Talk:Steve Bannon

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Moynihan, Robert (January 31, 2017). "Steve Bannon, In His Own Words [Letter #6b]". InsideTheVatican.com. Retrieved February 21, 2017.
http://www.indiewire.com/2016/11/stephen-k-bannon-indie-film-distribution-wellspring-breitbart-1201748020/

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the 'Connection to Jeffrey Epstein' it should include that he did release a trailer, for which there should be a link. This is the only footage of the 15 hours which has been released and is therefore important. Here is the link for the trailer: https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/jeffrey-epstein-told-steve-bannon-im-a-supporter-of-times-up/ 2001:1C01:4213:4200:58A3:6A9C:157F:BC (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: NY Post is not a reliable source for U.S. politics. See WP:NYPOST. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kellyane Conway in the side bar can be a link. She has her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.252.48 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Speaking at a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting in February 2025, Bannon closed his pro-Trump remarks with a Nazi salute."

Surely this violates BLP? The source provided does not explicitly say the gesture was a Nazi salute. The sentence previously said "what appeared to be", that should be restored. 148.252.144.211 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"what appeared to some as a Nazi solute"

Isn't the fact that not everyone thinks it is one implied by "appeared to be"? No reason to pretend only some people think it is. This wording seems to be there for the purpose of downplaying it. Aradiades (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that wording is included because we cannot prove it was a nazi salute, and I'm not saying that's a good thing soibangla (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla That's implied by the phrase "seems to be". Everyone can see the video it very obviously is. I understand the need to not say so definitavely but "to some" downplays how obvious it is. It's not like only some people have that interpretation. Aradiades (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't a nazi solute, why add it to a biography? Springee (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, you should know that BRD would apply here and as this was recently added the ONUS is on you to make the case for inclusion rather than edit warring to restore the content [1]. I would suggest taking a wait and see approach. The problem with things like this (gaffs, misstatements etc) is they say little to nothing about the actual person and often are presented, as is the case here, absent any context. As a one off thing this becomes more like trivia. However if sources suggest it's part of a pattern then this could be included as supporting evidence. Alternatively, if they have lasting ramifications (see the Dean scream) then a case for inclusion is also stronger. At this point in time this appears to be a one and done event and thus UNDUE for inclusion. That might change in the future but the ONUS to show it is on those who want to include it. Springee (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Malerooster as involved editor Springee (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the gesture of Bannon was relatively unambiguous, and the phrasing "what appeared to some as a Nazi salute" is a little weak. Maybe something like "what appeared to be a" or "what resembled a" or "what was widely described as a" would be better. Otherwise, the paragraph seems good. I think this is clearly notable, there are a lot of media articles on it. Alenoach (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is it flash in the pan or something with lasting impact? So far it appears to be just a flash in the pan thing. If it doesn't have a lasting impact on the person and doesn't tell us anything about the person it's not DUE in a BLP. Springee (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. I suggest we use [2] and [3]. - - which is about the president of a fari-f=right party cancelling his speech after what appeared to be a Nazi salute Doug Weller talk 15:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if the problem is definitively calling it a Nazi salute, why not opt for a phrasing like "performed a Roman salute, more commonly known in modern times as a Nazi salute"? the fact is clear, he made a Roman salute, and it's clear most people know it nowadays as a Nazi salute. that way we state the facts, while not deciding on what was going on inside Bannon's head. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 09:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2025 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

81.104.133.120 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bannon does Nazi salutes

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the second "on" in the sentence "On January 20, 2021, on his last day in office, Trump pardoned Bannon, sparing him from a federal trial, but did not pardon his codefendants."

Corrected sentence: On January 20, 2021, his last day in office, Trump pardoned Bannon, sparing him from a federal trial, but did not pardon his codefendants.

Reason: Reads more naturally. AgentSharpshooter (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done PianoDan (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bannon's Nazi Salute

I changed the Wikipedia sentence from "Bannon closed his pro-Trump remarks with what appeared to some as a Nazi salute" to "Bannon closed his pro-Trump remarks with a Nazi salute." and added 4 reliable sources. I think it can't be mistaken for anything else. That was a Nazi salute.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Steve_Bannon&diff=prev&oldid=1281503322

Creating a discussion here because @Springee reverted the edit and all citations and said it's a BLP violation (which isn't) and recommended that I bring it to the attention of users on Talk. So to avoid edit warring, I am taking his advice because he is a long-term user. Summerfell1978 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided don't support your claim. None of your sources say in their own voice that the gesture was a Nazi salute. Springee (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had trouble with clicking on the links to read them, I'll post them here for you verbatim:

"Steve Bannon, former Trump adviser, makes Nazi gesture at CPAC"

"Former advisor to Donald Trump and far-right ideologue Steve Bannon made a Nazi gesture at the end of his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference" Summerfell1978 (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are not part of the source. Read the text of the source. See WP:HEADLINES. Springee (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then I take it you'll be fine with "Nazi gesture" (if not Nazi salute) -- given that that term is unequivocal in the source instead of the headline. Right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources state as a fact this was a Nazi gesture? Do they all agree? The far-right loving writers at MSN said, "made a hand gesture that some said appeared to be a Nazi salute." If sources like MSN aren't stating this as a fact then it would be a violation of BLP and NPOV for Wikipedia to state it as fact. Springee (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nomoskedasticity: multiple reliable sources describe this as a nazi gesture in one way or another, such that calling it a "nazi salute" in wikivoice is unproblematic. The mere existence of others not drawing on a nazi-related commentary is not relevant unless those sources actually explain how it wasn't so (and so ironically make the event objectively more noteworthy). It's not even as meta as whether those giving "tesla salutes" are actually flashing the heil h****r. It's quite direct per sources and supportable here. JFHJr (㊟) 21:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources presented hedge and say appears/similar or say that others claim it was. So far it appears that only MSN claims it was. Springee (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John what do you advise to do in this situation? Revert the undo, as the sources are indeed supportable? Thanks. Summerfell1978 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acting prematurely is not advisable. Restoration is a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that's your interpretation that it's a violation, when it's clearly not. I haven't seen any other user say it's a BLP violation. In fact when you mentioned it is, @Nomoskedasticity opined that there's no need for unanimity for a solitary requirement. So if there's no opposition, I will proceed as there's no BLP violation here. Sources are plenty, valid, and reliable. Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the majority of sources don't support your preferred version that is a NPOV issue and given that you wish to claim it was a Nazi salute, implying it was an intentional act, yeah, that requires a clear consensus among sources. It would be reckless on your part to proceed until this discussion and your BLPN discussion have had a chance to get feedback. Springee (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're not even familiar with the source you're purporting to discuss?? It's right here: [4]: "Former advisor to Donald Trump and far-right ideologue Steve Bannon made a Nazi gesture at the end of his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), on Friday, February 21.". And you're wrong on your interpretation of BLP: there's no need for unanimity or citing MSN as some solitary requirement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was NBC, not MSN. Regardless, it would be a clear BLP violation to claim Bannon made a Nazi salute when we have many sources who aren't willing to say as much in their own voice and when BLP says that we should use caution with such claims. Springee (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above at 10:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC), the text in the body, and not in the headline, as you wished, says "Former advisor to Donald Trump and far-right ideologue Steve Bannon made a Nazi gesture at the end of his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference".

Additional sources, all from newspapers relevant enough to have Wikipedia articles:

"After Steve Bannon was accused of wrapping up his CPAC speech with a Nazi salute, prompting one far-right French politician to cancel his appearance at the conservative confab" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nick-fuentes-steve-bannon-cpac-salute-b2702639.html

"It was at this point that Bannon extended his right arm in a clear Nazi salute while trying to conceal a smirk on his face as he did so. As he did the salute, the audience could be heard cheering him on." https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-gives-nazi-salute-during-maga-speech/ar-AA1zwR1P

"Steve Bannon appears to flash quick Nazi salute at CPAC" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-steve-bannon-elon-musk-b2712252.html

"Steve Bannon stood on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and made a Nazi salute at the end of his speech on Thursday." https://www.newsbreak.com/wol-am-1450am-95-9-fm-1590240/3826903774244-steve-bannon-did-a-nazi-salute-period Summerfell1978 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we have your previous source saying it was a gesture that some said was a Nazi salute. We also have Bannon saying it wasn't, "In an interview with NBC News on Thursday at the conference, Bannon denied that the gesture was a salute.". (per the NBC news source you added). Even looking at your examples, "Bannon appears to flash", "Bannon was accused of wrapping up his CPAC speech with a Nazi salute". All of these make it clear that this is a disputed gesture, just as it was with Musk. This is a BLP and we need to exercise caution when making negative statements about the BLP subjects. Springee (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"And we have your previous source saying it was a gesture that some said was a Nazi salute." Of course some people are always going to deny it. People deny the moon landing, we don't say "to some it appeared to have landed on the moon".

Just because someone did a nazi salute and said "hey I didn't do that" doesn't negate the fact that they did indeed do a Nazi salute. Placing your right hand specifically in that direction and doing that movement can't be mistaken for anything else. Bannon was smirking, he knew exactly what he was doing, because he's sending a signal and can then deny it disingenuously. At this point only Nazis and racists are defending the right-wing pundits throwing Sieg Heil signs. Summerfell1978 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest striking the last part of your comment as that may be a personal attack. I guess it would depend on if you are referring to editors or media sources at large. If you think I'm wrong, why not raise the question at BLPN? Springee (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to all of this. I'll give it a try. Thanks. Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – saw the post at BLPN. I think we should err on the side of caution and retain the original language: "Bannon closed his pro-Trump remarks with what appeared to some as a Nazi salute". I believe it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT combined with WP:BLP; be very firm about the use of high-quality sources and neutrality requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. So we can't just cherry-pick sources that support our preferred version. And yes, there are some sources that straight up call it a nazi salute. But on the other hand, we can't ignore those sources that also reported on this incident, and don't straight up call it a nazi salute: The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Associated Press, NBC News. And as for MSN, they were not the author of that story, as can be seen with the attribution stated right above the story, it originated from TAG 24, and in my view, that is not a high-quality source for a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of irony in that TAG 24 article. The picture they show which, which perhaps was not intended to be the actual salute and was captioned, "Steve Bannon gave a Nazi salute while giving a speech at the CPAC in Washington,", shows him with his left arm up. Springee (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]