (Director of Publications), and Sally Silverstone (Director of Agriculture) were immediately terminated from their positions.

Bannon had planned the day of the takeover on April Fools Day precisely to coincide with the absence of key Biosphere personnel and to cause maximum confusion among current employees. Despite these measures, two employees, Gaie and Laser, flew back from out of town and returned on April 4 early in the morning. The pair then proceeded to smash small safety panels to neutralize the Biosphere’s air pressure and open the airlock doors. Journalists labeled the act “sabotage,” but Gaie and Laser maintained that they committed the act of vandalism out of concern for the well-being of the Biosphereians still inside. Three days later, the pair were apprehended by Arizona state police and were fired from their positions.

This episode began a series of long drawn out court battles between Bannon and the ex-Biospherians. Gaie and Laser filed a claim against the parent company Space Biosphere Ventures (SBV) asking for $315,000 and $202,500 respectively in compensation for lost salary, bonuses, and defamation; SBV counter-sued for $100,000 citing damages and lost revenues. In June, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs awarding them more than $600,000.

Steve Bannon was made acting CEO in May 1994. He immediately began restructuring the company, laying off old employees and conducting a cultural and psychological smear campaign against the previous managers. He displayed a profound sense of unease towards the project’s founders and proceeded to purge the staff of all suspected loyalists. William Dempster, a scientific engineer, was originally kept on because he was regarded as being indispensable, but he was later fired because Bannon feared he may be working as a spy for the previous administration. Later, in an attempt at wiping away any memory of the previous establishment, Bannon banned the usage of nicknames from among long term employees and ordered maintenance workers to destroy any physical artifacts related to Biosphere 2’s founders. Still suspicious of employees, Bannon ordered Steve “Bear” Pitts, a staff scientist descended from the Cherokee nation, to ritually cleanse the Biosphere 2 facilities of negative energy. Finally, Bannon launched a campaign to discredit the company’s founders by having his brother, Chris Bannon, develop a fictitious news article wherein the previous managers were portrayed as cult leaders.

Once all remnants of the old administration were either converted or removed, Bannon began venturing into academic politics, discussing with administrators from Ivy League Universities about the potential usage of the biosphere for climate change research. Bannon left the project in late 1995. Columbia University took over management of the Biosphere on January 1, 1996. ScientiaInvestigations (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"the platform for the alt-right"

Citation isn't even linked. Also, that statement has not been confirmed. Some Mother Jones but job claimed he said it. Why would that be in an objective page about him? That should be taken out. Ktm4391 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The citation is linked. Sarah Posner, the Mother Jones journalist who wrote about this, said Bannon made the statement during a Republican National Convention interview. Objectivity means we include what reliable sources include, even if they're not all favoring the subject. —ADavidB 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this is that statements can be easily misinterpreted. Bannon could have been, and probably was, joking when he said that, akin to the time when Reagan said about he Soviets, "We begin bombing in five minutes," or when Bill Clinton joked that his activities in college while visiting the USSR were now "classified." Given that Breitbart is clearly pro-Israel, there is no reason to believe that that publication is actually "alt-right." If anything, the so-called "alt-right" hates Bannon and everything his publication writes. The statement in question was probably something that Bannon said tongue-in-cheek, just to be ironic. Best to give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of your personal opinion of him.

@Ktm4391: is right. Take it out. Greggens (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, he was "probably" "joking", was he? Here's what the Breitbart News entry has to say about that: Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016, but denied all allegations of racism and later stated that he rejected the "ethno-nationalist" tendencies of the alt-right movement. One of Bannon's coworkers said he was not referring to Richard Spencer but instead to "the trolls on Reddit or 4Chan." Let me explain it to you: that is not a joke by any definition of the word. That is him saying to the alt-right that he is one of them and to the rest of the world that he is not one of the bad ones; in other words, wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

Still not convinced? Here you have a quote from the book Devil's Bargain by Joshua Green, a journalist who has interviewed Bannon several times: The term “alt-right” itself had no fixed meaning. In its broadest sense, it encompassed the spectrum of groups left over if you took everyone to the right of center and subtracted mainstream Republicans and neoconservative foreign-policy hawks: populists, libertarians, immigration restrictionists, reactionaries, paleoconservatives, white supremacists, and full-on neo-Nazis. This catchall definition is what Bannon had had in mind when, in July, he told a journalist at Mother Jones that he considered Breitbart a “platform for the alt-right.” Boy, what a hilarious joke.

If you want to include clarifications like those in the Breitbart News entry do it; in fact, I think that the more complete the better. But altogether removing an important quote because you choose to see it as a joke despite evidence to the contrary is plainly wrong and something that only the likes of Conservapedia should do. LahmacunKebab (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the ol' "was only joking" defense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@LahmacunKebab: this is not Liberalpedia. Your bias is showing buddy. ktm4391 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you got that backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have provided: 1. One credible source (a book from a journalist that knows Bannon and has interviewed him several times) that considers the Mother Jones quote as true. 2. Evidence that the quote wasn't a joke. If I'm the biased one surely you can provide better and more unbiased things to support the deletion, can't you? LahmacunKebab (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when is Mother Jones a credible source? If you can link trash like that, why aren't sites like Daily Caller, Drudge Report, Zero Hedge, Daily Wire, etc ever used as citations on here? Ktm4391 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

At least since 2012 best I can tell (WP:RSN), probably longer since nobody bothered to even question it's reliability before that. But yes, it's a source with a clear bias (which isn't the same as lack of reliability) so generally it should be attributed. The sites you mention on the other hand, are straight up fake news and some even publish hoaxes (and in the case of Daily Caller, instructional videos of how to run over protesters with a car, which sort of puts the recent tragic outcome in Charlottesville in context). So it's no comparison and these basically can't be used at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

After Ousting from Trump Administration - The Tick Tock

Media reports that possible role of "directing Potshots" at the administration. A section detailing after Trump life is certainly forthcoming. proposed that would also include that he was an advocate that there is no military solution to the North Korean situation which has sourcing--Wikipietime (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1. On the evening news was released, Aug 18, 2017, of departure from Whitehouse, reportedly has returned to his position of executive chairman with Breitbart News. Wolf Blitzer read statement from Breitbart stating the Breitbart says the sky is the limit now that Bannon is back.--Wikipietime (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"racist"?

It seems a tad much to link Bannon citing a novel and then calling the novel "racist" when its real theme is arguably transpiring everywhere -- legal and illegal immigration from less developed nations fundamentally altering, or ruining, modernized cultures. Arguably, this is the story of modern Europe. Sure, Wikipedia leans to the Left and thus there is an inherent desire to slam Bannon. But this doesn't seem a fair way to go about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That's why, when I added that bit of information, I said that the novel was "allegedly" racist so, if other people decide that you have a point, putting that word back would be my suggested solution. That said, and to be fair to the person who deleted it, I also think that the novel is racist, period. It is about barbaric, brown people destroying Western civilization, so come on. If this thing isn't racist, then only over the top shit like The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf could be considered racist, and that would misrepresent how wide and pervasive the concept of racism really is. LahmacunKebab (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's flat-out racist, and only a racist would deny it. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Firing called for by Sabato

In reaction to 2017 Unite the Right rally, Larry Sabato, CNN Reliable Sources with Brian Seltzer Aug 13 2017, called for his, Bannon, firing as a white supremacist occupying the White House. --Wikipietime (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant, -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Leninist

