Jump to content

Talk:Steve Bannon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Byates5637 (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 11 February 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

picture, request number three

Cropped non-encyclopedic photo, from 2010.
Grainy bad-lighting low-rez screengrab, from 2014.

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

Why are you asking "someone" to do it instead of just doing it? Brianhe (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because, not autoconfirmed? Because, lazy and slothful? Because, WP:FFU and WP:FUG are about as painful as the acronyms suggest?  :-) But okay, if you insist. I've submitted a request via the proper channels, so with luck the fair-use specialists will get to it eventually. But asking here on the talkpage seemed more likely to get a prompt response. And in a way it did 47.222.203.135 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, I've been scouring the net for something Commons compatible for Sid Miller (politician) or Wilbur Ross, not wanting to go through the fair use rigamarole. Sorry if my reply came across as 'tude. - Brianhe (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, and you did get me to file the request, so consider it a well-posed question that irked me in a way which might improve wikipedia.  :-) And although we complain, the annoyingly-heavy fair use restrictions do have a point, which matters long-term, than we want a free-as-in-free-speech encyclopedia not just a zero-cost one. I'm less worried about Ross, we'll have his picture in a month if not earlier, and a blank space until then may encourage people to help out, and thus suck them into becoming wikipedians. (I'll comment on Sid Miller over on your talkpage, might be something we can do about him.) Missing info reminds people that wikipedia is not completely baked, and needs more cooks in the kitchen still. But biased pictures like Bannon remind people that wikipedians as a whole are NOT sufficiently careful about our very own pillars, and I would argue *hurts* the ability to attract new wikipedians. So although we will also have a Bannon pic in a month or thereabouts, I do wish we had not had the biased 2010 pic around so long, it speaks poorly to quality control. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good news: Texas Agriculture replied to my email inquiry that this Miller portrait is public domain. I will forward to OTRS and see if we can start using it. Brianhe (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cf WP:FFU, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP.

Please make the following change to the infobox:

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

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

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

The current image does not violate WP:NPOV in any conceivable way. While it's unfortunate that Bannon's mouth is open in the photo, overall it is representative of how he appears. That is what makes it encyclopedic. If a better free image becomes available, we can replace it at that time.- MrX 14:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: per above response from MrX.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again MrX, we definitely disagree that the imagefile cannot conceivably give the readership the perception that wikipedia is non-neutral. Usually that would be just an opinion, but I actually have an RS that portrait-selection is noteworthy as a controversial thing in wikipedia political articles on Trump and Clinton.[10] "The world is using Wikipedia to read up about Clinton and Trump, so we owe it to everyone to present information that is factually accurate, verifiable and neutral as possible" was a quote from one fine wikipedian, just above the paragraph where WaPo talked about the imagefile controversies. I agree that the current imagefile is factual, accurate, verifiable... it is a portrait of the topic of this BLP... but it is distinctly not what I would call "as neutral as possible". I understand that it is as neutral-as-libre-licensing-currently-permits, but I'd rather have no imagefile in mainspace, than one which will (conceivably) give wikipedia a bad rep. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK we disagree. You have not made a convincing case that the current image is so non-neutral that the article would be better served by having a gray rectangle with some words in it. Such an approach does not follow common practice on Wikipedia. I very much doubt that Wikipedia's reputation will suffer by retaining the current photo of Steve Bannon.- MrX 17:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No argument here that wikipedia's reputation is currently less than stellar in terms of neutrality in this specific area, but every little bit of improvement helps. (As of 2014,[11][12] we are ahead of most news media but still trail paper-encyclopedias significantly in reader-trust.) On the technical matter of what exactly is being suggested, to be clear, the grey-rectangle-with-words does NOT actually appear in mainspace; because of a template-rule implemented in 2007/2008, that specific imagefile (and two dozen others) are effectively invisible, except on talkpages. You can see the effect in preview-mode, where (in mainspace only) no grey-box appears, despite being specified. One could also leave the |image= param blank, obviously, and the readership would not know the difference, but as I understand it including the 'invisible' specific imagefile may help alert some wikipedians that monitor for use of that sort of "libre-license photo requested" placeholder. In looking deeper, there is also Template:reqphoto which seems to be the modern technique. I will stick that onto the talkpage here, which may help. But I'd still rather we use no imagefile, or equivalently an invisible placeholder, whilst we wait for some as-neutral-as-possible libre-licensed portrait to get uploaded. (Cf Wilbur Ross where we have no photo as yet, albeit for copyright reasons rather than for perceived-neutrality-plus-aesthetics.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What i never understand is why famous people, who surely know about WP, dont simply take a decent photo of themself and upload it. problem solved. it may be about wanting to control copyright on their own work, which is understandable, and why we have so few really good sports photos here, as those are worth big bucks. I dont see why this image is "biased", its just him not looking so great. we have lots of people with shitty photos here, its not a bias, its just reality. I am not a fan of him, but i would totally like to see a studio quality image of him here, along with some informal photos showing him at functions. come on press corp donate some!!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that US politics are more polarized and emotional than usual, and that's why it's so easy to claim bias in matters like this. However, let's face the fact that this is just what Steve Bannon looks like. His personal habits have been hard on his body and by all accounts his attention to personal grooming is at best lax. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Bannon were a vain man, the photo 47.222.etc. wants to see would at least exist, somewhere, perhaps under copyright. He is unlikely to have taken a "nice" photo since he was under military orders (about 35-40 years ago). Clearly, his grooming is not a priority, nor have I seen any "nice" photos of him in the media anywhere, so I fail to understand your belief that such a photo exists. As for the existing photo detracting from WP's neutrality, his photo looks like hell, though he looks around 40 years old, not 63, and the article clearly points out that he is smart as hell.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From some pictures I've seen in the news since the election it looks like he's gotten a shave/haircut and some new threads. These pictures are all under copyright though. His dermatological issues remain. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

