Talk:Steve Bannon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Video

I added this to the 'Federal fraud indictment' section because, in Bannon's own noteworthy words, he jokes about stealing from the We Build the Wall fundraising campaign. The relevance is obvious.

Following his arrest, a video surfaced in which Bannon is heard joking with Kolfage about stealing money from the We Build the Wall campaign.

References

Here's the video.

Springee deleted this edit very quickly, as well as the brief summary of the indictment in the lead. I think it should be restored, along with the lead material that currently enjoys a pretty solid consensus considering that many arguments against were based on insufficient material in the body, and the non-policy arguments of "what's the hurry" and "let's give it time". - MrX 🖋 13:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see above in this section [[1]] where I commented on why I removed the content covering the video.

As for the material in the lead, we don't have consensus as evidenced by the fact that a number of us are still arguing about it. Per NOCON you shouldn't have restored the material. I've put the lead back to it's stable state. I also, more than once, have suggested that perhaps we can find a compromise text but that should be discussed here first. Springee (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• UNDUE The video, dug up by Media Matters is being used to imply Bannon was stealing. Such material isn't encyclopedic and instead tries to imply guilt by offending the reader. This singular statement in jest is not encyclopedic and serves no purpose in this article other than to perhaps imply guilt absent an actual verdict. Sorry, as a BLP we shouldn't put this sort of material into a section with allegations of serious crimes. Springee (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There are several good quality source reporting about it in the context of the indictment. That establishes both relevance and WP:DUEWEIGHT. WP:NOTCENSORED also comes into play. - MrX 🖋 14:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll see your lame NOTCENSORED and raise you RECENT and NOTNEWS as well as 10YEARTEST. NOTCENSORED doesn't apply as this isn't a question of include/exclude porn or other offensive material in this article. This isn't an offensive comment and I'm not suggesting excluding the content on those grounds so that is a meaningless argument. You argue DUE and I argued UNDUE. OK so we both argued the same policy. I'll add ONUS. You are the one claiming this has weight for inclusion, show it. I will also add RECENT. Let's assume Bannon is found 100% guilty. Will this comment still be encyclopedic a decade from now? Springee (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The video is very important to helping our readers understand what has occurred. However, it doesn't look like we're convincing each other, so let's just agree to disagree. - MrX 🖋 15:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

When "undue" is the only argument, the case for deleting well-sourced material is pretty weak. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I offered more than just "UNDUE" so please don't falsely present my arguments. Second, UNDUE is policy and the burden is on those who want to include to show why it's DUE. You haven't done that. This is not well sourced in comparison to the larger issue. We have the very left leaning Rolling Stones and one there source who are jumping into the RECENTism that is this topic. It appears that this was a comment said in jest. It is now being used to imply guilt. Why else would we put this in the article other than to try to make it look like Wikipedia is convinced the guy is guilty? Springee (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This looks more like OR or SYNTH in an effort to make a case that supports a particular POV, and that is unacceptable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to synthesize facts and form conclusions. The recentism argument is not based in policy or practice. - MrX 🖋 15:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't be serious..."The recentism argument is not based in policy or practice." FYI, WP:RECENTISM: This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Did you misread it or misunderstand it? It gets worse with your comment about WP:SYNTH: ...allowed to synthesize facts and form conclusions. I am flabbergasted by your comments considering WP:SYNTH clearly states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. We don't twist and spin policy to suit our particular POV. Unless I've missed something that wasn't blindingly obvious, you apparently have misinterpreted some of our core content policies.

"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." - MrX 🖋 17:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, at least you're not arguing SYNTH but you must have missed the most important part of RECENT - Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Springee, is fraudulent conversion different from stealing? Only in a technical sense, I'd say. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored this info. There is no policy based arguments against excluding it. Also, it is quite disingenuous (and violates WP:GAME) to, on one hand, complain that there isn't enough info in the article body to include this info in the lede, and at the same time to consistently try to remove as much info as possible from the article body. Volunteer Marek 16:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about this revert, start with the fact that President Donald Trump is not mentioned in the cited sources, and it's about Donald Trump, Jr. is one reason, and the other is irrelevance to this BLP. That 2 policy-based reasonings. Are you allowed to self-revert? If not, show me what those sources said about the President, and why should it be included in Bannon's BLP and not in the President's BLP or Donald Trump Jr.'s BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fact Checked :

Donald Trump Jr praised the “We Build the Wall” crowdfunding campaign in a clip that has resurfaced following the arrest of its founder Brian Kolfage - as the White House attempts to distance his father from the group.

On Thursday, Kolfage was arrested and indicted along with three others, including former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering while raising money for the campaign to build the US-Mexico border wall.
— [2]

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You know better, MrX - we all know Bannon was a former advisor - the material you added IS NOT supported by the cited sources, and should be removed. You are in violation of our PAGs, as I've already pointed out above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you wrote "...start with the fact that President Donald Trump is not mentioned in the cited sources," on 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[3][4]. I then responded with a highlighted quote from the source that shows that President Donald Trump is mentioned in one of the cited sources. I think it's imperative that we keep these discussions factual, otherwise it starts to look like reality denial. - MrX 🖋 12:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Jokes caught on video previously is more trivia than something actually worth while. So I would say undue as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished that some editors felt that it was incumbent upon them to erase any mention of Bannon's arrest. It's kind of like going to the Lee Harvey Oswald article and deleting any mention of General Walker, Officer Tippet and that Dealey Plaza business. I mean, after all, "innocent until proven guilty," and neither Oswald nor Jack Ruby died convicted. Where are the Wikicops when you need them??? Activist (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

BLP applies to the living, that is the L. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. If the video is to be mentioned at all, it should be described more precisely to avoid incorrect interpretation. Specifically, Bannon joked that he was on a million-dollar yacht paid for with the money for the wall, but at the time was clearly standing under a canopy in the desert, and immediately indicated that he was joking and was in fact at the border in New Mexico. BD2412 T 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that my remarks that had been deliberately hidden (transcluded) from readers and editors have been restored. I was wondering how one editor who disagreed with comments of another could censor out the latter. That said, I was also originally wondering why we were including the video, and thinking against it, but on further thought about it, I think it should be in. It's germane because it seems to have been intentional prophylaxis. Bannon almost certainly made it to deflect criticism of his and Kolfage's scam through the use of ridicule and satire. The allegations are that he skimmed over a million bucks of donors' money and Kolfage took a third of a million or so. The editorial vigor that's been mustered here to effectively minimize Bannon's core involvement in the alleged looting and his and the project's connections to the DJT family is astonishing. The notion that Bannon's arrest was some sort of a staged event is preposterous. I not aware of any circumstance where postal inspectors ever, in any case, remotely went to the lengths they took to take him into custody. I wonder if they were afraid he would get beyond the three-mile-limit and beyond the reach of law enforcement authorities? I have no idea why they were pressed to exercise their arrest warrant, which I presume was issued on the basis of a federal grand jury indictment. This arrest wasn't made by some rogue minor functionary with nothing better to do than to go for a paid-for cruise. It had to have been vetted by someone in a much higher pay grade, likely IMHO DeJoy, Barr or even Trump himself. I thought the early reservations that were expressed by anti-illegal immigration ideological allies of the major proponents of WBtW were particularly pertinent. I thought that those suspicions arose in about February 2019, but in fact, reading up on the situation, I see they were first raised in December 2018, months before the 6,300-word New Times exposé which came rather rapidly after the scam's announcement. Finally, what minor work that was done on the wall, I would guess, were underwritten by the property-owning brickworks and probably by Fisher Industries, the latter having earned a lot of publicity due to their involvement. Only three miles were built and those allegedly had significant negative impacts on the environment, from accelerating erosion of the riverbed, endangered species habitat destruction, producing impediments to access by government vehicle traffic, and doing very little if anything to impede the illegal migration it was supposedly going to help to control. "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?" Activist (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at the blue box below this section. I knew there had been a chart, but hadn't looked at it in days, and didn't seem the comments at the bottom until just now. I'm not sure if the "this discussion is closed" refers to just the box, or the entire talk page. If my comments definitely shouldn't be here, please feel free erase them. Thanks Activist (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The closed comments are the ones within the blue box. - MrX 🖋 22:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are Bannon's views being trimmed

