Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 21 August 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steve Bannon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Template:Vital article

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Moynihan, Robert (January 31, 2017). "Steve Bannon, In His Own Words ". InsideTheVatican.com. Retrieved February 21, 2017. http://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/stephen-k-bannon-indie-film-distribution-wellspring-breitbart-1201748020/

Addition of Aug 2020 arrest to lead

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)

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)
• 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)

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 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 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 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. _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  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 Misplaced Pages 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  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. _Talk 📧 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Scheme vs plan

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

dob

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

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

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics