Talk:Steve Bannon

Merger proposal

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"On the UK" Section specifics

Bannon is represented in the wiki as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

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

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

"See also" section

A "See also" section was recently created, pointing to articles about the 2016 Russian interference in US elections.[1] I removed it stating "Is there any allegation that Bannon interfered with Russia?" and was reverted twice by Calton,[2][3] although I asked him to get consensus on the talk page.[4] This is a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction on this article: if you'd like to keep this content, the onus is on you to obtain consensus. Please self-revert and make your case. — JFG ^talk 08:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)