MrX, you have removed a lot of text from the article, especially as it pertains to Bannon's political views. I'm not sure if these removals are right or wrong but they seem relevant to me (but I'm open to suggestions that I might not be correct). Why would things like Bannon's aversion to foreign intervention or government bailouts be UNUDE? If this was redundant to other material in the article then I would certainly understand your edits. Springee (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC) @MrX: for reply. Springee (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Another important issue is the attempts to consistently connect Trump because of the short amount of time Bannon served as campaign manager. It's history, he was removed. Trump was quoted by the BBC: "Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind." Stop trying to make this BLP about Trump - it is a violation of WP:GUILT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTNEWS, not to mention the OR and SYNTH attempts. We're also deep into the too much detail category. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bannon and Trump were closely connected for years. I just follow the sources as we all should. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is entirely reasonable to say that Bannon's connection to Trump is what he's most notable for (even today most coverage approaches him from that angle) and therefore should be a major focus of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I've read several recent articles that make that connection very explicitly. It's interesting that Bannon seems to have Trump's back, but it looks like the reverse is not true. Of course looks can be deceiving. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee I was just trying to bring the material into focus. The amount of detail seems a bit undue for someone who's political career was very short. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That's fair and given the article length such pruning can make sense. I tend to feel some of that may be of value since Bannon helped Trump get the Whitehouse and possibly helped scope where Trump should focus his efforts. I lean towards inclusion but not enough to restore (regardless of the 1RR limit). Probably best so see what others think. Springee (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, while I agree with the focus part, I think a lot of unnecessary details to other parts of the article in the past few days. For example, the addition of what amount to petty comments about Trump Jr [[5]] is hardly encyclopedic (not added by MrX). Also, comments about promoting the project until the day before the indictment. Why was that added? What is the significance? Same with the comment about "other organizations politically aligned with Trump". That sounds like the DA was grandstanding. Are we now suggesting Bannon was targeted for a political prosecution due to his association with Bannon? If no why is this in the article? A lot of the recent additions feel like we don't have much real substance so the section is being inflated with content that exists mostly to feed the 24hr news cycle rather than content that the history books might say was significant in the end. Springee (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's very relevant and noteworthy that Bannon was promoting the very project that he is accused of stealing from, the day before his arrest. It sounds like Bannon was grandstanding. As for the material added by another editor—you would have to ask them. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is that noteworthy? Consider the possible angles here. One is that he was done with the project, well then we would have expected some sort of closing "look at how much wall we built!" so he could show that the donors got something for their money. Another is that he feels this is an on going operation and he had no idea indictments for worth coming. In that case he was conducting business as usual. Whether or not Bannon was trying to commit a crime this case exists. In effect, this is the "on going concern" case. The final case is Bannon was aware and decided it would look suspicious if he stopped his activities. OK, so again he is making presentations up to the last minute as an act of deception. Since we have no sources claiming he had any idea this is coming it seems I think it's reasonable to assume he was promoting the organization because, legitimate or not, it was still active at the time of the indictment. So again I would ask, why is the fact that Bannon was promoting this the day before encyclopedic? What is the reader supposed to take away from that content? Springee (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your questions will be answered by reading the source. - MrX 🖋 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, the ONUS is on you, not me, to explain why this specific text is DUE for inclusion. If there is a critical fact in the source article that makes this DUE why isn't it in text you added? The article text needs to stand on it's own. The reader shouldn't have to dive into the sources to understand why the content was included, only to verify the claims included. Springee (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I'm not sure I understand what exactly you're looking for. I think you are saying that we need to add more detail about Bannon's promotional video to the article to show how it ties into the indictment the day before. You seem to be saying that we need to do this because readers shouldn't be expected to get those details from the citation. Is that correct? - MrX 🖋 21:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The question is straight forward. Why is it significant that Bannon was promoting this the day before the indictment was announced? What is the reader supposed to take away from this? You are trimming information from other parts of the article so why leave this information. Absent some reason to keep it it should be removed as undue. Springee (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Because he was arrested the very next day. The reader will know that Bannon was a recent, active participant in the non-profit, even after allegedly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of donor funds. Also

“War Room: Pandemic” attracted sponsorships from top-tier advertisers like Oracle and was picked up by Newsmax TV, which airs a video feed of it at 11 p.m. five nights a week. Mr. Bannon hosted Mr. Guo for one episode.
— The New York Times

and

Kolfage recently called into Bannon’s livestream show, "War Room: Pandemic," and asked supporters of We Build The Wall to not use the platform GoFundMe for donations.

Kolfage said he was upset with GoFundMe for allegedly refusing to allow its platform to be used in his efforts to raise money for people hurt by the Black Lives Matter movement.

“Don’t go to GoFundMe anymore, screw them, go straight to our website,” Kolfage said on the show.
— NBC News

and

Bannon promoted the wall effort on his podcast “War Room: Pandemic” as recently as Wednesday, when he had Kolfage on to discuss the situation at the border.

“You’ve been the leader of this, assisting President Trump in building this wall in these tough areas,” Bannon said to Kolfage.
— Raw Story

Also [6][7] - MrX 🖋 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but none of that suggests this would pass the 10YT. You haven't been able to articulate why this is significant to the facts of the indictment. OK, let's go with a hypothetical. Let's assume we get a mixed outcome. Something to the effect that Bannon et al had broken rules but that the violations were incidental/unintentional and that the organization was still actively trying to build some section of wall. Note: I'm suggesting this only as a hypothetical. Why would it be significant that he was fundraising just prior to the indictment? Wouldn't that be kind of expected of an ongoing operation? Prior to Aug 20th the article hardly mentioned Build the Wall [[8]]. If it wasn't important that he was fundraising just before the indictment is the same fact important just after? As included, without justifying why this is here, it can been seen as suggesting they were so brazen as to ignore the heat that was coming down on them. But none of what you present suggests that. So again what is the reader supposed to take away from this regarding if he did or didn't commit the crimes alleged in the indictment? This section has certainly been bloated with material of limited significance perhaps just to make the section longer. Regardless, you need to articulate why this is due and so far you haven't. Springee (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've already explained why this is significant, in the clearest possible terms. The underlying details are in the Pro Publica article, the New York Times article, the War Room: Pandemic podcast/video, and the indictment itself. I guess I could post all that here, but it would tend to violate WP:FAIRUSE. - MrX 🖋 13:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't really said why. You say, "The reader will know that Bannon was a recent, active participant in the non-profit, even after allegedly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of donor funds." but all this really saying is activities related to the not for profit were active up to the time of the indictment. That would be plain language. Why include comments like "...saying "You've been the leader of this, assisting President Trump in building this wall in these tough areas" in his War Room: Pandemic podcast.". As phrased it suggests he was so brazen as to be defying the feds right before the indictment was released. We are supposed to be reporting the basic facts, not trying to imply a conspiracy to our readers. Springee (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I phrased it in a very similar way to how the source phrased it, but without a paragraph break. Are you saying the author of the source article intended for readers to treat those two paragraphs as unrelated events? That's certainly not how I read it in the overall context of the story. - MrX 🖋 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

V doesn't mean DUE. Is that quote going to survive the 10YT? Seriously, this entire section could be half as long with no loss of quality content. Springee (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the section could be cut in half, considering how complex and connected this situation is. In fact we still need to add in at least some of the material that Activist wrote. 10YT is not a policy, so you should probably abandon that line of reasoning. If it were a policy, we would have to delete Bannon's forgettable filmography, his 8 month tenure in the white house, his views on the middle east, and many other things. We would also have to delete a couple of million articles about YouTubers, minor league sports teams, mundane products, video games, and so on. 10YT conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL anyway. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You aren't addressing the question. It's coming across as you like it and that's that. Remember, our objective is an impartial telling of the events, not trying to include quotes in order to sell something to the reader. Springee (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That cuts both ways. I could form the impression that you are trying to cut material because you don't like what (in your view) it is selling to readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is true but I'm protesting newly added material and asking that MrX actually explain why it's important. Things like the quote I took from the article are low/no value content. I don't mind having that unless we are cutting other parts of the article based on a claim of too long. Springee (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, are you suggesting that we reword the material and maybe paraphrase the quote? Something like

In his War Room: Pandemic podcast, Bannon promoted the project until the day before the indictment, praising Kolfage for his help funding Trump's wall.

- MrX 🖋 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to explain why we need this at all. If it's needed at all why not just say the organization was actively promoting in the days prior to indictment. It's a neutral statement but honestly, why is this needed at all? Again (and again and again) this looks like nothing more than trying to inflate this section to suggest there is more real content here than we actually have to date. Think about what will actually be important 10 years out. Let's assume the Fed's case is rock solid and proven. Then we will talk about how the money was diverted, how the misrepresentation occured etc. This bit isn't going to be significant unless the intent is just to bloat the article. Honestly, that is one of the biggest issues with articles about "unpopular" subjects. They are often inflated with content like this rather than substantive information. Springee (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, we're going in circles at this point. I think I've more than made my case. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't. All you have said is "well they said it". But those articles aren't meant to be a complete biography of Bannon. Springee (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, what is the purpose of this stand along claim, " Prosecutors revealed that they had collected a large number of emails found on various devices and online storage accounts after search warrants were conducted—some earlier in the year.[245]" What makes this germane to the rest of the subtopic? Do we know if those emails actually yielded anything? Is this any different (or more useful) than the statement that his passport was pulled (isn't that kind of a standard thing?)? Springee (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose is to inform our readers with the major relevant points related to Bannon's prosecution. Yes, this is far more important than Bannon's passport being revoked, which is pretty routine as far as I know. - MrX 🖋 22:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That answer doesn't make sense. At best you are saying they got warrants to search emails. Isn't that just part of the investigation? Why would we mention the evidence collection process at this time when it isn't clear if that collection has yielded any fruit? It's not like this content was followed up with any follow on statements. Instead you are just asking that the readers understand that this is "relevant". Again, it looks like the intent is to take relatively non-information and inflate the length of the section. Springee (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Accusation of DS violation

Instead of making an accusation of DS violation against me in the edit summary, please discuss here. I am fine with removing the praise for Donald Trump II too. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia I did not accuse you of a DS vio. I reverted my own edit to avoid any perception of a DS vio by me. I believe Bannon’s statement is remarkable because a) he acknowledges that the publication he ran isn’t truthful and b) he asserts Don Jr. believes all of it. That’s quite telling. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What is telling? PackMecEng (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

In conjunction with his "flood the zone with shit" remark, he acknowledges Breitbart isn't truthful. soibangla (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like synth. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The explanation I have provided here is not in the article. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussion changes to the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And for discussing the rationale for changes, but not necessarily to include that rationale in the article. soibangla (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, really? Imagine that. If they are not truthful they might end up on the deprecated sources list. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead

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

---

Volunteer Marek, please follow BRD rather than reverting with an insufficient justification. The material was removed from the lead for more than just violating BLPCRIME. It is also UNDUE. While the arrest might be significant in the end (if a conviction stands) it also might prove to be noting more than an political prosecution that gets thrown out in the end. We can't tell and guessing is WP:CRYSTAL. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article. The arrest section of the lead was about the same length as the arrest section in the article body. That gives the event which is RECENT UNDUE weight in the lead. The material was recently added by one editor, I have challenged it. Even with your opinion that it should stay in the lead we don't have consensus for inclusion. For these reasons please self revert. Springee (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)a

