Talk:Steve Bannon

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)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)

You just verified what I've said. You have forgotten the Eric Holder indictment and contempt of court. 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)

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)

• 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. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] 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)

---

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. [[10]]. 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)

Tally

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

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

Addition of background to the body

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

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

OK, this is getting out of hand. The opinions of an anti-immigration activist should not be an whole sub-section of the article. Consider that person making the claims has a strong incentive to discredit someone who is showing there was strong support for curbing illegal immigration via a boarder wall (regardless of the practicality of the plan). An entire subtopic sourced to one local paper is UNDUE. Next, MrX's addition of supposed video where Bannon is claimed to be joking about stealing money[[11]]. No. This is a BLP and putting such speculative claims in the article is UNDUE and certainly UNDUE as the nature and context of the statements is speculative at best. When dealing with accusations of criminal behavior, even if the BLP is a public figure we need to have some level of discretion. Springee (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Scheme vs plan

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

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

dob

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

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

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

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

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

Mastermind?

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

What section should it be moved to? Other sources also call him a mastermind. [12] [13] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Google is a fickle maiden. [14]. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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 [[15]] 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)

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 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)

Survey (transcluded tally chart)

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

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

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