I don't think a purported comment made in a party in 2013 warrants mention here. According to Snopes, Bannon has never called himself a Leninist anywhere else. We link to the Leninism page, which implies that Bannon is a self-confessed Communist, which is ridiculous. It's not about whether he said it (apparently Bannon just said he couldn't remember); it's about notability. This just isn't worth mentioning.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic. TheValeyard (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maybe he said "Lennonist", just to be funny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree, it seems like a throwaway line is being ballooned out of proportion. TheValeyard (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Mostly agree while noting that the comment was obviously a reference to strategy not ideology.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Even in terms of strategy, it's utterly meaningless, unless you define down 'Leninist strategy' to mean no more than 'trying to elect Donald Trump'. However multiple supposed "reliable sources" saw fit to trumpet this mare's nest, so in the article it should stay. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, newsworthy, maybe, but this is an encyclopedia. I think Bannon was probably referring to Lenin's view of the state as expressed in The State and Revolution, but Lenin's theory was based on the introduction of socialism, so there is no real similarity. That aside, I wonder if we can rewrite the text for greater clarity? For example, linking to Leninism is extremely misleading, as it encourages an uninformed reader to read that page and believe that this is what Bannon subscribes to. It would be better just to link to Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack, I think you're making too much out of it (and I thought you'd of all people would see it) - Bannon obviously has in mind the whole "vanguard" idea of a dedicated clique pushing through radical changes by any means necessary even when the masses "aren't ready". That's like 90% of Leninism and it's also Bannon's views regarding political strategy as he's articulated them in other places.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Or don't mention it at all. It's trivial minutiae to recount what he might have said at a party. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who put it there. For what is worth, I would argue that it wasn't so much out of place because, isolated incident or not, I think it helps to understand Bannon's political mindset. It shows that he thinks about Leninism as an example of the kind of successful anti-establishment revolution that he wished to spark in America. Bannon's jacuzzi being covered in acid is an example of meaningless trivia that I would never put in here. In my modest opinion, nothing about Bannon's political mindset is meaningless. You hadn't heard me before deleting it, so please reconsider said deletion. LahmacunKebab (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a throwaway line (if he said it) and it is open to multiple interpretations, as this thread shows. Including it in the article is just misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What if we simply clarify it more? In fact, the original source itself clarified it. So it could be something like this (suggested addition in italic): In 2016, Ronald Radosh claimed in The Daily Beast that Bannon had told him earlier, in a book party on November 12, 2013, that he was a Leninist, in that "Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment" Radosh summarized it as Bannon "employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals". LahmacunKebab (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Bannon was a publisher with a thousand opportunities to put it in writing -- he did not do so. Radosh did not tape it but tried to remember the exact words spoken at a party 3 years before--not a reliable source for an exact statement by Bannon. Let's drop it. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The description of his views should be based on published opinions, not on the recollections of a throwaway line at a party.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

lead a bit unbalanced

I suggest that the lead include the end of his employment with Trump, some facts be left out as included in the article itself (eg his attendance of the US National Security Council - the importance of that needs to be explained - how he described Breitbart News, etc), and the whole lead be written in chronological order. The last point is based on the idea that the lead itself is an introduction to the whole article, and is not itself structured with an introductory paragraph. Sort of like the "5 paragraph literary essay" without the enthusiasm. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that he's out, we can start thinking about applying WP:10 year test to the lead. --Nanite (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

2010 image

@Bongey and TheValeyard: please discuss about the image here as per the arbitration remedy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss on my end; an editor removed an image without discussion, I restored it. It is on that user's shoulders to explain why he/she feels it should be removed. Mr./Ms. "Emir of Wikipedia", kindly do not ping me again or post on my talk page unless there is a matter directly between you and I. You aren't an admin, and this did not involve you in the slightest. TheValeyard (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I put it in the comment if you read it "Image doesn't have any context to anything on the page, nor alone b What, Why, When, Where, How, it's just a bad photo just thrown on the page randomly."

Plainly I seen the picture wonder what was it about and there isn't anything anywhere on page that relates to the picture other than it being an unflattering image of subject of the article. --Bongey (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

NEEDS to be REMOVED it has been edited so much that it doesn't look anything like the original from photographer nor does it actually look like Steve Bannon from 2010. . https://www.flickr.com/photos/irvines/5104952894/ . The photo has been edited so much to make it look like he hasn't seen the sun in years. Here is video of him a few months before , again notice the edited photo doesn't look anything like him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4lbfDOzsQ

--Bongey (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bongey: If your problem is with the editing from the original then we could just replace it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Calm down. The image was color-corrected from the weird orange of the original, nothing more or sinister. TheValeyard (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not upset TheValeyard, see the original and a video of Bannon from the time period.It was incorrectly colored corrected. Bannon was living in CA and was basically sun burnt many times for public appearances. Look at the youtube video from 2010 and the original picture, they look similar. The edited image does not look like Bannon at all from 2010.--Bongey (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the color-correction looks better than the orange original, but don't really feel strongly either way. You could always revert the image file to the orange tint. TheValeyard (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Book described as "racist"

Spem Reduxit included that while one source described a book as "stunningly racist", other sources have praised it and given it good reviews (diff). One needn't guess which sources are conservative and which aren't, but that doesn't make the conservative ones "sketchy" and "undue", as Volunteer Marek included in a reversion edit (diff) summary. I propose restoration of the other sourced viewpoint. Comments/consensus? —ADavidB 04:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I support @Adavidb:. Reverter needs to tone down his partisanship. Or we need to remove the review (by the HuffPo and others) of the book, because the article is on a man called Bannon and the book review can best be described in this context as specious. Spem Reduxit (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

HuffPost's "stunningly racist" comment has no relevance to this biography and should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Adavidb, you're inferring that the "sketchy" and "undue" had something to do with the fact that the sources were "conservative". It didn't. The sketchy part is due to the fact that these were off handed comments made in an opinion piece about something else entirely. If these or similar comments had been made in an off hand manner in an opinion piece in a "liberal" outlet, it would still be undue and sketchy.

I'm a bit ambiguous currently on whether this book should be mentioned in this article at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If the book remains mentioned, I believe the article needs more than the one description of it, perhaps also drawing from this article in Religion & Politics, which seems more balanced. Though it's an opinion piece, this article in MarketWatch appears applicable to the issue over the book. —ADavidB 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I'm for just removing the mention of the book.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned the book in the article again, in a very basic way, without mentioning racism and using a single source which doesn't call it "stunningly racist" in its title. Remove it if you must, but I find the book important in that it reflects well Bannon's views on immigration. It's not a random thing like, for example, saying that he likes Titus Andronicus (also in this source) LahmacunKebab (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

protests image

It looks like this image file:Trump protest (30297762504).jpg is also questioned. Removed by NPalgan2 it was restored by the user who restored the other image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia TheValeyard Does the Hillary Clinton have a closeup photo of a protestor's placard with "Hillary=Corrupt" waved by a Bernie Sanders supporter or tea party protestor? Does the NARAL article have an "Abortion=Murder" placard waved by someone at the March for Life? I have seen such photographs in the news, that doesn't mean they belong in those wiki articles. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If have those images available at Commons then they could be worth inserting into those articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the status quo on wikipedia is that political figures' biographies do not feature images of hostile protest placards. Their absence suggests widespread consensus that they would make the articles look nonNPOV. Why should Bannon be the exception? 15:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Go right ahead :-) File:Bill Clinton 5-23-16 Stockton California (26927693610).jpg

Anyway I think the image is mislabelled ("Protests against Bannon's appointment") -- it looks to me like a more accurate label would be "A placard opposing Bannon, at a protest against the Trump administration" as we can see anti-Trump, anti-Sessions signs as well. In addition the image may be not contextualised properly since protests are not mentioned in the text at all. Cheers, --Nanite (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Protests and critiques of Bannon were the subject of substantial media coverage, as is evidenced by this article. (see also: [29]) Illustrating them with photos isn't inappropriate. That said, these photos are solid alternatives: [30] [31].--Carwil (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The wiki article on Ukip does not call it far-right

Current phrasing in article is "Bannon is supportive of foreign far-right movements, such as the French National Front, the Dutch Party for Freedom, Alternative for Germany, the Freedom Party of Austria, and the UK Independence Party,[157] as well as the Narendra Modi government in India.[158]" User Marchino61 removed UKIP from the list of organisations called far-right in wikipedia's voice. TheValeyard reverted this change. Note however that the wikipedia article UK Independence Party does not call it far-right in wikipedia's voice; the source The Valeyard relies on is just "the daily beast". Also note that some of the other parties listed are labelled as "Political position: Right-wing to Far-right" but not called far right in the wiki lead sentence. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If a reliable source doesn't call it far-right in conjunction with Bannon then it is probably WP:SYNTH for us make that link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with other Wikipedia articles are not a concern in this discussion. Ukip shares more with the far right than it admits, Ukip has not wiped out the far right, it’s given it a new home, UKIP future in balance as far right takes hold. It takes all of 30 seconds to do some basic research here, folks. TheValeyard (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

But do any of those sources mention Bannon? If not then it is technically possible that his support of them is not relevant to them being far-right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your first two pieces are from the guardian and independent's op-ed sections, the third is a regional paper. There are tens of thousands of non-oped RS news articles on UKIP, how many call it far-right? Furthermore, the 'far-right' labelling issue seems to have been very extensively discussed on UKIP's talk page. If you want to argue that wikipedia should call UKIP far-right take it up there. In the meantime, the Steve Bannon page should reflect what the other pages say. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The third source is not only from a regional paper; it also does not make an assertion that UKIP is far right. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This page should not reflect what the other page says, but rather what the reliable sources discussing UKIP in relation to Bannon say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Statements made in wikipedia's voice, even on different articles, should not be self-contradictory. This is basic common sense and why we have Template:Contradicts other. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be the most recent RfC on calling UKIP far-right in wikipedia's voice. Consensus was clearly against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Independence_Party/Archive_10#.28Old.29_Request_for_comment NPalgan2 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that they should be self-contradictory, but rather that we should not include a link between UKIP and Bannon that hasn't been published. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I would say that Bannon's relationship with UKIP and Farage is well documented https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/steve-bannon-as-napoleon-trump-strategist-given-portrait-by-nigel-farage TheValeyard, see my arguments about the sources you offered above, which is not enough to call UKIP far right. Labelling should reflect consensus on that page, which has been very extensively debated. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

TheValeyard is the only editor maintaining that the consensus of the RfC I linked to should be ignored. I have pinged but the editor is not engaging, so I am altering the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that we need a source mentioning Bannon and then calling the party far right in this context- not WP:SYNTH as the descriptor is not important in the context of Bannon. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth where is your evidence that UKIP's policies have now changed and that we should ignore the RfC? You are going against consensus. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not something that is just asserted. If you believe a consensus was reached here to not describe UKIP as far-right, please link it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did so above. Here it is again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Independence_Party/Archive_10#.28Old.29_Request_for_comment Current page reflects this consensus. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is from over three years ago and a different page. Do you have anything convincing? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

RfCs do not lapse, and they bind other pages. If there was an RfC that concluded that we shouldn't call UKIP far right in wikipedia's voice, you don't just get to ignore it. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, consensus can indeed change and what you got here is actually a good argument to revisit the far-right issue over at the UKIP page. But here we stick with the sources provided. Volunteer Marek  05:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Which sources? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please provide something to support the idea that consensus never changes and is globally binding, or drop the idea that a 3 year old RfC on a different page about a political party that has undergone drastic change recently (please see: Brexit) has any sort of weight in this discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but that does not mean that it has changed. And NPalgan2 is correct: this article, in its description of UKIP, should reflect the consensus at the main article for that topic. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• As things stand, none of the "sources" presented support a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice that UKIP is far right. The sources are either WP:RSOPINION only, or do not make such an assertion. This includes the Daily Beast source currently being used. Without verification, this is a non-starter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note Discussion related to this taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Steve_Bannon_and_UKIP. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging MelanieN as most recent admin to have edited this page: can two editors unilaterally decide an RfC's consensus comes with an expiry date? does the consensus at UKIP apply just to that page or to related contemporary politics pages? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what has happened at another article is WP:Local consensus and so may not apply here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Worth reviewing WP:Local consensus. It is not about treating each article as an island and forming a consensus at each individually; but the opposite. It is about not overriding wider scale community consensus. The text is focused on policies and guidelines, with the example given of a WikiProject not being able to form a consensus contrary to en.Wiki wide policies & guidelines. If it is taken to apply to content as well as policy, it actually speaks against forming a consensus here to describe UKIP in this article in a manner which is contrary to the consensus at the main UKIP article. I also reiterate that we still do not have a source which supports description of UKIP as factually "far right". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: Two editors cannot decide something unilaterally. Please be careful with your use of words. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:NPalgan2. To answer your questions above: In general, no, RfCs do not expire. They can be replaced by a later RfC. A local consensus at one article is not necessarily binding on another article, although local discussion at that other article can and often does decide to respect it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• General comment on the issue under discussion here (speaking now as an individual editor and taking off my administrator hat): I suggest taking a step back and looking at the sentence as a whole. I am a little disturbed that the sentence in question says "Bannon is supportive of foreign movements described by some journalists as far-right". That seems like a classic weasel-worded statement; one is tempted to add a tag to "some journalists". And looking at the movements cited, our Wikipedia articles always say "right wing" but do not seem to characterize them as "far right" - which may have a different definition in other countries than it does in the U.S. Some of the movements are identified by WP as "nationalist" or "right-wing populist", or in the UKIP's case, "part of a broader European radical right". I really don't see how it is possible to lump all these organizations together as anything other than simply "right wing," which seems unchallenged. I can't see much justification to tag them all with a "far-right" label that may mean something different in their countries than it does in other countries or in the U.S. I would suggest changing the sentence to read "Bannon is supportive of right-wing movements in multiple foreign countries, such as… " This is just one person's opinion, and I see that there is fruitful discussion at the NPOV board, to which I would defer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, MelanieN. It's my impression that political scientists prefer to describe these rightwing movements as 'populist'. See "Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism" https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1401 'populist, right-wing' seems to be used in the lead sentence of many of the wikilinked parties. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I share your concerns. More broadly, one sentence in the paragraph is sourced to the The Daily Beast and The Hindu and the other to the Guardian but trivia. The paragraph itself should be removed per BLP. The gaming of DS to circumvent WP:ONUS and WP:BLP is concerning. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Re UKIP - this may not be the right place to bring this up, but there's a lot of sources out there which point out that the UKIP of three years ago is not the same as the UKIP of today. Lots of stuff has happened in the meantime; Trump, Brexit, LePen, alt-right... and Bannon. Plenty of sources can be found stating that 1) UKIP has had an influx of new members who are more explicitly "far-right" and 2) the party itself has moved farther to the, well, far-right, then previously as a result. So yeah, an RfC on the UKIP talk page from three years ago could just mean that *that* article is outdated. Volunteer Marek  05:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet, no sources which support a statement in Wikipedia's voice that UKIP is factually far right have been provided here on the Talk page or referenced in the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the silence over sourcing seems very telling. How about: "Bannon is supportive of foreign right-wing populist movements, which The Daily Beast describes as far-right, such as ..."? —ADavidB 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing these sources. Here's what I got when looking at google news "ukip site:nytimes.com" (all non-opeds, <12 months old)

• UKIP — right wing, populist and anti-European Union https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/world/europe/uk-independence-party-douglas-carswell.html?mcubz=0
• would lead the right-wing, anti-immigration party https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/world/europe/ukip-uk-paul-nuttall.html?mcubz=0
• populist, right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/world/europe/ukip-steven-woolfe.html?mcubz=0
• the right-wing populist U.K. Independence Party, known as UKIP. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/europe/britain-labour-ukip-elections.html?mcubz=0 NPalgan2 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek (My error; VM didn't invent this change, they merely restored it; it had been at that wording for several days) recently changed the sentence from "Bannon is supportive of foreign movements described by some journalists as far-right, such as..." to "Bannon is supportive of foreign far-right movements, such as..." That struck me as the exact opposite of the way this discussion was trending, so I changed it to "Bannon is supportive of foreign right-wing movements, such as..." BTW changing "far-right" to "right-wing" makes the entire discussion about UKIP moot, since everyone agrees UKIP is right-wing. IMO calling these movements "far-right" in Wikipedia's voice (or even the Daily Beast's voice) is hard to justify, since our articles about those parties do not describe them that way. If someone wants to add "populist" I think that could be justified by sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My issue was not with it being far-right or right-wing but that it would be WP:SYNTH to link that as the reason they are supported by Bannon without a source making that claim. It could be that he supports these movements because of their nationalistic or populist aspects. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is an improvement. Right-wing populist would be more accurate if the sourcing is adequate. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Miscellany

Labeled a Burkean (whom Bannon does reference, if occasionally)

Ref:

Underlying all of this is the philosophy of Edmund Burke, an influential 18th-century Irish political thinker whom Bannon occasionally references. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke presents his view that the basis of a successful society should not be abstract notions like human rights, social justice, or equality. Rather, societies work best when traditions that have been shown to work are passed from generation to generation. The baby boomers, Bannon says in a lecture given to the Liberty Restoration Foundation (LRF), failed to live up to that Burkean responsibility by abandoning the tried-and-true values of their parents (nationalism, modesty, patriarchy, religion) in favor of new abstractions (pluralism, sexuality, egalitarianism, secularism). For both Burke and Bannon, failure to pass the torch results in social chaos. -- "Under the Banner of Bannon: What Bannon Really Wants," Gwynn Guilford & Nikhil Sonnad, February 3, 2017 Quartz

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Both Edmund Burke and Julius Evola produced extensive oeuvres for which they are known and can be judged, thus the attributes in this article are as superfluous and tendentious as putting "Bearded Illinois lawyer" in front of Abraham Lincoln. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Devout --> strongly believing Rom. Catholic

Quote: "I call Bannon a non-practicing orthodox Catholic. I am not aware that he dissents from any teachings of the Church, still I am not aware that he practices the faith. It could have something to do with three ex-wives. But it should be understood there is a difference between weakness and dissent. Moreover, he came this close to going with me on a retreat a few years ago. Maybe one day." -- Austin Ruse LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Has "zero tolerance" for anti-Semitism/racism?

"But he [Bannon] says Breitbart is also a platform for 'libertarians', Zionists, 'the conservative gay community', 'proponents of restrict­ions on gay marriage', 'economic nationalism' and 'populism' and 'the anti-establishment'. In other words, the site hosts many views. 'We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought — we set it up that way' and the alt-right is 'a tiny part of that'. Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has 'some racial and anti-Semitic overtones'. He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on white supremacist allegations in the intro

RfCs must be posed in neutral language. This RfC is not even textually accurate, let alone neutral. Specifically, it says that the edit in question used "white supremacist", when in fact it used "white nationalist". The whole thing is already derailed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) In addition to the above, no discussion has occurred which would predicate this RFC. Please begin a talk page discussion and allow for consensus building before you try to start this RFC again. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor (User:Asmithca) recently added a large paragraph describing some Bannon's views. He also added a line noting that some people accuse Bannon of being a white supremacist, which another editor (User:Truthsort) contested. Question: should we mention that some people accuse Bannon of being a white supremacist specifically in the intro of the article? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Options: Support adding the sentence to the intro Oppose adding the sentence to the intro Comments So, first, the text DOES NOT "accuse" Bannon of being a "white supremacist", so the way you filed this RfC is illegitimate. Please reword the RfC in a truthful and neutral way. Volunteer Marek  13:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Read my wording carefully -- I NEVER said that the text itself "accuses" Bannon of white supremecy. I stated that the text describes accusations of white supremecy. The text is worded neutrally. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) The text does not describe accusations of white supremacy either. You need to read the text carefully. Volunteer Marek  13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC) The text: "He has been described by some as a white nationalist, though he fervently rejects said allegation" -- it describes an accusation against Bannon, which he rejects. My wording is fine. Let's wait for others to comment. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent sourced removal

This may have been long but appeared to have been well sourced. —PaleoNeonate – 15:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. 1990's guy removed the material and attempted to start an RFC mischaracterizing it. Hopefully he will join the discussion here. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is why I removed the paragraph. Of course, If VM removed it, nobody would have a problem, but since I removed it, taking his advice, it's a problem. And no, I did not mischaracterize anything. The article had a line added within the last 24 hours that noted that some people allege Bannon is a white nationalist, and I and one other editor contested it. What's the problem? And there's nothing wrong with an RfC either -- my preferred way of reaching consensus (it's not as messy and more clear than a regular discussion). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We'll have to ask him, but I think his response said it should be removed because you made an RFC about it. It IS customary to remove contested material while an RFC is ongoing. Since the RFC wasn't formulated correctly, and was formulated prematurely, it was shut down and VM's point is moot. The white nationalist sourcing is accurate.. You characterized it as a "white supremacist" which is NOT accurate. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part, but the response was a clear overreaction -- and there are many RSs that accuse him of being a "white supremacist": [32][33][34][35] Whether I used "nationalist" or "supremacist" is really not that big of a deal, and shutting down an RfC because of it is just ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? There is pretty big distinction to be made between the two terms, and that you're equating them gives a sense of your motives for editing that aren't that flattering. Is it about accurately reflecting RS (with proper attribution/weight/language, and Bannon's response, might I add) or is it about removing anything that suggests Bannon's ideology might be on the extremist side of the political spectrum? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember WP:AGF -- none of your perceived reasons are my actual reasons. It's WP:UNDUE. I have no problem with the wording of the info, but we don't have to add a sentence like that in the intro (at the RfC, I made it clear that I'm referring to the intro). We live in a politicized time, so people of certain political views will call those of the opposite views things like "white nationalist", etc. -- and it goes both ways, not just from the Left. Just because we have these terms floating about doesn't mean we should make it prominent in an article. Are we going to include Trump's criticism's of Corker (and vice-versa) in their articles' intros? Or what about the birther stuff with Obama? These are the equivalents of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your warning about assuming good faith rings a bit hollow after you accuse me of wanting the paragraph restored simply because you removed it, and insinuated there would be no discussion if it was done by another editor. And I reject your equivalencies for a few reasons, and will save you the cite to WP policy: 1.) Things are covered based on weight, and the description of Bannon as someone who supports "white nationalist" policies is established, and might deserve a place in the lede. 2.) Other things exist, and if the weight exists to put those things in their respective articles (it doesn't), then feel free to put 'em in.

Our article uses 5 sources that link his views or works to white nationalism, and a cursory search leads me to believe we could add many more (though I don't feel that's necessary... the ones we have are fine). This sentence is well supported by the body of the article.

Regardless, the rest of the material should be restored as at this point there has been no discussion on it. I would suggest reverting 1990's guys last revision, though keeping the interim edit by Corkythehornetfan. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a little different to cite reliable sources than to play the "politician x accused politician y of z" game, though. We could presumably select partisan sources and quote-mine, but these appear to be reliable non-partisan ones... Speaking of which, I have the impression that the nytimes one is quite nice (the analysis of Caldwell seems rather neutral there). —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Restored. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PaleoNeonate: My problem is with the single sentence (specifically in the intro) about the white nationalism stuff. The rest of the paragraph is OK with me, even though on a completely unrelated note, I would be worried about the intro getting too long with it.

@IP: The article cites five sources, but that's out of well over 200 total. This is a very small part of the article, and all of it is either politicized allegations or Bannon responding to them. We can definitely have this in the body, but not the intro. I will have another RfC on this shortly. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to count sources, you should add all sources where he denies the "white nationalism" allegations. Well, his appointment to White House was considered controversial precisely because of the "white nationalism" claims [36], so they do appear as something notable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm my impression is that since the lead must summarize the body and that the body includes the content, the lead can also include a minimal mention (the current short sentence in that large lead does not appear undue). RFCs are long processes and although they assess editor consensus, their result usually coincides with policies and manual of style. But open one if need be, I won't personally hat it. —PaleoNeonate – 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

1990's guy is correct about this. It is just long and still there are nothing more than a few opinions that have been heavily discussed before. You can also read discussions in archives.[37][38] We should be rid of any allegations of White nationalism or White supremacism. Lorstaking (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Per policy, "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article", and 1990's guy agreed this belongs to the article. Does it belong to the lead? Here is section about his political beliefs on the page. It does tell that "He rejects allegations that he is a white nationalist", so this can be included in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to review the discussions you linked: they don't actually say what you think they do. This is an entirely new formulation, and belongs in. 97.66.48.34 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, CNN did NOT ever own Castle Rock Entertainment, as reported here

As quoted in the "Investment banking" section: << In one of Bannon & Co.'s transactions, the firm represented Westinghouse Electric which wanted to sell Castle Rock Entertainment.[48] Bannon negotiated a sale of Castle Rock to CNN, which was owned by Ted Turner at the time. >> I think whoever wrote this misunderstood the source. CNN, a news network, was ALSO owned by Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting, which is now owned by Time Warner; Castle Rock is now owned by Time Warner's Warner Brothers. (For verification, go to the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_Entertainment" page, which has no mention of CNN anywhere on the page.) I know, it's confusing, but Ted Turner once owned things OTHER than just CNN. Anyway, I hope someone can fix this, as I am not able to. Thanks. 2601:C6:4100:7B:B59A:DF29:C102:91C (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't his Biosphere 2 controversy rate a mention?