No. Bannon’s arrest ic clearly due as he is/was a major player in Trump campaign and administration. Trying to pretend that this is something minor is disingenuous. And once again you invoke BLPCRIME in a manner which misrepresents it. You’ve tried doing this before, it’s been pointed out to you that it doesn’t say what you claim it says, so why are you doing it again? Volunteer Marek 14:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no, the length of the arrest content in the body is very short. Right now you have nothing more than your opinion that this arrest, of which we know virtually nothing, is one of the most significant things about Bannon's rather long and politically involved story. The article lead is not a news feed. Per RECENT we have no idea if this arrest will amount to the end of Bannon's public life and jail time (clearly should be in the lead) or if this is nothing more than a political stunt where charges will get dropped the moment they get before a judge. Since we can't know what the long term impact is we can't judge if this passes the 10YEARTEST. Springee (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs in the lead. A federal indictment for scamming hundreds of thousands of gullible donors by a WP:WELLKNOWN person is a highly significant event in the subject's life. The close connection with Trump, who is habitual liar and whose organizations have been shut down because of fraud and mishandling of charitable funds makes this especially significant. - MrX 🖋 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Include. You really should re-read WP:BLPCRIME if you think it precludes us from noting Bannon's arrest in the article's lead. Your interpretation of WP:DUE and WP:CRYSTAL are just as wrong. He has been arrested. That's a fact, not some fringe theory or something that may happen in the future. -- Calidum 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS lead this content is not due for the lead. We have 2 sentences in the body and one in the lead. Regardless, I've raised the issue at BLPN. Springee (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

this, it also might prove to be noting more than an political prosecution that gets thrown out in the end. is nonsense and it's irrelevant to your best argument, which you've raised at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: You already took this to Masem's talk page. Then taking it to a notice board after three editors have disagree with you seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. - MrX 🖋 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I asked Masem for specific policy guidance. I didn't not ask Masem to weigh in on this discussion. Please avoid making bad faith accusations like forum shopping. Springee (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• At the moment there is not enough in the body to merit inclusion in the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Worry not. I'm working on it, and I'm sure other editors are too. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Still not really seeing it, the section needs to be summarized better to give proper weight for their life. I remain unconvinced by the arguments that it is big news today so clearly it belongs in the lead with no one focusing on what is in the body. That couple with the lack of any solid arguments means that nope, not yet. Finally the argument that it is a defining characteristic of the person are just laughable and have no basis in policy or reality. I would strongly suggest that anyone making those arguments read WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT. PackMecEng (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I do not think this should be in the lead. NOTNEWS and all that. Even if you add more sources and text, it is still undue compared to the rest of the article, which is yuge. I am very, very wary of including those new events to the lead, and we should all be, per the BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Drmies, I disagree. The arrest of a former White House official is a big deal, and should be (minimally) mentioned in the lede. There is no BLP issue, in my view - BLP is not intended to prevent all negative events from being included in an article, not is DUE an issue. This isn't a ticket for jaywalking or a citation for not wearing a mask, it's a major allegation of fraud, and as long as it's presented like that -- as an allegation -- there should be no policy violation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Beyond My Ken, at the very least it is undue, the material in the lead being almost as long as the material in the body. Second, that it is "a big deal" is a matter of a. reliable sources over time, and that's hard to judge since all this happened today, and b. a matter of editorial judgment. The BLP is not intended to keep negative things out of the article, and I have no intention of keeping it out of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's funny, I used the same argument about this not being like jaywalking on BLPN. A federal grand jury does not issue an indictment without hearing evidence. - MrX 🖋 17:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• • MrX, you should be very wary of reverting editors and telling them "see talk page" when they have just commented on the talk page. I am not going to revert you, but I would like for you to know that I am an administrator with some experience in BLP areas, and I don't cry BLP lightly. You have NO consensus here for your edit. I think it behooves you to revert yourself. What is the rush anyway? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Discussion is of course ongoing, but I wouldn't say that -- at this point -- there is no consensus for inclusion, especially when you factor in the number of editors who have shown by their editing that they favor inclusion, even though they haven't commented here. I'd say that the comments are slightly in favor of inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: No need to sound so ominous, but you really should not have removed the material given the discussion so far. By the way, I have a lot of experience with BLP areas too, having written more than a handful of them and having edited several hundred (or maybe thousands?) of them. By the way, WP:NOTNEWS is for keeping routine news out of the encyclopedia (yet we commonly update sports stats and music charting in near real time). This isn't that. - MrX 🖋 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • MrX, whether something falls under NOTNEWS is often a matter of time. But your first argument bites itself on the ass: you should not have included the material given the discussion so far, certainly not since this is a BLP. Surely you have learned, after editing all those articles, all those BLPs, all those items in AP territory, that in BLPs one should exercise caution. I'm sorry, but I am a bit baffled by your lackadaisical attitude toward the BLP here. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

      Drmies, I don't quite understand what you mean by "NOTNEWS is often a matter of time". I can certainly show examples to back up my assertion that NOTNEWS does not apply to news that is deemed to be encyclopedic, and that we don't embargo content before people have a chance to watch it on their DVRs or in the movie theaters. There is nothing particularly contentious about including the extraordinary occurrence of a WP:WELLKNOWN biography subject being federally indicted. Yeah, if we wrote two paragraphs about it in the lead, that would be WP:UNDUE, but a brief few words does not harm the subject in comparison with the extensive reporting that has already occurred around the world. It's not out of proportion with the other significant milestones in his life. - MrX 🖋 17:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

    • And Activist, even with all this going on, you chose to expand the material in the lead? For real? Neutrality, I appreciate the work you've done on the body of the article; I think it would be good if you honored your user name by removing the contentious material from the lead. I really do not want to cry BLP too loudly, or take this elsewhere, but I'm miffed by the callousness of some editors here. Bannon may be today's favorite liberal punching bag, but the article Steve Bannon needs to adhere to our guidelines. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's wise to politicize a content dispute. I think we need to respect that editors can have different interpretations of WP:BLP that are equally valid. - MrX 🖋 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
      • MrX, "don't politicize a content dispute" is just a dumb thing to say, besides an obvious and I think willful misreading from what I said. I have lost a bit of respect for you as a neutral editor here. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Activist's addition was way too much in the lead section — perhaps in the body, but maybe not even that (isn't Phoenix New Times an alt-weekly)? As for the mention of the arrest in the lead, I do favor it eventually, but MrX, what about this proposed compromise: we could remove it until Bannon enters a plea, and then add both the indictment and the denial in the lead? From a BLP perspective when dealing with pending cases, I think "Bannon was indicted on X charges; he has pleaded not guilty" is far preferable then just "Bannon was indicated on X charges." Neutrality^talk 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I'm a big fan of compromises that settle content disputes, but I'm not convinced that we serve readers by waiting to give them a proper summary of the article—one that stands on its own. Of course he's going to plead not guilty. We don't need a time machine to know that. I do support keeping the material in the lead very short: "In 2020, Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of money laundering and fraud." - MrX 🖋 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. this is a 160k article and we seem to have hurredly cobbled together three sentences in the body (literally 146 vs. 40 words) so we can justify putting this in the lead. Why does this need to be in the lead? Because it's important! Why is it important? Because it just happened today right now! Soo... It's news? No it's just something very important because it just happened right now! Is that why we spend almost 700 words in the body on everything he did from 1990 to 2016 and also gave that one sentence in the lead?

C'm on folks. There's probably a nigh on a million edits among the people in this discussion. Don't go getting leaditis. GMG^talk 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• So you're saying that a "federal indictment" is "not important" event in a person's life? For a political activist? The current president's former campaign manager? You think it's "only important because it just happened"? ??? ??? ??? Volunteer Marek 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. What I have said in fairly explicit satirical detail is that there is no measure of importance in the lead other than proportionality to the body. As a general rule, I do not espouse an editorial standard if I cannot apply it in a way that is agnostic to the subject. GMG^talk 00:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies here. Until there is solid consensus for inclusion, it stays out. I suggest we wait until more details are available before we include in the lead. There is no deadline, and we are NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is all so depressingly predictable. Volunteer Marek 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point in time, it doesn't belong in the lead. An indictment is still just an accusation and in the US, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Let it incubate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but indictments can be notable in their own right. Notability shouldn't be confused with legal principles of guilt; those are two very different things. In fact, WP:BLP is explicitly clear about that. My personal view, as stated on the BLP noticeboard, is that Bannon's arrest and criminal charges are highly likely to remain a key part of his biography regardless of the ultimate legal outcome. (After all, if the case falls apart and he's acquitted—or if Trump pressures the DOJ to drop charges against him—then that would be just as notable of an outcome as if he is ultimately convicted.) Since we know that this item is very likely to remain a notable and relevant aspect of Bannon's biography, it should be at least briefly mentioned in the lead, in accordance with WP:LEAD. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that a CRYSTAL argument? Let's suppose this case is dismissed tomorrow as a matter of law. What then? I'm certain we wouldn't remove it from the body of the article but would we still argue it should be in the lead? A number of editors have argued we can always remove it later if it turns out to be nothing but why not the reverse? Why not wait and see vs act then undo? Springee (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, put it in and then if, per the 1/1,000,000 chance, the charges are all dropped, we can take it out. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This. - MrX 🖋 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Any reason why the act first then reverse plan is better than the wait and see plan? Does Wikipedia have a policy/guideline that says it's better to and than reverse rather than wait and see? So far it seems about half the editors here, many experienced, feel it's better to wait. Springee (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait for what, exactly? There's no realistic outcome where Bannon's arrest won't end up being a significant part of his biography. (I mean, at least as significant as his role in Biosphere 2, which appears in the lead). MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, yes there certainly is good reason. WP articles reflect the best unbiased representation of the current narratives of RS references. Facts can change, sources can change, and our articles can change. It is a beautiful thing. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This story is far too political and lacks substance to be in the lead, especially when CNN states: ...purportedly aimed at supporting Trump's border wall. It can wait until we know more about what's going on, and my crystal ball says we'll know many more truths after the election. Bannon was disavowed by Trump so if the plan is to provide all significant views, then add Bannon's denial and what Trump said about Bannon in the body text only - none of which is lead worthy. It may even be why Trump fired him...we just don't know enough at this point. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware that we exclude material because it's judged to be "political"; I'm not even sure what that means or how it relates to site policy, as a rationale for exclusion. Political material is judged by the same standards and policies as other material. The use of "purportedly" in a single source also doesn't seem to have much bearing on the question at hand. As for your suggestion that the alleged fraud played a role in Trump's dismissal of Bannon, that's only possible in an alternate timeline. Bannon was fired in summer 2017, but "We Build The Wall" only came into being in December 2018. Let's stick to things that are temporally possible, or better yet, avoid speculation.

We don't assert anywhere that Trump is implicated - we don't even mention his name in the arrest coverage in the body - so the focus on proactively immunizing Trump from adverse inferences seems sort of misplaced, as does the idea of waiting until after the election to include this material. The inclusion of material on Wikipedia is governed by site policy, not by the US election cycle. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can understand how you came to your conclusion and hopefully you can understand how I came to mine beginning with the WP:NOTCRYSTAL prediction: (After all, if the case falls apart and he's acquitted—or if Trump pressures the DOJ to drop charges against him—then that would be just as notable of an outcome as if he is ultimately convicted.) Also, the fact that the indictment may be connected to Trump's wall left me with a much different impression than what you assumed in your comment above. "May be" has no encyclopedic value/relevance, and an indictment by itself fails WP:10YT but we are still in the process of establishing WP:DUE. MOS:LEADBIO states: What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. DUE is probably the best reason to leave it out of the lead at this point. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your invocation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL in this setting doesn't make sense to me. We have to make a judgment about the lasting significance of the indictment, to determine whether it should be in the lead. That's normal editing, not a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I mean, I could just as easily say that you're violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL (and common sense) by asserting categorically that Bannon's arrest will be meaningless 10 years from now, by your logic. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not understand in the purportedly thing. Do sources say the allegation is that Bannon was trying to build walls and just embezzled by accident? SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh, here you are, SPECIFICO - I responded to you below. As for the thought process regarding the CRYSTAL issue, MastCell...you said We have to make a judgment about the lasting significance of the indictment, to determine whether it should be in the lead. Uhm, what policy are you quoting because I'm referring to WP:10YT which is a policy supplement, and it addresses this very issue. How many high profile politically-based indictments from 6 years ago do you remember? My position all along has been to wait and adhere to PAGs. Hey - if it you makes you feel good, go ahead and accuse me of violating WP:CRYSTAL (and common sense) because it is so farfetched, it deserves a at the end. Bannon reminds me of Avenatti, remember him? What was Trump's attorney's name - I forget? Was he indicted - charged? Did he go to prison? Without looking it up, what happened to them? And Mueller - what happened there - oh, wait, I remember - no collusion. And Strzock - where is he...and Lisa Page? Is Comey still around? I can barely remember them from last year, do you think our readers are going to remember them 10 years from now? What about all the people associated with Obama? Do you remember any of them besides Michelle and Hillary? If you can remember all of them and the indictments or lack thereof, then you are the exception not the rule. It's Saturday night, and I'm outta here. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can remember all of them and the indictments or lack thereof I can still remember all zero of the Obama associates who were indicted and I won't have to look it up here in ten years. soibangla (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Veered off-track Atsme Talk 📧 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You just verified what I've said. You have forgotten the Eric Holder Not AG Holder indictment of Nipsey Hussle shooting suspect, Fix formatting, add wikilink and properly cite source. 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC) and AG Holder's contempt of court Congress. clarify AG Holder from other person 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Correction Atsme Talk 📧 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Interestingly, the media scrubbed most of what went on, but even WaPo admits: Obama has certainly had his share of controversies, but some of the most-covered became murky or faded over time. Then all of a sudden in 2019 - CNBC. Misinformation does not belong in this encyclopedia. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC) We've "forgotten" because Holder was neither indicted nor charged with contempt of court. Your own cited source makes that clear, so posting these falsehoods is recklessly irresponsible and arguably a WP:BLP violation on your part. (Holder was held in contempt of Congress by the GOP-controlled House but never indicted. As with others found in contempt of Congress but not indicted—e.g. William Barr, Wilbur Ross—we don't mention that in the lead of his article, so we seem to be consistent). You also invoke the arrest of Gregory Craig, Obama's White House counsel, but misleadingly fail to mention that he was acquitted of all charges by a jury. I agree with you that misinformation has no place in an encyclopedia, which is why I'm distressed that you are continually serving as its conduit. MastCell Talk 20:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC) I invoked the arrest of Craig because it supports my argument and you, inadvertently, validated it; i.e., he was acquitted, and we only know that in retrospect which is why we should not be including UNDUE allegations in a BLP's lead. Why are you so insistent on having things your way? We have the information in the body text, and we have a TOC to point our readers to that body text. He's age 67+/- and that one allegation/indictment which is still considered breaking news does not warrant inclusion in the lead. Perhaps if you weren't so prejudiced against me, you would not be wasting your time singling me out to purposely denigrate me because I disagree with your POV. You might actually acquire a more realistic understanding of what I've presented if you would at least try to AGF. Why didn't you simply ask me what I meant instead of WP:CRYBLP while casting aspersions against me? I'm not here to purposely violate WP:PAGS and you know it. You certainly are chipping away at the respect I once had for you, and quite frankly I am far more distressed by your HOUNDING behavior and ill-willed intentions toward me. Here's a productive suggestion for you - take a look at Kevin Clinesmith, a BLP that is in dire need of help because it doesn't even have a lead. Atsme Talk 📧 00:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC) You falsely suggested that former attorney general Eric Holder had been indicted on criminal charges. Now you disclaim responsibility by asserting that you were referring to the indictment of a different Eric Holder, who allegedly murdered a rapper? To the extent I've focused on your input here, it's you are unique in being unable to express opinions on content without tacking on partisan misinformation and then attacking those who point it out. MastCell Talk 07:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Every administration has “controversies” that naturally fade after no basis is found to support them, but rarely if ever has an administration been besieged by ceaseless nontroversies as the Obama administration was. And you appear to be attempting to exhume them here. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Atsme, your post is a jumble of irrelevant right-wing talking points (Strzok? Page? Obama?) rather than a coherent policy-based argument, so I'm not sure how to respond. The elemenets of policy that you do cite seem misinterpreted: WP:10YT doesn't ask us to guess what a reader will remember in 10 years—it asks whether, in 10 years, a reader seeking a comprehensive lead about Bannon should expect to be informed of his arrest and indictment. MastCell Talk 04:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC) I will not cast aspersions against you as you have done to me because of your prejudice. I've provided policy-based arguments and you have rejected them but I continued to AGF, and thought maybe it would help if I provided some examples with the advantage of retrospective. You misinterpreted my intentions, which is nothing new. Read my comment above yours regarding WaPo's comment "murky or faded over time". Our readers should not be inundated by a lead that is crammed with allegations - WP:NOTNEWS, MOS:LEAD. The information is now in the body text thanks to those of us who oppose it being in the lead. I'm through debating this disussion because you are once again making it personal and have reverted to casting aspersions against me. Carry-on your argument over at BLPN because the close there will override anything here. Suggestion: stop focusing on my comments and read all of the other oppose arguments with an open mind, and have a good day! Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Sources

• NOTICE - this issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN, this link, so please continue this discussion at that noticeboard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• It's really simple, in my view. Bannon was arrested. He's under indictment. He's currently free on $5 million bail (if he weren't rich, with rich friends, he'd be in jail right now) and is awaiting trial on federal criminal charges. Yet someone reading the lead (which, recall, must stand on its own as a complete overview of the article subject) would have no idea of any of that. According to both the letter and spirit of policy, that's clearly wrong; it violates our basic responsibility to inform the reader. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be included, per reasoning of MastCell. It’s a slamdunk.soibangla (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It is now. There is a solid 3:2 consensus backed by solid arguments in support of including the indictment in the lead.. - MrX 🖋 18:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include: now a defining characteristic of the subject's biography. Since the matter is being discussed in two places, adding my comment here as well. Note: the lead sentence on the matter should probably mention the We Build the Wall project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've added the We Build the Wall link. Bannon's indictment is still being robustly covered by various sources. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] So much for this being WP:NOTNEWS or WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 19:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Still in the news after two days is not a very convincing argument. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's much more convincing than just vague waving to a policy shortcut. - MrX 🖋 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really, I mean I would rather follow policy than chase breaking news as you are doing. PackMecEng (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, SPECIFICO, it is totally improper to add the material to the lead without establishing that a consensus for inclusion exists here first. Both of you should know better and MrX you were specifically warned by Drmies. MrX, your headcount justification ignores the editors who objected in the BLPN discussion. Beyond that, given this is an active discussion and their is clear disagreement you should have asked a neutral third party to assess consensus vs doing it yourself as an involved editor. Springee (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, you really need to stop selectively pinging people who you believe agree with you. I have shown that there is consensus (even more so now than when I added the material). Continuing to insist that there is no consensus when no fewer than 11 editors have expressed support is not a good look. - MrX 🖋 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I pinged only an admin who already warned you about acting impertinently. Just a few days ago you had a closing overturned. Perhaps that should suggest slowing down and verifying consensus before acting. ←Your claim to have shown consensus should have been discussed here first. Additionally, why did you ignore the BLPN discussion when claiming consensus? Did those voices no longer count? Springee (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with Springee. I reverted MrX's addition of the material, and for Specifico, another involved editor to then re-add it is mind-boggling. As a BLP article, it is imperative that the contentious material not be included until such time as it is explicitly decided to include it. And that decision must be made by an uninvolved admin (or at least a senior and experienced editor). Obviously I can't revert again myself, as this is under 1RR restrictions, but the material needs to stay out until a firm consensus is established. I don't have a very strong opinion on the matter myself, but I would tend to defer to Drmies's expertise in this matter as an admin very well versed in BLP lore.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, I wish you would have stopped by the talk page first, where you would see that there are significantly more editors who support inclusion that oppose it, and for valid, policy based reasons. All of these editors understand and respect our BLP policy as well as anyone. - MrX 🖋 20:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: that's as may be, although the situation has become rather confused, because there is a parallel discussion on the same issue seemingly progressing at WP:BLPN. The crucial point is that it is not for someone with such a strong opinion as yourself, who has been heavily involved in the discussion, to unilaterally make the final determination of what should take place. That applies whether or not we eventually settle on the short version of the story (as Neutrality's statement suggests we might). It might seem like needless bureaucracy to you, but on a BLP matter, where feelings have been running high, it's the best and fairest way to settle it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually the parallel BLPN discussion further supports the brief neutral words that MrX added. And you are basically posting unsupported assertions of your viewpoint rather than any reasoned argument against him. Nobody here is soft on BLP. There are usually a few highly motivated dissenters on any question. It would help if you'd tell us how and why anyone has convincingly argued against the text that has now been removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here is soft on BLP I don't know if that's entirely accurate, at least not according to Drmies.(adding sig) petrarchan47คุก 01:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point there may be a rough consensus for inclusion of a single sentence in the lead section (although an RFC would also be proper to confirm that). Numerically, the discussion favors it. Far more importantly, inclusion of the single sentence has a solid basis in encyclopedia policy, since [1] the federal indictment has received substantial coverage; [2] the indictment and subsequent events are amply covered in the body of the article (which the lead section must reflect); [3] the language used is accurate, dispassionate, impartial, and makes no comment or implication as to guilt or innocence; and [4] a single sentence is correct weight. I see no countervailing argument based on site policy. MastCell is entirely correct that the criminal case will almost certainly have long-term biographical significance irrespective of whether Bannon is convicted or acquitted.