String of cites

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

Same remark for the Time magazine article (Time was quoting somebody else). I removed it as well. Unless the other citations directly back up the appellation of this organization as "far right," it might be best to remove this description: It seems to be controversial. What do you say? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, there are around 40 readily available references that directly refer to Breitbart as "far right". They are listed in a a recent RfC. Here's a source from just yesterday [13].- MrX 12:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking ... Would those same persons who are calling Breitbart (and Bannon) "far-right" be equally willing to label themselves or others as "far-left"? When you can call neo-Nazis and the KKK the "far-right", and in another breath call Breitbart a far-right news outlet, it must strike some people as propagandistic. It does strike me that way, at least. I really wonder if you did a frequency check on WP whether there might be a large disparity in use between the two terms, with "far-right" taking the lead. It's such a convenient way to dismiss an entire ideology. Dynasteria (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here has said Bannon is far-right. Our sources have described Breitbart as far-right. If you think they are wrong, you can take it up with them. Our role is to summarize what sources have written, not add our own opinions, viewpoints, biases, or interpretations. - MrX 16:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

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

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

Bannon's spouses

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

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

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

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

National Security Council

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

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

See WP:Notnews. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This is far more notable than most of the content currently in the article.- MrX 16:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Trump administration does not seem concerned with (or possibly aware of) that statute. Bannon appears to be permanent fixture.. - Sleyece(talk) 04:31, 02 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are concerned or (probably( unaware is irrelevant if another branch does not keep them in check. I would propose mentioning that reliable sources have questioned his legitimacy, but I would not advise on explicitly calling him illegitimate as we must respect the sovereignty of Congress (particularly the Senate) and the Judiciary. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

The current version states the following: “Bannon produced 18 films[27] from the 1992 Sean Penn drama The Indian Runner to executive producing Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. “ A more accurate description: He was one of three executive producers of The Indian Runner [15] and one of three co-executive producers of Taymor’s Titus [16] Pete k 1948 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSC appointment/s: Legitimacy

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

Bannon May Need Senate Confirmation for NSC Role Esowteric+Talk 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see #National Security Council. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased picture

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

  • The question is whether a particularly unflattering picture was chosen. Despite his issues with grooming and health, there are better looking recent photos of Bannon, but they are all under copyright. Consensus seem to be to stick with the current picture until there is some kind of official photo. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was the edit in question. He was not in the image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in question
    The image in question
Considering you can find similar pictures of protests against almost ANY prominent politician, left or right, I would have to agree that it's biased unless we put protest pictures on all the other politician's pages. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea to me, unless their is already enough images in the articles. I think the pictures would have to be free enough for Commons and can't be used under fair use though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a BLP article, not an article about a Lesbian Uprising that is now being instigated by the old hag. What is the purpose of this photo that does not even show the person in question? Unless it is propaganda. The photo does not belong here.Axxxion (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was the Menopause March or a lesbian uprising, but that it is not edited from what happened; merely a representative photograph. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is the Senior Counselor title still valid?

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

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

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

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

I would definitely agree that the Chief Strategist is the most prominent in the case of Bannon, but Assistant to the President to the doesn't even have a page just a redirect. What do you think about merging the different assistants titles into a single page? This could eliminate this problem as we could merely use the Chief Strategist term and the rest would be a technical job title that is not required on Wikipedia except in the case of a monarch or office holder.
Update I have created a merger discussion at Talk:Assistant to the President#Merge discussion. Please share your opinion there.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communism portal

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

He said he was a Leninist but that does not mean he is a communist or Marxist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leninism and Marxism are both Communism variants. It is so noted on the page itself. kencf0618 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The connection between Bannon and Communism would have to be clearly explained with reliable source, in this article, before being included as a portal link. Further, multiple sources of substance would be needed to establish that this is a useful link. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bannon was serious is calling himself a "Leninist", other than to compare his basic strategy to Lenin. His policy positions and overall history are not those of someone with communist beliefs unless he is acting as some kind of deep undercover Soviet sleeper agent. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sources I've seen treat the comment as hyperbole. An off-the-cuff comment made for shock value and political convenience should not be overstated, but in the (unlikely) event that sources establish the connection more thoroughly, we can reassess. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Thanks for the discussion. kencf0618 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rubbish photo

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

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

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

- MrX 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the original image could be a good compromise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is to be another photo, then it should be one in which Bannon is playing a visibly significant role, surely? Esowteric+Talk 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find any photo but their is videos. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

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

The sources claiming Breitbart is far-right are businesses in direct competition, not only that but Breitbart has been viciously criticizing many of the cited news businesses, which make them more unreliable in this case. Breitbart is not "far-right" just because competing businesses say they are "far-right." This makes Wikipedia seem biased. Albaqualba (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The sources seem reliable – in my opinion, what is required would be competing sources that refer to the subject as something else. That would show that the subject might be something other than "far-right".  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs partner

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

@SusanLesch: It is clarified that he is not here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Disappointing. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second question, if Speaker Gingrich was in error about this. Is Mr. Bannon really a former navy captain? I found the rank of lieutenant in Quora. This article seems to have an early source that could not be specific at the time. Perhaps we could add the correct type of "officer?" -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By the way, I'm not the one to add this because I just read that a navy lieutenant is equivalent to an army captain. Evidently I'm not the only one confused (Vice President Pence's office made a correction, given at the end of that transcript). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Lede should begin with Chief Strategist

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Bannon&oldid=764839785"