(And, if not, what ELSE are we not telling folks about Bannon's earlier career?) In the "Earth Science" section, this is all that is written: << In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon became acting director of the Earth-science research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the closed-system experiment project shifted emphasis from researching human space exploration and colonization toward the scientific study of earth's environment, pollution and climate change. He left the project in 1995.[60][61] >> The BIG story, according to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2": Bannon, an independent investment banker (and non-scientist), was brought as CEO in by financier Ed Bass to fix possible multi-million dollar cost overruns, and made changes that some previous participants thought endangered the safety of crew members, and who then broke into the facility late at night to inform them; later prevailing in a lawsuit against the facility (during which Bannon, speaking to jurors about one of the "bimbo" plaintiffs, said he wanted to shove the complaint "down her fucking throat.") Whether you're for him or against him, this case does have interesting things to say about Bannon in his days before we all got to know him, no? 2601:C6:4100:7B:B59A:DF29:C102:91C (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro

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

There is consensus to include a sentence like this in the lead of the article with a potential caveat (discussed in the final paragraph). While those supporting inclusion are greater in number, an RfC is not a vote. BLP policies like WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, require an extra degree of caution to be exercised when finding consensus for the inclusion of controversial material. However, having assessed and weighed the arguments made, I do not think such an addition would be inappropriate.

Those opposing inclusion have claimed that including such a sentence in the lead would be WP:UNDUE However, those in favour of inclusion provided a significant number of sources covering the white nationalism allegations against Bannon (see in particular the comment by User:MrX), and highlighted that the accusations were an important part of the coverage surrounding him.

Some of those opposing inclusion raised an argument by comparison to the Obama Birther controversy. There was significant press coverage surrounding the controversy, but as it was utterly baseless it got no mention in the lead. Similarly, the argument goes, the accusations against Bannon, while gaining RS coverage, were equally baseless and therefore should also get not mention in the lead. However for the reasons raised by User:Snow Rise this comparison doesnt really work. Allegations of white nationalism are something far less binary than allegations being born in a different country. Those opposing inclusion have not put forward any sources demonstrating the allegations against Bannon are based on objectively demonstrable falsehoods in the same way the Birther allegations against Obama were.

User:Snow Rise raised a concern regarding the proposed sentence containing weasel words and suggested "something more nuanced." This objection to weasel words didn't get much discussion beyond this, and should probably be discussed further. Looking at the WP:WEASEL policy itself, such words are permitted in the lead when used to summarise other sourced statements in an article. While not required by policy, it may nonetheless be worth looking into a "less perfunctory" phrasing as Snow Rise suggests.

--Brustopher (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Question: should we include a sentence like this that mentions allegations that Bannon is a white nationalist? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Options:

• Support inclusion
• Oppose inclusion

Survey

• Oppose: Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. These are allegations (on the level of slander) made by Bannon's political opponents, allegations which he has sharply refuted much more than once. Since Bannon's article is a BLP of a very controversial political person, and since allegations of white nationalism and the like are very inflammatory and controversial, we should leave it out of the intro. There's no problem with keeping the allegations in the body, but to put them in the intro would be undue because the mentions of Bannon and white nationalism throughout the article are sparse (and all of them have to do either with allegations against Bannon or his response to them), and it is not a defining characteristic of him nor a prominent controversy, per MOS:LEAD. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a prominent controversy? I'm interested to know why you think this isn't "prominent" given our own sourcing in the article. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with caveats (Summoned by bot). Whether it's a fair descriptor or not, the perception that Bannon has been a supporter of white nationalism, and has served to mainstream it to some extent, is a significant sentiment expressed in sources. Nor are the accusations as incidental to our coverage in this article. I think some mention of this is probably WP:DUE for inclusion. WP:BLP does not direct us to omit facts which have been discussed at length in reliable sources, even if they are politically charged. For that matter, we do no favours to the interests of an article's subject if we ignore discussion of an aspect of public perception surrounding said individual (an aspect which exists regardless of whether we cover it in the lead) and therefore miss the opportunity to note subject's denial of that claim. Regardless, this is a major-enough component of the coverage of Bannon to deserve a brief lead mention. But not with anything remotely like the wording in the diff cited. "Some have said..." is the definition of WP:WEASEL verbiage. We need something more nuanced; if we we're going to mention this in the lead, something much less perfunctory is called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree largely with the comments of 1990sguy above, but I will add that even if it were a prominent controversy, libellous accusations do not belong in a WP:BLP lede unless they are both substantiated and a dominant reason why the subject is prominent. For Bannon, neither is the case. Obama's birth certificate was a major controversy, but mere allegation, never substantiated and he is prominent for other major reasons. That didn't belong in a lede either (and isn't in the article at all, actually). The same applies to Bannon - probably with more force, since white nationalism is far more defamatory than accusations that one was born abroad. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference here: the reliability of the sources. The certificate controversy was not a mainstream controversy but a fringe conspiracy theory. It has been reported elsewhere as it became notable, of course, but no reliable source would support those theories. As such, it becomes possible to mention it, while making sure to describe it as false propaganda (and not in the lead, where it would be undue). It's so fringe that it was considered undue for the main article itself, in this case. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I actually think there is an even more basic reason why Gabriel's comparison is a false equivalence: the claim that Barrack Obama did not have a valid U.S. birth certificate is a factual and binary one. He either did or didn't and the belief that he didn't was clearly, by even the most amateurish reading of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, a WP:FRINGE position. By comparison, any time a social label is applied to someone (as with the question of whether Bannon qualifies as a white nationalist or not), that determination is, by definition, a non-empirical one, and quasi-factual at best. It is for this reason that we typically attribute such claims clearly and we are never going to be presenting them as an absolute statement (and indeed, I see no one suggesting we do that here). We have a higher level of insulation against unbalanced claims of this sort on this project and readers (not just our readers, but people generally) intuitively parse such claims as being more succeptible to bias, because they are a refelction of social views and not an empirical deductive process. Furthermore, the belief that Bannon is a white nationalist, or has at least aided their cause, is not WP:FRINGE (as that term is understood on this project) in even the remotest sense. It is a certainly a controversial and divisive claim, to say the least, but that is not the same thing.

In short "Barack Obama is a Kenyan (and maybe a member of a Muslim fifth column) and thus ineligible for the office of the presidency" ≠ "Some people regard Steven Bannon as having white nationalist sympathies." The two claims are drastically different, both in basic character and the degree to which they are supported by mainstream perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ambivalent - The article should mention it, the lead may. I don't find that it's a problem with a long lead like this one to have a single sentence about it, since the lead summarizes the article and more than a single mention exists in the article. Attribution is possible to not use Wikipedia's voice, and a mention that Bannon rejects this view is also acceptable. —PaleoNeonate – 01:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see how this RfC is different from the other one a few sections up that was closed for being phrased non-neutrally. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into comparisons with the previous RfC and expressing an opinion as to whether it should have been closed, I personally find the phrasing of this RfC perfectly neutral and valid. Personally, I find that 1990guy's !vote suggests a deeply non-neutral perspective on the issue at hand--what with the comments like "on the level of slander", the claim that this is not a substantial controversy, and the claim that there is not significant coverage of the topic in the article. To say nothing of the assertion that we shouldn't mention "mere" allegations (because...reasons?), which seems like begging the question to me, when the very point of the RfC he has opened is to inquire as to whether we should include an allegation, and the claim that someone sympathizes with a given social movement is always, as a matter of definition and basic reality, going to be an allegation made by one or multiple parties--none of us are mind readers, so no one has ever in the history of our species, been able to "prove" what another person believes, beyond allegation.