I see above a few editors suggesting, more or less explicitly, either that (a) there is some sort of minimum "waiting period" that must expire before content goes in, or (b) that any pending criminal case cannot be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. That extreme position has never been our policy and is not what BLP or NPOV stand for. Neutrality^talk 20:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The case for a single sentence is certainly better than what we had. However before deciding the headcount for a consensus exists please remember to include those who supported/opposed at BLPN. Springee (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The invocation of the arguments you describe have become quite tiresome, and they almost invariably and exclusively arise when negative information about Trump and his associates are reported. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit from the lede for now. I don't think we have enough distance in time to know that this warrants inclusion in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Done Y - and they best not put it back while there is an open discussion at BLPN. Wait for a formal close. SPECIFICO - in response to your question (and I can't seem to find it again) - I just read the following from BBC: That this indictment comes out of the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutorial office that has handled other high-profile cases involving Trump associates, will stir greater interest in the indictment. The district was itself the source of recent controversy when Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly fired its head, Geoffrey Berman. I don't know what's going on - none of us do, but we are obligated to wait until we get a formal decision to include or exclude - we do not have that right now. There is no deadline - what's the hurry? I won't share what I really think about this guy, but we need to wait because there may be more to this story. We have seen the rush to include backfire on us - remember Mueller. Please be patient.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) August 22, 2020 21:51 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on - none of us do Inside Barr’s Effort to Undermine Prosecutors in N.Y. But even that's not on the table here. The simple fact is that Bannon was indicted for major federal felonies and that will never change with the passage of time. That's all we need to know to understand it's leadworthy. soibangla (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting this material in the face of pretty solid consensus seems very tendentious, or at the very least, WP:STONEWALLING. Nothing in policy calls for omitting material because an editor has a personal preference to not be in a hurry, or because another thinks there's not enough distance. We also shouldn't conduct original research to discredit the charging authority because someone was fired by a Trump loyalist. The grand jury indictment is a done deal. This needs to be restored to the lead per WP:CON. - MrX 🖋 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I know it's fashionable, but I don't get why folks seem to attack MrX's judgment or analysis because he is not an Admin. And on this page, we are all involved -- Admin or urchin. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CON doesn’t apply when no consensus has been reached. The discussion is still open and ongoing. There’s no rush, and it’s already covered in the body, so “omitting material” is a bogus claim. petrarchan47คุก 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

For those who are adding this to the lead with a claim of consensus, please show that. I count 11 for, 7 against in this discussion (not quite what I would call consensus but close). However, the BLP discussion is 14 to 12. The BLPN discussion includes 6 overlapping editors (3 from each POV). When added to the editors here we are at 22 for, 16 against. That isn't a consensus.

Perhaps rather than edit warring this content into the lead we can discuss a middle ground. In my !vote count I included any editor who suggested something like 1 sentence mentioning the incitement only as in the "pro" camp. I think it MrX had proposed their edit and discussed it hear first it might have been able to create a consensus. As we stand this is a no-consensus state and the material in the lead is there against NOCON policy.

I propose we discuss MrX's specific edit (single sentence as part of a paragraph as a compromise position. [[18]]. My preference is nothing in the lead at this time but I'm open to the compromise position assuming it is agreed upon here before being added to the article (ie we follow the proper consensus procedure). Springee (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include. Notable event which has garnered nationwide press coverage. It's certainly notable enough to be in the lead. It involves large sums of money, and a host of criminal charges. The "We Build The Wall" non-profit crowdfunding project has it's own article on Wikipedia, and a ton of notable coverage. The whitewashing of Steve Bannon's article is not supported by the utter deluge of news articles on the topic, it belongs in the lead, if for no other reason than its historical importance as yet another example of the greed and avarice which underpins the Trump Administration and the people it associates with. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as the TOC has an obvious title readers will find it lead entry or not - most coming here right now for this topic will read the TOC... Research:Which parts of an article do readers read.--Moxy 🍁 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not in lead This is too recent to be put in the lead yet. AIRcorn (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Tally

This tally is transcluded from User:MrX/Bannon indictment and was last updated 1 Sep 2020 20:57 – wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment tally: Federal grand jury indictment in the lead

Support	Oppose	Ambiguous or Neutral
Captain Calm	Springee	Coffee
Activist	Drmies	Jim.henderson
Volunteer Marek	GreenMeansGo	Zaereth
MrX	Atsme	GiantSnowman
Calidum	Amakuru
SPECIFICO	Bus stop
Beyond My Ken	Jauerback
Neutrality	valereee
MastCell	Niteshift36
soibangla	MONGO
K.e.coffman	Alanscottwalker
Octoberwoodland	Maineartists
Nat Gertler	PackMecEng
Nomoskedasticity	Petrarchan47
Gbear605	Dumuzid
Jayron32	AIRcorn
Masem	Jweiss11
Aquillion	Shinealittlelight
Muboshgu
Bastun
TFD
Vadder
starship.paint
Hobit
Ravensfire
Fearless lede'r
John Broughton
Citing
hako9
29	18	4

End of transcluded content. wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Since this discussion is split onto two pages, this may help visualize consensus. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion that counts is at BLPN - or did you already add those names in your tally because that close will override anything here. Oh, and the totals of the 3 columns to the right of support = 18, so it is hardly a sweeping consensus - it is status quo, which means remove it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would not include the 3rd column as consensus to not include. They are consensus to include, but specific to certain conditions being met. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  But, Emir - they are a "no" until certain conditions are met, not a "yes" BUT change this or remove that type of comment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia you are correct. The 3rd column does not weigh into the consensus, but would be treated as advisory. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, he's not - see the Fox News close if you need precedent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

BLPN discussions do not have more weight than article discussions. All editors are equal here. The conditions set by one of the commenters has been met (accrues to the support column). I'm not sure about the other. - MrX 🖋 15:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The BLPN discussions hold more weight than here since they are a broader community discussion. I would suggest adding them as well but more realistically just remove the table as WP:NOTAVOTE. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really. This was a discussion about a specific content proposal, not a site-wide change. I see a lot of familiar faces. And, hey!, why did you jump a column PackMecEng? I thought you were opposed because we didn't have hardly anything in the body of the article. Now we do. - MrX 🖋 15:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Local consensus does not overrule boarder discussion, full stop. Also I moved because my opinion above and explanation was oppose at this time. As I explain above I am still waiting for the section to settle. As it sits it is to big and fluffy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that's a misreading of WP:CONLEVEL. In fact, it even gives examples, none of which say that content decisions about an article have more weight if they are discussed at a noticeboard than if they are discussed on the article talk page. Of course none of this matters because the consensus is (slightly) stronger at BLPN anyway. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify if a larger discussion at BLPN decided that it was not appropriate you would use a limited discussion on a article talk page instead? PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. To quote myself "BLPN discussions do not have more weight than article discussions. All editors are equal here." As you can see, I did not say or imply that BLPN comments have less weight than article discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit into the weeds and I will probably call it here. Thanks for clarifying your position, while I may not agree I do appreciate you taking the time to reply. PackMecEng (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you left me out. See my comment in the section above. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, sorry about that, It was an oversight. You commented "I suggest we wait until more details are available before we include in the lead." Do you think there are enough details now (including material that was chopped from the article this morning), or do you still think we need more details? - MrX 🖋 15:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is we don't have more meat on the subject and I think that is what most who said hold off are waiting for. Yes, the volume of text has increased but is being picked up off a yacht significant? The content on the video is bloat. Why mention the bail value or that his passport was taken? Isn't taking a passport standard when someone is on bail? The text is long winded. The whole section could be reasonably cut to half as much text and loose nothing of value. It seems that editors were concerned that a lack of text length in the body was justification for keeping things out of the lead so the body was bloated. The core issue is that all we have is an indictment and Bannon on bail. We don't have a list of impacts, nor a trial nor a conviction. Basically we don't have much in the way of real meat vs just fat. Springee (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't lean as strongly towards exclusion anymore, but what's available (he was indicted, arrested on a yacht, and released on bail) just seems a bit too NEWSY for me for the lead. I don't know what overall significance this will have to his life / BLP as a whole, but that doesn't seem to be the way Wikipedia current event coverage has evolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, fair enough. Shall I place you in the neutral column? (By the way, I agree that the lead material should be very short and on point.) - MrX 🖋 15:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer my comments not simply be distilled into a column with a 1 word header. I would request the closer evaluate my comments in the context of the discussion. Such vote counts are rarely helpful. For example - what would a straight tally count show at that discussion you closed about Ayurveda? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you need to make sure we are clear about those who said indictment only vs those who want to put more in the lead. For example Masem and several others said indictment only so they aren't in the same camp as those who would try to include more details. At this point this is not a consensus for inclusion by your own count. This means you shouldn't have added the material yesterday. Springee (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:CONSENSUS or the fact that this discussion is not an RfC whereby others in the community (relevant projects) have been notified, etc. I don't think anyone is questioning the fact it is a controversial inclusion and better left to status quo. After all, it is in the body text which is where it belongs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Shall we not wikilawyer this thing to death? The discussion was about including the indictment and arrest in the lead. While we can plausibly mention the indictment while omitting the arrest, we cannot reasonably do the reverse. - MrX 🖋 15:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It can start with you stopping it, and projecting what you're doing onto others. The info is in the body text, DROPTHESTICK. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I gotta say, I've seen people disregard NOTAVOTE, but seldom with so much fancy formatting. GMG^talk 16:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wait. Wut? User:Coffee is still hanging around? Hope everything is well brother. GMG^talk 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: Indeed I am! I've been in and out for the past 2-3 months (have some stuff I'm working on outside of Wikipedia), but came back to the site around November of last year. I should start being more around next month at some point. Thanks for the well wishes. All is doing fairly well on my end! - I hope you're life is going well too, and I look forward to volunteering together more on here in the near future. It's definitely good to hear from you again! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Disregard per WP:NOTAVOTE, and patiently allow the BPLN discussion to conclude. Because other stuff does exist, I will remind folks that we waited 19 days to include any mention of Joe Biden's sexual assault allegation to his BLP (and, of course, we would never be allowed to add it to the Lede). The lack of consistency is baffling. petrarchan47คุก 19:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: & @Petrarchan47: Oh please! You reference NOTAVOTE when it's something like 16 vs. 14. Not when it's 23 vs 14! At that point you're no longer saying "disregard because it's not a vote", what you're saying is "ignore consensus". These games with trying to twist policy into pretzels are just silly. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

THIS is the crux of the problem - NOTAVOTE is overriding policy describing our consensus model. It means you discuss the weight of arguments re their relationship to policy. You do not count heads - except in rare circumstances. Read it:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor. While polling forms an integral part of several processes (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), polls are generally not used for article development. petrarchan47คุก 01:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is Bannon accused of sex crimes??? What? SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  If Joe Biden is arrested and indicted on criminal charges, you have my word that I will push to include those items in the lead of his biography on day one. Until then, using false equivalence to try to spin a partisan narrative isn’t helpful here. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also, please be careful with your words. It is not Biden's allegation. It is Tara Reade's. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah that is basically what I am seeing here as well. It is rather funny the partisan spin some seem to put it on. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Seriously, these false equivalence games you guys are trying to place here only weaken your arguments. IF Biden is federally indicted or even just arrested on any charges, then YES that would go into the lede of his article. BUT HE HASN'T. Bannon HAS. Equivalently, if all that happened here was that some relatively unknown person had accused Bannon of fraud, then sure, then it wouldn't belong in the lede (or even the article, depending). But that's NOT what happened here. There WAS a federal indictment, not just random accusations. Seriously, this isn't that hard. Volunteer Marek 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And I've always said it should be in the body, and likely in the Lede. The question at hand is whether or not it's too soon. petrarchan47คุก 01:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I take issue with the fact that my position is listed as "ambiguous", when I unequivocally stated my position as "too soon for the lede" at the BLPN, and while it may not supersede this thread, !votes there should not be excluded in this straw poll. The recent addition of the disputed text to the lede should be reverted, as the assessment of editor's opinions is clearly flawed, and the poll cannot be used to claim consensus in the first place. Per WP:POLL It is important to remember that polls do not in themselves create consensus; rather, they are one tool useful for developing mutual consensus and evaluating whether consensus exists. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. PackMecEng (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth is also listed as "ambiguous", whilst his reply at the BLPN was It may seem very important to want to put someone's crimes or accusations in the lede, and even try to cram it into the very first sentence, but unless that person is like Charles Manson and the crime is all he is known for, it sticks out like a sore thumb and just looks ridiculous and amateurish, especially in political articles, like that child yelling, "Look at me! Mom! Look at me!" while the adults are having a conversation. He finally stated that it's akin to "putting the cart before the horse". Both Atsme and I used his comment to support our "not yet" !vote.

If we were to reverse the WP:NOTAVOTE policy, we would then have to train editors how to correctly summarize editor's comments, and then only editors who've proven able would contribute to charts like the one above. But since we rely on policy-based arguments for now, and since the inception of this project, it's best we push back against head-counts, IMO? petrarchan47คุก 14:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Zaereth's comments tell us he was against adding it to lead at this point in time, and if we're mistaken, I'm sure he'll let us know. I'm not too concerned about the vote count either way. The other 2 columns serve to strenghten the oppose arguments, but the decision cannot be made by any editor participating in this discussion; rather, it must be made by an uninvolved closer, hopefully one who can leave their biases at login. What I find disconcerting is the relentless attempt to keep adding it back to the lead despite WP:PAG, particularly CONSENSUS and WP:BLPLEAD. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we are still debating this here I have restored the lead to it's prior stable state until consensus is established. I have proposed that an inditement only statement might be a viable compromise solution but we should agree on what and where here before adding to the article. Springee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a legitimate argument. If the "prior" version was somehow privileged then our articles would never leave their virgin state. Volunteer Marek 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Wut. I know what these words mean individually, but not in that order. GMG^talk 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It means that you can't justify edit warring by claiming "revert to prior version" is a legitimate argument. Not that hard. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If we can't justify edit warring then why did you restore the disputed content when we don't agree there is a consensus? Just to be clear, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. In a case where no consensus exists it states, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". If I'm not mistaken a number of us are debating if a consensus has been established. Some editors say yes, others no. That certainly sounds like the description of a No Consensus state to me. What I restored was the long standing version of the lead. That is what NOCON says we should do in such a case. Ultimately this discussion might find that a consensus for inclusion exists or perhaps that a compromise can be reached. However, until that time policy says the material stays out. We shouldn't be accusing those who want to remove the content of edit warring while restoring it (yet again) when consensus is not clear. Springee (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, most of us on most articles actively collaborate, rather than argue, and moving the article forward from it's "virgin state" isn't really all that hard. But I don't expect that you are unaware of ONUS. So I'm not really sure why you are acting so taken aback that someone would revert to a previous version while changes are being discussed.

We've collaborated before. But you must assume some level of seriousness in knowing that we both fairly well understand policy. GMG^talk 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Springee. It's challenged materia

• May I suggest that we stop arguing about tallying votes, because that doesn't matter anyway, and either let the discussion sit for like a week (honestly how often are controversial discussions closed in three days?) or turn the thing into an RfC. Either way, let someone uninvolved actually close it in accordance with CLOSE, rather than having a bunch of people already deeply involved try to break out the spreadsheets and decide the issue amongst themselves. GMG^talk 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, people should stop arguing about tallying votes. - MrX 🖋 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: how can you look at the above disagreement and then decide this is a consensus. As an involved editor you have made your case for inclusion but you are not the one to decide "consensus has been established". Springee (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just note that I requested guidance about this situation at the admin noticeboard - see here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think a very terse statement belongs in the lede. WP:LEDE is, as Mastcell says, pretty clear on the issue. Issues of being in the lede or not aren't, IMO, BLP issues, they are organizational. But the UNDUE arguments are valid. This is a person who has been covered in various media a LOT. The section in the lede should be a short sentence of (say) a dozen or less words. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry for the belated reply, but the consensus IMHO is clear. The fact that some editors are stonewalling to stop from including this in the lead does not mean there is no consensus. -- Calidum 14:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of arrest in lead. Seems all too recent and unclear what the context is in term's Bannon's overall bio. If he's ultimately convicted, that would likely warrant inclusion in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too soon. Need to wait and see how it plays out to see how significant it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose an RfC to establish consesus

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.

---

Sometimes we can't agree on article content. Other times we can't agree if a consensus has been established. We certainly appear to be in a case where we are trying to decide if a consensus has been established. As a way to move forward I am proposing a RfC. Below is my proposed RfC question. I would like feedback from others to make sure we agree there are no concerns regarding neutrality of the RfC.

::Proposed Question: Should Steve Bannon's August 2020 indictment be included in the article lead? If yes, should the scope of the lead material be limited (indictment only, indictment + arrest, additional details)?

I would like to go live with the RfC tomorrow. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn: A closer request for the discussions above has been requested thus this RfC would be redundant. See my comments at the end of this section Springee (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose an RfC as the tally shows there has been a stable and solid consensus to include for 2+ days, and we need to end the GAMING and STONEWALLING and include the content. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this is just more disruptive editing by User:Springee. The discussion has resulted in consensus to include the disputed content. The user proposing the RFC has not contributed any substantive content to the article and has continuously edit warred and violated 1RR on the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? Who has decided a consensus has been reached? Springee (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• No - Have an admin close these two discussions and let's move on. If there's any more WP:GAMING, I'm going to bring a couple of people to WP:AE. That's a promise. - MrX 🖋 22:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, I've asked several times for someone to step up and have an outsider help us decide if we have consensus. So far no one has stepped up thus I took the initiative. Please AGF and expect others to AGF of your own actions as well. Springee (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You made no request at WP:ANRFC. See you at AE. - MrX 🖋 23:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I never said I did. I asked others for suggestions. None were offered so I proposed this. Again if you suggest or implement an alternative great. Springee (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the only logical way forward. An RfC (hopefully) results in a more formal evaluation of arguments as opposed to a reliance on head counts that run counter to WP:NOTAVOTE. I’ve been wondering why an RfC hasn’t already been opened, and cannot understand why editors would be opposed. There is no reason to believe this article or WP in general is being harmed by a measured approach to including the material in the Lede. The urgency and edit warring make little sense from my point of view. Please go forward with the RfC, you don’t need our approval. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 22:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While technically I don't, I did want others to have a chance to weigh in on the question so there wouldn't be accusations that the question was biased. I'm totally open to other options but so far none has been offered. Springee (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC. This has the effect of imposing an unnecessary delay of a month or more, in the face of clear enough consensus to include. Our goal is not perfection. We can continue to improve the text. We can even r-e-m-o-v-e it if RS narratives change! It's a widely reported headline. It cannot be considered libelous for WP to publish it. Whether it turns out to deserve less or more WEIGHT in the future, it's far worse to waste editor time and resources -- including resources that could improve other parts of this article to better convey the essence of Bannon -- rather than putting this in the lead with an eye on developments that might lead us to increase or decrease its presence there. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously. This is the best (and standard) way to actually build consensus in a situation like this. I can't see why anyone would oppose this based on WP policy. Moreover, on the substantive issue, I think it is too early to add this material to the lead; it cannot be established as DUE in Bannon's biography until the story develops further. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  "Obviously" is not the most convincing argument. Can you give us a counterexample that invalidates the proposition that it belongs in the lead? What could happen that would make this insignificant in Bannon's slightly notable life on earth? SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wasn't primarily commenting on the substantive issue. What's obvious, and not really in need of argument to those who have worked on WP for awhile, is that an RfC is a good step at this point. This whole discussion is a bit weird; in effect an RfC about whether to have an RfC. Someone should just start the RfC. I don't have time or I'd do it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Right. I was saying it is not obvious an RfC is constructive. You really do need to lay out your reasoning to rebut those who oppose it. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't need an argument to start an RfC, so I really don't need to lay out an argument. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not the question on the table. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: unnecessary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Seems necessary at this point. The bludgeoning on both sides needs to stop and this should resolve it. PackMecEng (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doesn't seem to be required to me. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: {u|MrX}} has initiated a closure request here [[19]]. I proposed the RfC after saying we needed an independent assessment of consensus and seeing no action had been taken. As MrX has taken the initiative this RfC would be redundant. Springee (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's been disputed in other venues where it's argued that only a templated formal RfC can override the resistance of a small minority. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