All of that said, the question that 90'sguy poses in the RfC prompt itself is clear, succinct, introduces no bias that I can see, and asks for a straight support or oppose !vote. As RfC inquiries go, it's simple, clean, and entirely appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Gabrielthursday. The Obama/birther analogy is relevant, less offensive, possibly better-sourced and still has no place in the lede of his article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think several editors above already adequately explained why that "reasoning" is complete bunk. Volunteer Marek  06:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Bannon bragged about his website being the home of the alt-right, which our article describes as white supremacist/nationalist. I would argue the sentence should not have the word some in it, however. Plumber (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bannon has explicitly rejected claims that he is a white nationalist multiple times, and he has even mocked white nationalists multiple times. If you define "alt-right" as "white nationalism," Bannon would probably reject the movement (I don't know if he has mentioned the movement since mid-2016). I have noticed that the term "alt-right" has taken several different definitions, with anti-establishment economic nationalism being more commen before the election and the white nationalism one becoming the main definition after the election. The same "alt-right" article you referred to also mentions right-wing populism and nativism (which is a rough synonym of general nationalism) as being part of the movement, and these describe Bannon much better. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, he explicitly rejected claims that he is a white nationalist multiple times, and he has even mocked white nationalists multiple times. That is one of the indications the claim is notable and therefore should be included per WP:BLP (public figures). My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the attributed form as proposed. We may want to add "...and white nationalist sympathizer" based on some of the sources. It is not lead-worthy, but would seem to be required by WP:DUEWEIGHT based on numerous sources: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]- MrX 21:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is ridiculous. You can't find a single Frank Marshall Davis, black liberation theology and Louis Farrakhan reference in Barack Obama's article. Talk about rampant bias and grotesque POV pushing.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  That's not a policy-based argument, nor does it even make sense for comparison purposes. Do you disagree that the proposed sentence is verifiable in sources and do you disagree that 11+ sources are sufficient to establish due weight as required by WP:NPOV?- MrX 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Those so-called sources are OP-ED, which by definition are mere "opinions". You can find a million similar op-eds insinuating Obama and the Iran-born Valerie Jarrett were in the Ayatollah's pocket. It doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic. Gimme a break. Your blatant POV pushing/conspiracy peddling is getting kinda embarrassing.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Btw if you're gonna cite blatantly partisan garbage sources like Salon, Mother Jones, and Vanity Fair, we might as well use Breitbart, InfoWar, and VDARE.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
      • No, most of those sources are NOT op-eds. Both Vanity Fair and Mother Jones are respected, award-winning publications. If you wish to disqualify sources, please visit WP:RSN and make your case there. It doesn't matter if Bannon is a white nationalist. The content proposed is that he has been described as such. That is a widely reported, verifiable fact. Omitting it from his biography would run counter to WP:NPOV. To clarify: my support is for inclusion in the article, not necessarily the lead.- MrX 20:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, he is alt-right, and yes, some alt-right people are white nationalists. And some are just plain America-first nationalists. I suspect he is more the latter than the former, but my opinion doesn't matter. Bottom line, there is no clear evidence that he is a white nationalist, and he denies it (yes, I know, they all do), and "some people say he is" does not belong in a biography, and it should be left out. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose. Bannon isn't a white nationalist judging by his statements. PolitiFact busted Joy Reid's accusation that he was one. Callum Borchers of the Washington Post has criticized Breitbart and Bannon for not taking white supremacy seriously enough, but it is clear from the quotes Borchers provides of Bannon/Breitbart and Borchers's own statements in the article that Bannon has disdain for white nationalists. I'm not opposed to inclusion of the allegations in the body of the article, but I am opposed to including them in the lead. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise (with all the caveats pointed out as well). It's not just that "some people say he is" a white nationalist... It's that more than a few notable, reliable sources who are representing mainstream viewpoints say he has extremist views consistent with white nationalism, if they don't go so far as to call him a white nationalist outright. It is both separate and distinct from other controversial, conspiracy theory-esque questions that might show up in other biographies as these RS support the continuation of the thought itself, and aren't simply repeating it as part of a refutation. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support because this claim appears as something highly significant and well sourced in relation to the person. For example, this claim was main objection by his opponents against including him in presidential administration [50]. The subject denied this claim on numerous occasions, but it only makes the claim even more notable. This should be included per the BLP-public figures. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Pretending that white supremacists are something else is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support this is alleged in RS (either they call him one or call him "alt-right," a distinction w/o a difference). Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Politico article referenced specifically notes that Bannon has been "portrayed in the press" as a white nationalist - key word "portrayed". It's opinion and he's refuted these allegations multiple times. Possible mention in the body but certainly not in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLP, this is a pretty controversial label especially when he has himself denied it. Lorstaking (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- this is a big part of the Bannon narrative, see for example:

• Breitbart Claims It Is Not Alt-Right And Neither Is Steve Bannon, Newsweek
• Steve Bannon's Nazi Problem, Vanity Fair
• How Donald Trump Is Bringing the Alt-Right to the White House, Time

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - UNDUE, POV, and BLP unless he declares it himself. Bios are to be conservatively giving info of the life and times, not attacking character. Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It's not our job to decide whether Bannon is or is not a white nationalist. It is our job to relay information about prominent controversies where prominent controversies exist. The proposed text takes a neutral tone and merely says that many have applied this label to Bannon. There is a plethora of coverage in RS that discusses the label in relation to Bannon. It seems obvious that it deserves mention in the lede. NickCT (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Is the Pope Catholic? Bannon tries to bury his white nationalism but the genie can't be put back in the bottle (or whatever the appropriate metaphor is). There is a massive amount of RS evidentiary reporting that he is a white nationalist, so it is appropriate for the lede to mention that in the brief neutral way presented. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- this is a matter of conveying what is in reliable sources, and if we want to maintain integrity as an encyclopedia we'll have to ignore all the bullshit that gets in the way of a sensible discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The fact that he's allied with white nationalism is extremely well-sourced and has extensive coverage - it's a big part of what makes him notable, relative to other presidential advisors and media figures. Just based on the coverage, it should be a prominent part of the article and the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Was listed at WP:AN closure requests. —PaleoNeonate – 02:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Stongly oppose, WP:BLP applies here, and Wikipedia is not a vote and I hope whoever closes this realises that. A label of "white nationalist" certainly must not be in the lede, and unless you can find strong, reliable sources explicitly describing Bannon specifically as a white nationalist then it should not be in the article at all. There certainly should be something around "links to white nationalist organisations", but that is different. fish&karate 12:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Except THERE ARE "strong, reliable" sources which state that he is described as such. Volunteer Marek  14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you help me out and provide some of those sources here? Ones that say "Steve Bannon is a white nationalist", and not the weaselly "Steve Bannon has been described as a white nationalist". fish&karate 15:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the text says "Steve Bannon has been described as a white nationalist" and NOT "is", then that is what we need sources for. And we have them. At least half a dozen in the article already. Volunteer Marek  16:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

So we can say "Steve Bannon has been described as being described as a white nationalist". Or, if that reads badly (which it does), we can say "Some media outlets have asserted that 'Bannon has been described as a white nationalist'". What we can't do is present Politico or Salon's weaselly language (because they won't outright state it, going with the passive "has been described as" rather than the actionable "is") as our own. A tertiary assertion like that has no place in the lede. fish&karate 15:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - well sourced, and given revelations about his speeches as well as the individuals he's got working for Breitbart, not actually controversial. Volunteer Marek  14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - UNDUE, POV, and BLP violations. These are serious allegations that are made my political opponents. There's no proof that he is a white nationalist. Truthsort (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2017 (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.

amazing no mention of this in his service record. wondering why? <smirk>

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/20321

Er, I'm certainly no Bannon apologist, but perhaps it isn't mentioned because Wayne Madsen isn't the most reliable source..? JezGrove (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fighting with Trump/

Bannon's fight and lawsuit with Trump is notable enough for the lead paragraphs? Right? MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. At most a sentence in the lede, maybe not that much (since Bannon today has been praising Trump, maybe he hopes for a reconciliation). The details are in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved the detail out of the lede (where it was excessive and redundant). Also - what lawsuit? There is nothing about a lawsuit in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it must be an erroneous reference to the cease-and-desist letter that Trump's counsel sent to Michael Wolff, the author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, and the publishing company. Neutrality^talk 02:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that it was over quotes from Bannon in the F&F book should be mentioned otherwise it just appears strange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and added it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

All those new sub-sub-sections

I don't think all the new subsections - "Defence by prominent Jews", "Darkness is Good", "Relationship with H.R. McMaster", etc. - are an improvement. They seem kind of random and illogical. They often (for example "Executive Order 13769 – immigration restrictions on 7 countries") have multiple paragraphs under them, including material which is actually about something else. I am inclined to remove them all. (Specifically I propose to remove "Defence by prominent Jews" and "Darkness is Good" from the Donald Trump campaign section, and "Executive Order 13769 – immigration restrictions on 7 countries", "Removal from the NSC", "Relationship with H.R. McMaster", and "Charlottesville's "Unite the Right" Rally" from the "Trump Administration" section.) If we do want subsections in the Administration section, "National Security Council" and "Departure from the administration" have enough material to be worthy of subsection treatment. What do others think? Does anyone object if I remove the ones I have named? What do people think about "NSC" and "Departure" as subsections? --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a few might be alright, because the article is pretty long, but overall it' too much. So basically, I agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned them out and did quite a bit of reorganizing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"GOP leaders weighing ‘further steps,’ including contempt, for Bannon"

washingtonpost.com Feb 15 2018

I am no native speaker + unsure whether something of that might / should be mentioned in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No discussion for nearly 2 months. At 7 !votes to 1, there was a strong consensus to merge. (proposer close) NPalgan2 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that White_House_Chief_Strategist be merged into Steve Bannon. "White House Chief Strategist" was just a grandiose job title Bannon made up for himself, he got fired, and now six months later there's no reason to think that anyone will use this title ever again. It's a very short article, most of which is already in this one. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; for all the reasons above. --Theo (contribs) 13:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't Karl Rove once have this title? He is mentioned as the 'White House chief strategist' in the following articles:

• https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-to-use-cpac-to-quiet-talk-of-rifts-in-white-house
• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/may/3/20020503-024053-7912r/
• https://www.politico.com/story/2009/10/bush-memoirs-to-haunt-gop-028261
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/02/04/the-republican-establishment-strikes-back-but-will-it-work/
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-scrushy-sentence/ex-healthsouth-ceo-scrushy-sentenced-to-prison-idUSN2824475720070629

--Jay942942 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They're describing him as "White House chief strategist". Rove never held the formal title "White House Chief Strategist". NPalgan2 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree -- you may think the job or the holder of the office was a joke, but the title and role was created by the President of the United States. Thinking the title is grandiose or will never be used again, doesn't mean it should be scrubbed from White House history. I mean the Chief Strategist was even a member of the National Security Council for a while. Not for us to judge this role's significance. Rainyseattle (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The question, I think, is not whether the role of "White House Chief Strategist" was important or not, but whether it was distinct enough from Bannon for us to write an article about "White House Chief Strategist" that's not just a subsection of the "Steve Bannon" article in disguise. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge – except for the Federal Register memo (shown as a reference), we do not have RS showing the "creation" of the position. In fact, the FR memorandum simply says "the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist". Is there RS showing that this particular Assistant to the President position was modified in some sense? (The FR memorandum suffers from poor drafting.) If not, we might looks at the other references and see if they use the term "Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist" as a proper noun. I dont't think they do. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge — It's more of a one-time title attached to Bannon, than it is an official post. --IDW5605 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge with no prejudice against recreation if it the title is used again. Currently the usage of Bannon has not has not received coverage to warrant it being separate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge - This'd be like giving a seperate article to all of the titles the dragon lady in that nerd show (you know the one) gives herself. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge this title can be a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

"On the UK" Section specifics

Bannon is represented in the wiki as follows:

"Although Bannon initially favored the British National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL) in the United Kingdom,[212] he later backed the UK Independence Party (UKIP)."

The source for the initial statement regarding the BNP and EDL is an opinion article, specifically the following line:

"Mr Bannon came to Britain to scope out the ideological landscape and hunt for like-minded recruits. Those who met him say he was, at first, taken with the British National party and the English Defence League" (Financial Times, see source 212).

This source is not strong enough for the statement in the wiki. If the source is strong enough for an inclusion in the wiki at all, the statement in the wiki should be modified so that it is at least as weak as that in the opinion article, such as "Although it has been reported that Bannon was taken with the BNP and EDL when he first came to Britain..."

This is due the vague, unattributed "those who met him", the fact it is an opinion article, and most importantly considering these misgivings, the difference in meaning between "favored" in the context of "backing a political party" vs the far more ambiguous "taken with".

Herewardwakeful (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

Add Category:Steve Bannon Uriahheep228 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that I've removed consensus required

In line with my comments elsewhere about its workability. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"See also" section

A "See also" section was recently created, pointing to articles about the 2016 Russian interference in US elections.[51] I removed it stating "Is there any allegation that Bannon interfered with Russia?" and was reverted twice by Calton,[52][53] although I asked him to get consensus on the talk page.[54] This is a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction on this article: if you'd like to keep this content, the onus is on you to obtain consensus. Please self-revert and make your case. — JFG ^talk 08:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It should not be included unless Bannon is himself personally linked to either. Calidum 19:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing it per BLP is a real stretch. Bannon is clearly connected to the investigation. The decision to link from this page to those pages is just an editorial decision. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

References

In Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Bannon is listed in 2014, 2015, 2016, and in 2017. In Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018), Bannon is listed 15 times in the body of text. X1\ (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe add Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2017), since Bannon is there for January, October, and November, so far? X1\ (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that those prominent links in the "see also" section can make readers think that Bannon was involved, or is suspected to be involved, in Russian interference. The numerous mentions of his name in the target articles establish no such allegation:

• 22 July 2014: A lawyer advises Bannon and others that Cambridge Analytica should not be involved in U.S. elections. No Russia.
• 11 July 2015: Bannon publicly comments on a video about Russian sanctions. No interference.
• 17 August 2016: Bannon is named Trump campaign CEO. No Russia.
• September 2016: Bannon approves a meeting with Egyptian President El-Sisi. No Russia.
• 11 November 2016: Bannon celebrates the firing of Chris Christie. No Russia.
• 12 November 2016: Bannon welcomes Banks, Farage and Wigmore, unannounced, in Trump Tower. No Russia.
• 15 December 2016: Kushner and a bunch of people, including Bannon, meet the U.A.E. ambassador, the Abu Dhabi crown prince, and Tony Blair, in New York. No Russia.
• 29 December 2016: McFarland forwards Bannon and others an email about Flynn and Kislyak. The email mentions the Russian Ambassador, but there is no action by Bannon.
• January 2017: Bannon takes part in meetings with middle-eastern officials. No Russia.
• 5 January 2017: Flynn, Kushner and Bannon meet King Abdullah II of Jordan. No Russia.
• 17 January 2017: Bannon attends an inauguration dinner, which includes British and American supporters who were born in the Soviet Union. No modern Russia.
• 21 January 2017: Bannon and Page discuss the Steele dossier over the phone. No interference.
• 5 October 2017: Bannon is mentioned as "Senior Policy Advisor" in the Papadopoulos guilty plea for making false statements. No action by Bannon.
• 13 November 2017: The Atlantic reports that Trump Jr. informed Bannon, Conway, Parscale and Kushner that he was in touch with WikiLeaks. No action by Bannon.
• 3 January 2018: in the upcoming Fire and Fury book, Bannon describes the Veselnitskaya meeting as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic". That's a comment that rather tends to paint himself as opposed to any work with Russia during the campaign.
• 9 January 2018: Bannon gets subpoenaed to testify. No allegation of interference.
• 16 January 2018: Bannon testifies to the House Intelligence Committee and cites executive privilege. No allegation of interference.
• 5 February 2018: Bannon refuses to appear in front of the House Intelligence Committee again. No allegation of interference.
• 15 February 2018: Bannon returns to the House Intelligence Committee, answers "no" to a few questions, and asserts executive privilege for the rest. However, it is reported that he separately answered all of Mueller's questions in 20 hours of testimony. No allegation of interference.
• 4 March 2018: Mueller subpoenas somebody's communications with Bannon and others. No allegation of interference.
• 23 March 2018: NBC News breaks the July 2014 story on Cambridge Analytica. No Russia.
• 25 March 2018: Lewandowski says he turned down Cambridge Analytica, and knew Bannon was involved with them. No Russia.

These timeline articles have become, for better or for worse, a kitchen sink of every last action of people linked with the Trump campaign, even years before Trump decided to run for office. Using the rationale that such people are mentioned repeatedly in those timelines does not prove anything other than the fact that they were working with Trump at some point in their life. The "see also" section is totally unwarranted. — JFG ^talk 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

lede

this lede looks awful with citations, excessive content, etc. Needs cleanup Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does it say that Cambridge Analytica was involved in the facebook data scandal?

Although it was involved in the data scandal, I don't believe it is relevant to the article, it feels more like a statement solely for discrediting the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrariabat (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon has deep connections to CA. [55]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica dissolved?