People can dispute if they want. There is no policy that says a templated RfC is necessary to establish consensus in a content dispute, nor would it matter since the discussion was cross posted in WP:BLPN, a very public community noticeboard where it undoubtedly got more attention than it would through the formal RfC process. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And also at AN. Enough editors are of aware of and participating in this discussion. Whatever consensus result is reached needs to be respected for a while, pending further developments if they come out. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. But let's hope I am too pessimistic to expect that the close will be disputed because "it's not an RfC". This has happened repeatedly, and it should stop. It is at best disingenuous for editors to participate at length in a non-RfC poll, only to deny its conclusion and call for a formal RfC. The obstruction is like the layers of an onion. Consensus does not mean unanimity. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to debate the "what if's" if the confirmed consensus is not respected. In that case we will lobby admins to levy sanctions against editors deserving such. I expect new discussions in the event some new information is released, but until then I would consider the matter settled. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree with MrX's take. Again, the RfC was proposed as a way to close this out since no one else had taken the bull by the horns. If the RfC prompted MrX's action, that is fine. I don't see evidence that anyone would dispute an independent assessment. The disagreements from myself and others was involved editors shouldn't be the ones deciding a disputed consensus. Springee (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, good. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Although I'm afraid the request for a formal closure may have been under false pretenses, with MrX claiming that 'discussion has dwindled'. We've had two more !votes since then, both opposing inclusion. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with an involved party deciding discussions are over and ready for formal closure when that's not the case. This action is used as a reason not to hold an RfC, and MrX is firmly against an RfC. If these discussions are ready for closure, I'd rather this be decided by a disinterested party. petrarchan47คุก 16:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this should be closed by an uninvolved participant and I trust involved editors will respect that closure, per the usual collaborative process here. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ernie, I think you are aware that would be more or less unprecedented in recent memory. Do you really think anyone had a reasoned policy and source based argument to keep Covid out of Donald Trump's biography lead for 8 months. Etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Launching an RFC at this point just drags the process out even further. -- Calidum 15:04, 27 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.

Include As stated above, a federal indictment is not issued without evidence being heard. This seems worthy of inclusion in the lede. Fearless lede'r (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Being bold and adding it into the lede. There's already a court date set and being arrested for and charged with fraud would be a major part of any political figure's Wikipedia biography and lede.Citing (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing, that wasn't bold, that was WP:RECKLESS. It is very clear from the discussion above that consensus is in dispute. A request for closure has been initiated. Please self revert pending the closing. Springee (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Being candid, I came to this article as a reader, not an as editor involved in a dispute, and found it bizarre that a major political figure's arrest and indictment for a major crime (which even has a detailed section!) wasn't mentioned in the lede of the biography, so I edited the article to improve it.Citing (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing, don't worry, your edit was not reckless. It's entirely in accord with WP:LEAD, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:CONSENSUS. - MrX 🖋 12:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you should know better. When there has been a long, unresolved discussion regarding if an edit should be made and a request for closure has been posted by you, you should know that the time for BOLD edits has passed. From RECKLESS, "On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes". Springee (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't lecture me.[20] - MrX 🖋 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Then don't encourage others to make edits that you wouldn't make yourself. You certainly know that it would be reckless for you to make that edit given you opened a request for closure to establish if consensus exists on that very edit. Springee (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee is mostly intent on suppression of content, seems to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And you are making bad faith accusations. No, I'm interested in editors actually following policy like NOCON. The basic issue here is that we can't agree if a consensus exists. MrX has started a request for closing. That is a good thing because it allows the question of consensus to be decided by others at a time when those involved can't agree. However, that also means we need to respect the process and wait for the closing to decide if consensus exists. Until that happens, NOCON is clear. As fpr suppression, no. That's a nonsense claim since we have a (now bloated) section in the article talking about all of this. Springee (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh look -- here's another one: [21]. Whole lotta red there...Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a good faith observation that the totality of your edits to the article have contributed nothing to improving this article, and that your sole purpose here appears to be to keep content unfavorable to the subject out of the article, even when the substantial majority of editors who have commented believe we should include the material. I will note that when I tried to discuss this with you one your user talk page, you promptly reverted me.[22] - MrX 🖋 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You fail to mention that first, I tried to discuss things with you on your talk page [[23]]... and you closed that off. Why come to my talk page to lay down accusations vs continue to talk on your page where I had started the discussion. If your simple majority was all we needed for consensus why did you open a RfClosure. Now that you have opened it please respect it. Springee (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the observations of Nomoskedasticity and MrX. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that isn't surprising [[24]]. Springee (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, that there's been a long, unresolved discussion doesn't mean it's been an especially fruitful one -- there are at least four (!!) going on right now and I don't see how sucking in more people will help. I think I made the right call from an editorial perspective. This is a biography of a high profile political individual who has been formally arrested, charged, and has a trial date for a major crime. There is a detailed section within the article, well-sourced and following the policy on verifiability, and the lede section should summarize it in a neutral manner that gives the matter due weight, per the manual of style. FWIW, I came to this article as a reader (rather than as an uninvolved editor, if that matters) and found it lacking that the criminal allegations were not in the lede, which is why I thought adding it would improve the article in the first place. I'm going to restore my edit and go explore other areas of the encyclopedia (and gently recommend that others do the same :) ).Citing (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing, your latest reversion runs afoul of the discretionary sanctions in force at the page. You need to self-revert so you won't be sanctioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was the first time the content was added I would agree, you made a good faith BOLD edit. Even this time I think your edit was 100% good faith. Still, the wheels of the process are in motion so let them continue to move. Springee (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This makes the fifth time User:Springee has violated 1RR with this article. If anyone is ripe for discretionary sanctions, it's User:Springee. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

OWL, 1. WP:FOC. 2. If I were the only editor who felt the material is UNDUE for the lead then I think you would have a stronger point. Note that 17 other editors said no and an additional 4 did not support the addition. 3. Do we have a consensus for inclusion? If so can you show where it has been established and agreed upon? The current answer is NO, hence -> 4. Are you aware there is an open request for closure? Unless editors have changed their mind since the opening of that RfC, NOCON says we have no consensus which means the material should not be added. Springee (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: Previous discussion of WP:AE enforcement request moved out of article Talk page space to user talk pages. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

See the article Brian Kolfage, paragraph three of the lead. On August 20, 2020, Kolfage was indicted, along with Steve Bannon and two other co-defendants, "for their roles in defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as 'We Build the Wall' that raised more than $25 million." Kolfage was later arrested in Florida. While repeatedly assuring donors that Kolfage would not be paid, the defendants allegedly schemed to pass $350,000 to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle.

References

His article has this content in the lead, so why is this article any different? Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support in the lead Please update the table, whoever's maintaining this mess​. - hako9 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Stonewalling

User conduct issues are handled at ANI or AE. Article talk pages are for improving content. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please give a synopsis of the process here? I am being accused of "stonewalling" by reverting addition of the disputed material pending formal closure. Am I in the wrong? Drmies, or someone well versed in policy (as well as what constitutes 'casting aspersions'), please advise. petrarchan47คุก 06:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC) You have reverted the same content now twice. 1RR on this article. You have one revert and a 1RR violation. Someone else's turn (who has not previously reverted the same content).[25][26]  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Why haven't you said anything to Volunteer Marek who has reverted the same content 3 times? Springee (talk) 10:11, 2 September 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.

Daily Best: Steve Bannon Is Behind Bogus Study That China Created COVID

This seems important to add but not sure where to put it

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-linked-groups-push-study-claiming-china-manufactured-covid
• https://www.businessinsider.com/virologist-who-said-china-released-coronavirus-works-with-steve-bannon-2020-9?r=US&IR=T

John Cummings (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If there's enough sourced content on this, it could go into a new subsection under 'Post-Trump administration activities'. I'd add that Newsweek reported a supposed investigation into the matter by U.S. intelligence services, and a European Commission call for an international investigation.

• https://www.newsweek.com/china-steve-bannon-chernobyl-coronavirus-1501410

—ADavidB 13:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is an article Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

JFYI, bannon just called for terrorist acts

https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/steve-bannon-and-his-co-host-discuss-beheading-dr-anthony-fauci-and-fbi-director

(Video of him in the link) Quote: "

STEVE BANNON (HOST): Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci.

Now I actually want to go a step farther but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone -- time to stop playing games. blow it all up, put Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right.

JACK MAXEY (CO-HOST): You know what Steve, just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia, these were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated if you will with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.