Currently at the top of the article it has "He serves on the board of Cambridge Analytica" given that Cambridge Analytica was dissolved in 2018 wouldn't it be better to change it so that its written in the past tense as he no longer serves on the board of the company as Cambridge Analytica no longer exists. Something like "Previously he served on the board of defunct data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica which was involved in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal." I think would be better. What does everyone else think? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

dob

We cannot include his dob without multiple reliable sources. Please someone remove, I've already done it once. —valereee (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked back at the last 2,000 edits, to November 2016, and the D.O.B. has been there all that time. I expect it may have existed a decade longer than that. I can't imagine that Bannon himself hasn't looked at this article and had no problem with that particular entry. I think it should stay. Activist (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee and Activist: - what do you think of Times Vice starship.paint (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, works for me! —valereee (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Activist (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of background to the body

I added material to the lede without being aware of the discussion which I went to immediately after making the addition to the lede. I had already considered moving most of my edit to the body, but by the time I'd tried to enter the Talk page discussion, there were so many rapid posts that I ran into conflict messages twice as I was trying to respond and I had non-WP obligations that I needed to attend to. An editor who was not involved in the Talk discussion removed my edit. I soon checked with other editors who had expressed some reservations and we came to agreement, including that my addition should not be kept in lede but deserved to be in the body. Questions about my source were satisfactorily resolved. The WBTW project had provoked serious questions by early February 2019, within a few weeks of its initiation particularly about the fiscal considerations, including from those who were ideologically allied with the project. Activist (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good bit of background to help put everything in context. Thank you for adding it. - MrX 🖋 21:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is getting out of hand. The opinions of an anti-immigration activist should not be an whole sub-section of the article. Consider that person making the claims has a strong incentive to discredit someone who is showing there was strong support for curbing illegal immigration via a boarder wall (regardless of the practicality of the plan). An entire subtopic sourced to one local paper is UNDUE. Next, MrX's addition of supposed video where Bannon is claimed to be joking about stealing money[[56]]. No. This is a BLP and putting such speculative claims in the article is UNDUE and certainly UNDUE as the nature and context of the statements is speculative at best. When dealing with accusations of criminal behavior, even if the BLP is a public figure we need to have some level of discretion. Springee (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The material added by Activist should be restored also. It's very relevant to the subject, and it's from an impeccably researched news source. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is it DUE? Let's start with the source, Phoenix New Times. This is a local arts and interest paper. This is the place you go to find out what band is playing at the local bar this weekend (or at least did before the age of the internet). That is the only source for the whole section. That should raise huge WEIGHT concerns. Now look at the content in question. It basically says an a single person questioned what was going on. So are we going to say the concerns of one person, reported in the local art/interest paper is DUE for a BLP of a major public figure? Honstly, we went from content that was exceedingly thin on this inditement topic to now a section that is bloated with irrelevant/minor details. Things like "Trump's son distancing himself from Bannon" is not encyclopedic content. That's RECENT and seems to be added just to puff up the limited hard information we have on the actual topic. Springee (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, another editor raised a question about the source for my edit. Rather than clutter up the article's Talk page, I addressed it:The Phoenix New Times has survived the ups and downs of its volatile industry because it has published solid reporting for half a century. I sent that editor the following response:

Using just a couple of search terms, I found the Phoenix New Times has been publishing for 50 years. I've been aware of it for a long time. It won nine top Arizona Press Club awards for 2017 stories plus a runner-up for the contest's highest journalism honor. In 2018, the Club published its list of winners for its annual writing and photography contest, showing that New Times won a total of 18 awards for work published in 2017. It won a Polk award as well. Were it not for the paper, especially its former reporter, Steve Lemons, Sheriff Joe Arpaio might never have been indicted, and Hodai was way ahead of the curve in that paper.

There's no reason to "kill the messenger." Hodai's tightly written story runs 6,380 words not counting photo titles and credits, and I would encourage you to read it before disparaging the paper any further. It is no more appropriate to do that than it is to personally attack another WP editor. I think it is one of the three best news sources in the state, including the Arizona Republic and KJZZ, the latter a jazz station which doesn't just tell listeners "what band is playing," but has won a truckload of regional, state and national news awards awards as well. https://kjzz.org/awards They all three feature careful, quality, editing, the kind that protects against litigation. Speaking of litigation, the New Times co-founders were awarded $3,750,000, the settlement approved by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, after being falsely arrested by Arpaio's LEO's for the crime of telling the truth. The PNT story is more than DUE.

If you actually read that story, you'll find that Spencer, who like Bannon has a way with words, nailed it; his voluminous insights were precise and prescient, and hardly with respect to that the scam would likely be, "a defense lawyer's gold mine..." but, i.e., responding to then-Representative Tom Tancredo, an enthusiastic wall backer, he stated, "I said, 'Tom I’ve looked at this before … the chances of finding property right on the border where you could build something that would mean anything are slim to none — and slim just left town,'" Spencer said. For one thing, U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not share site-specific data with the public, Spencer said, so there'd be no way to know whether a wall would do any good at any particular location." Activist (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if wasn't Hodai's story that actually was what put the Postal Inspectors onto the hustle? Activist (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mastermind?

Emir of Wikipedia the mastermind bit you dropped in the lead is UNDUE. Please remove it. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

What section should it be moved to? Other sources also call him a mastermind. [57] [58] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Find a better notable authority and put it in the mastermind section? SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Google is a fickle maiden. [59]. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We could mention sources calling him incompetent too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Was removed by Volunteer Marek. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, SPECIFICO. I shudder to think he's anywhere near being a mastermind...it makes that word dirty and makes me think of a Batman episode. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I think that after the last four years DC's writers will be scratching their heads at the number of comic book villains they rejected as simply too dumb to be implausible. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Def not in the lede. Maaayyyybbbeeee somewhere in the article itself. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Scheme vs plan

• Just a note that in American English, "scheme" has connotations of intentional wrongdoing. I know it's different other places, but the neutral term in AmEng would be "plan". —valereee (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The world "scheme" is being widely used in news sources: Google News, so I think it's fine. The AP put it in their headline: "Ex-Trump aide Bannon pleads not guilty in border wall scheme". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Scheme is also use in the indictment so it is definitely appropriate provided that it's clear from the context that these are still allegations. - MrX 🖋 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

LOCAL Survey (transcluded tally chart)

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.

---

The transcluded tally above was created by MrX on his page, and he is a participant in this TP discussion. The tally should be removed because (1) it contains errors, and (2) it is a user page transclusion that represents this user's POV. Some of the errors have been corrected but others remain. For example, MrErnie was omitted and then added, others were in the wrong column and still are, and there is biased reasoning. For example, the following comment by Dumuzid is shown as "Conditional" which is flawed because it is clearly an oppose until more information is brought forward, and that is not conditional: I am no fan of Bannon, but this strikes me as a case of too much, too quick. I certainly think it belongs in the article, but in the lead seems a bit too much like "breaking news" to me. My opinion (for the little it is worth) is let things settle a bit and then see where we are.

• Delete it is a transclusion from a user who is participating in the discussion. It contains errors and POV reasoning. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You forgot the RfC tag. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a local survey for the article TP, not an RfC. It needs to be discussed among ourselves first. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly don't want to disrupt anything, but I just wanted to say that Atsme is correct with regard to my position. I would not call it conditional. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I interpreted you comment ("My opinion (for the little it is worth) is let things settle a bit and then see where we are.") to mean that you were open to having the indictment in the lead once things settle a bit. Feel free to move your name (or I can) to the column that you think is most appropriate, keeping in mind this table has no official status. The table is here: User:MrX/Bannon indictment - MrX 🖋 22:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: No worries, I was not offended in the least. Just thought I should clarify. I'm certainly open to re-evaluating based on further evidence and thought, but that goes for every article here! If you'd like to go ahead and move me to an 'oppose,' I would appreciate it. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Inappropriate RfC - Since when do we conduct RfCs about the content of someone's talk page comment? This is very WP:POINTY, not to mention incredibly disrespectful of my effort to help editors visualize the discussion. - MrX 🖋 16:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT an RfC - it is a survey. If you want it to be an RfC, then call one. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• What the fuck??? Volunteer Marek 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• It’s an editor’s comment on an article TP. It cannot be modified by other editors as per WP:TPO. So what if it’s transcluded. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Others have been modifying the comment in a way that changes its meaning. The table also conflicts with the spirit of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There was never any claim that the table was a poll or a substitute for discussion. It's merely a way to separate comments into easily distinguishable categories. - MrX 🖋 22:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The tally's existence is fine. If anyone has a problem with how anyone's vote is being presented, ping the person whose vote you think is misrepresented. I'm sure those people will be able to speak for themselves. starship.paint (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hat this discussion as off-topic. At this level of meta-discussion it's no longer about improving the Steve Bannon article anymore. If you want to contest the assessment of consensus (or nose-counting that might maybe imply consensus, or whatever), do it in a reply in that section rather than creating an entirely new section to call out one comment. If you have an issue with someone's talk page comment that you think requires removing / editing it and it doesn't fall into one of the few categories that would allow you to do so immediately per WP:TPO, raise it privately; if you think it raises to the level of a conduct issue, take to WP:ANI or WP:AE or whatever. If you think it's a user-space thing that shouldn't exist, you can try WP:MFD, though I don't think you're likely to get anywhere. But having an entire section devoted to this here is silly and not productive. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2020 (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.