BANNON: That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war. "2A02:8108:1140:6524:A595:EFD8:374C:AE87 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, try not to exaggerate the man's comments about Fauci and Wray as terrorist, especially without reliable sources, as that could be considered libelous. Secondly, Mr. Bannon based on the transcript and the source you provided did not explicitly call for terrorism, but rather wished in a still tasteless manner that the two were dead. Lastly, it is not clear what changes you want made to the article. You should use talk pages like this for improving the articles, not as a WP:FORUM. FreeMediaKid! 23:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Pardon

The lede says he'll stand trial in May 2021. He was pardoned by President Trump today. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting error

There is a formatting error under the National Security Council section. It says "== Trump administration ===" and " ===Presidency of Donald Trump=== ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyACD (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times

This story from The New York Times is very informative:

• How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Very informative, first published Nov. 20, 2020 Updated Jan. 26, 2021 (think the update was to correct their misidentification of a photo). It certainly has an interesting spin toward lack of evidence to confirm the so-called whistleblower's account but without evidence to confirm the opposite; i.e., she had no smoking gun. There were clearly exaggerations (news sensationalism?) which are highly misleading and tend to discredit Yan as an expert but she is still a doctor, and she did work at one of the world's top virology labs, etc. The authors write, The Chinese government often punishes critics by harassing their families. But when The Times reached Dr. Yan’s mother on her cellphone in October, she said that she had never been arrested and was desperate to connect with her daughter, whom she had not spoken to in months. Did they expect her mother to admit that the Chinese government was harassing them? Think about it a minute - let's say you're being watched and threatened that you would disappear if you dared say the wrong thing. Would you have told the Times' reporter that your family was being harassed? We already know about the government threats. As for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, there is this systematic review that states, Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19. I'm certainly not commenting to get Bannon off the hook for anything - he has earned his reputation on his own - but I prefer factual reporting to be objective, and void of spin. Atsme 💬 📧 16:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hydroxychloroquine is widely recognized to be ineffective and potentially dangerous as a treatment for Covid-19. Please don't use Wikipedia as a platform for misleading cherry-picking or Covid-19-related misinformation. Separately, the New York Times is regarded as a reliable source by the Wikipedia community. If you disagree with that consensus, then that should be addressed via RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than by trying to undermine or discredit it on individual article talkpages. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • MastCell, are you saying that this systemic review is from an unreliable journal? New Microbes New Infect. 2020 Nov; 38: 100776. Published online 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100776 And if so, why is it in Elsevier, and what about the sources they cited? New Microbes and New Infections - Editorial Board: Editor-in-Chief: Professor Michel Drancourt, MD, PhD - Mediterranean University Hospital Institute for Infectious Diseases, Marseille, France; Microbiology, Infectious Diseases; Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Professor Pierre-Edouard Fournier, MD, PhD, Aix-Marseille University Mediterranean University Hospital Institute for Infectious Diseases VITROME, Marseille, France Intracellular bacteria; Coxiella burnetii; Rickettsia; Bartonella; diagnosis; molecular detection; genome sequencing; taxonomy. I will relent to your expertise regarding medical journals but that's as far as I'll go. Atsme 💬 📧 20:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the scientific consensus is clear. As with many such topics, it is possible to cherry-pick papers that contradict the scientific consensus, but that's not a particularly useful or honest tactic. Further discussion probably belongs elsewhere. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • If you want to be critical of me for cherry-picking an Elsevier journal and the published systematic review, (which is not a paper or article), then so be it. I was not arguing the case about medicine or remedies for COVID, rather I was simply mentioning possibilities and other things to consider about what was stated in the article - that's what good editors and journalists do, or at least, used to do. I'm of the mind that “Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.” ~ National Geographic Magazine. Looking at the dates of the original NYTimes article, I wasn't certain if something new had possibly developed - new developments have been a pattern for COVID research - and I figured it was worth considering in this TP discussion. I hope editors never lose sight of that approach, and continue to question, explore, seek knowledge and keep turning-over those unturned rocks. Atsme 💬 📧 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ban from Twitter after call for beheadings

This section is puffery. CNN and NYT interjected "beheadings". This speech was picked up and promulgated as fact by news media and now by Wikipedia. NPR reported what Bannon actually said.

"I'd put the heads on pikes. Right. I'd put them at the two corners of the White House. As a warning to federal bureaucrats: Either get with the program or you're gone," he said in the now-deleted video previously posted on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. However, it has been recirculated through other accounts.

The Independent has a video of the NPR quoted Bannon speech

Wikipedia article says:

During the November 5, 2020 edition of his webcast, Bannon called for the beheadings of Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious diseases expert, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Bannon said that if it were up to him, after beheading Fauci and Wray, "I'd put the heads on pikes" and display them outside the White House "as a warning to bureaucrats" who dared oppose Trump. By the end of the day, Facebook and YouTube had deleted the video from their platforms, and Twitter had permanently banned his account. Mailchimp also disabled Bannon's email newsletter.[266] The next day, Bannon was dropped by a lawyer who had been defending him against federal charges of fraud.[267]

What is Wikipedia's policy to correct puffery? dmode (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I see dead people

"Bannon reportedly speaks often with Trump donor Sheldon Adelson, and has been alarmed at a push for a renewed Middle East peace process."

Sheldon Adelson is as dead as a door handle. Can someone please update this with the appropriate tense? 2600:1012:B01F:72D2:5429:201D:9BCC:1A45 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Past tense is applied, accordingly. —ADavidB 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What role did Bannon play in the 2016 election?

The section on 2016 should be renamed "Bad Stuff Bannon Said and People He Angered." Readers get no picture of what he did or his significance to the campaign. AECwriter 19:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)

Seinfeld residuals

The source for the claim that Bannon receives residuals from Seinfeld is a New York Post article from 2017, which cites something Bannon himself said in an interview. Does that really warrant a bald statement of fact in the article? john k (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it does, John K. It's unnecessary detail, and not well-sourced. Our readers don't need to know the intricacies of Bannon & Co., much less his dealings in investment banking. I think the whole Business career section could be reduced substantially into a summary paragraph, maybe two. Atsme 💬 📧 00:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if its not getting WP:SIGCOV then I dont think its that notable. In my opinion it should be removed. 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)MaximusEditor (talk)

Lieutenant O-3

Hi is Lieutenant O-3 necessary vs. Lieutenant? Seems much easier to document that Steve was a lieutenant.Scranton (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that O-3 conveys the pay grade with the rank. (An entry on the O3 disambiguation page backs this up.) I consider it an unnecessary detail for most uses on Wikipedia. —ADavidB 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

thanks! Scranton (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Stephen K. Bannon

Hi each morning the intro to the show says Stephen K. Bannon, then Bannon repeats it. Shouldn't the Title of the page match how he self identifies?Scranton (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources generally refer to him as? Zaathras (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:Article titles. —ADavidB 04:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

He just needs a daily reminder of his own name -- it doesn't mean anything. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say he self identifies as Stephen K. Bannon. But Prince turned himself into a symbol so. I think most editors can find their way here if they are looking for this article. MaximusEditor (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

question about citation/ Wired mag

why was it necessary to remove this citation? Scranton (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Scranton (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I found another reliable source, by one of the coauthors (Loucaides), that also supports Bannon's visiting the Five Star Movement. This replacement source is more readily available to readers who may wish to verify the information. Is there a particular reason you prefer the original citation? It was not used anywhere else in the article, and Gale's preview portion did not include mention of Bannon. —ADavidB 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Provide Proof That Steve Bannon Participated in anyway to the 1980 Rescue Attempt of the American Hostages in Iran

In the narrative of Steve Bannon's Naval Service, the statement "In 1980, Bannon was deployed to the Persian Gulf to assist with Operation Eagle Claw during the Iran hostage crisis." is made. Please provide and require SPECIFIC proof of this reference and Steve Bannon's participation in Operation Eagle Claw. Far too many people who had nothing to do with Operation Eagle Claw claim participation in this action. TroyLWeeks (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Kranish, Michael; Whitlock, Craig (February 10, 2017). "How Bannon's Navy service during the Iran hostage crisis shaped his views". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on February 10, 2017. Retrieved December 6, 2017. He was an ensign and then a lieutenant junior grade, assigned to a windowless, two-bed stateroom with desks and a wardrobe area, a comfortable accommodation compared with the warren of bunks where most sailors slept. Andrevan@ 22:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My point is a citation for this statement is needed to specify exactly what and how Bannon directly and purposefully "assisted" in the Eagle Claw Operation? Being assigned a junior officer and "sitting" in a stateroom maybe aboard a ship in a task force, doesn't rise to the level "assisting" in the Operation. Bannon could simply have been assigned to a ship, and by happenstance that ship was assign as part of the task force of THOUSANDS of Sailors just like him that were carrying out routine shipboard duties. Sitting in a stateroom while at sea is a routine part of a junior officer's day, he could have been counting paperclips or making coffee for this superior officer's. Again, what exactly did he do to contribute to the Operation that warrants the credit this article suggests? Otherwise, the reference appears to elevate Bannon's profile with a level of importance or valor he may not be entitled too. I would suggest digging deeper on his participation in Operation Eagle Claw and provide proof of his direct contribution to the Operation. TroyLWeeks (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to research it more or propose a change to the wording to clarify his role. Andrevan@ 14:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead photo

Aren't there any photos of Bannon that don't look like he's recently been in a radiation accident? EEng 15:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really, no. We can only do so much with what god has given us. Zaathras (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep our personal opinions of his appearance out of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All editing involves making evaluations of what material is most appropriate. Not that we ourselves would hold such opinions, but amongst our readers there are certainly at least a few who subscribe to the adage that, "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone" (i.e. external ugliness may reflect a hateful personality and twisted, poisonous character, perhaps because of self-loathing). Examples of this alleged correlation are thick on the ground in popular culture, for example:

Ugly witch -- bad

Attractive witch -- good

I'm sure you'll agree it's incumbent on us to avoid feeding into such prejudice by presenting a severely unflattering portrait of the subject, if other images are available that are less suggestive of inner ugliness. The question, as posed in my original post, is whether or not such images exist. EEng 21:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the photo there now is the best we have in commons right now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Typo

Sorry, I don't know the correct way to address this with a locked article. There is a simple typo to be corrected in the Personal Life section: "In an article in The New York Times, Piccard stated her absence was due to threats made **sgainst** her by Bannon and his lawyer:" 12.222.192.42 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. In the future, you can use the {{Edit requested}} template with your request to get someone's attention in case a passerby like me doesn't see it quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

referenced article has two titles

these referenced articles are the same, with different titles. Is there a way to note that a referenced article has two titles?Scranton (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Scranton (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

If the content is identical, I'd say only use one of them. If some benefit is given by including both, then perhaps one 'ref' tag and multiple 'cite' templates, along with a short explanatory sentence about there being two titles. —ADavidB 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks Scranton (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media

Is this fact trivial, not relevant, or obsolete? Was this a one-time list of done annually for ten years and this was the highest Bannon ever placed?Scranton (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

In 2015, Bannon was ranked No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015". Scranton (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about its triviality, though WP:RSP gives Mediaite a yellow color and says it is considered "only marginally reliable, and should be avoided". —ADavidB 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks Scranton (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

UK conservative party

The UK conservative party is quite mainstream. Can the identification as far-right be removed?Scranton (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)