Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Statue of Liberty

Miller's claim was that the poem was not originally part of the Statue; this is true, yet Wa Po claims he didn't get it right because the poem was written to fund the statue. Miller's claim is factually correct, Wa Po is just adding POV. Let's remove the Wa Po reference there.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

The WaPo source does a good job explaining, with nuance, the context for the disagreement and notes, fairly, that both had a point depending on how you look at it. I don't see why we'd remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Miller's claim was not false, so the inclusion of the WaPo source makes it appear that we are challenging his claimMagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
No, it wasn't false, but neither was Acosta's point. Each person had a point, and by presenting a fair reliably-sourced analysis of the issue, we illuminate the situation for our readers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Block quote

Miller's uncle is a man of no significance; his views on his nephew do not warrant a block quote, particularly one which this article does not challenge.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Is there a rebuttal source from another member of Miller's family we could add? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Immigration hardliner

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.
I am hardly satisfied by the reasoning indulged in by the opposes. One needs to read WP:VAGUEWAVE and another's argument is of dubious factual accuracy and interpretations. Overall, there is a strong weighed consensus for checkY inclusion of the concerned phrase.∯WBGconverse 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the lede contain the bold text:

  • "An immigration hardliner, Miller was a chief architect of Trump's travel ban, the administration's reduction of refugees accepted to the United States, and Trump's policy of separating migrant children from their parents."

Sources for the bold text (all of these sources are in the body of the article).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

You can remove the labels you feel are inaccarate or not supported by reliable sources, or premept a discussion if you think your changes are going to be controversial.Zubin12 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh none of them are inaccurate and they're all supported by references, I just don't think another one is necessary as it doesn't impart any new information that isn't already covered in the lead, and in particular, that sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As creative editing. Not too extreme, but still not from following cites or most common usages. (1) Cite Failure This wording is not literally in the cites the RFC listed; (2) WEIGHT Failure MOST sources do not use the phrase in bold text; and (3)NPOV failure. Cite failure comes from looking into the listed cites. (I pulled up the first few links and I see NYT and Politico and Foreign Policy, and I find "anti-immigration" in NYT but no occurrence of "immigration hardliner". I continue and see NYT and NYT (failing NPOV here...) and find "hard-line positions on immigration" sort of close; then go on and find NYT -wot, again?- and NYMag and see "immigration hawk" and "hard-line approach to immigration".) WEIGHT failure I get by looking at Google for him (2.2 million hits); him and "immigration" (454,000 hits = 21%)), him and "immigration hardliner" (13,400 hits =0.6%)) or "hardline" "immigration" (12,800 hits=0.6%) or "anti-immigration" (24,400 hits = 1.1%). The far more common phrases are the more generic ones like "advisor" or "adviser" (409,000 and 352,000). NPOV failure is that when I check at more prominent general sites or sites other than NY ... specifically ABC.go.com, BBC.com, and FoxNews.com ... I come up with zero for 3, for BBC the first few of nine have nothing; and for Fox I see 1 of 490... As a bonus, I'm not seeing it from the article body so it's not WP:LEAD and I also agree with the prior comment of Isaidnoway that there are enough empty labels in the lead. Mentioning involvement with the border separation is informative, adding yet another colorful turn of phrase is not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "hardliner", "hard-liner" or holder of "hardline"/"hard-line" positions is verbatim in the first five sources. The other two sources use synonyms (architect of a hard-line approach, "immigration hawk"). Your first pointsis completely inaccurate, and it's extremely hard to understand how you managed to err like that. As for your second point, it's also inaccurate. There are droves of sources that refer to him as an immigration hardliner, but I limited myself to ones that were already in the article, because why add twenty different RS when there were at least EIGHT in the body of the article itself that referred to him like that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD failure is that the creative labeling appears nowhere in the article body - I think because it's just an empty editorializing. The WP:WEIGHT failure is that MOST sources do not use this language -- for example, out of 66 in this article, none did and you could only find 8 (12%) - mostly NYT it seems - that mention anything even similar enough that creative rephrasing could get there. It's not too far astray from what those say, but it is NOT what those say. Again " Miller was a chief architect of Trump's travel ban," is neutral and factual and backed EXACTLY in cites -- the [Miller is] "An immigration hardliner, Miller was a chief architect of ..." is a bit of creative writing. Try "Senior White House advisor, Miller was a" would be easily supportable -- but what is proposed is a stretch and a POV item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, both well-cited and one of the main things he's famous for. This clearly paraphrases and summarizes the broad coverage about him. --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose I am missing the wikipedia policy that says, "If sources back it up bold the fuck out of it." I'm not even sure the text should be in the article, per wp:terrorist, but that'sa fight for someone who cares. Bolding the text like so is visually striking, attention grabbing, or what ever you'd wish to call it. It places wieght on the statement. "ZOMG, there are sources." Really? That's great, as anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and all that jazz. However, having sources says nothing about weight. The bolding is a product of undue weight and shouldn't be in the article because some activist editors notice or view him as a racist schmuck working for POTUS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Serialjoepsycho: - I'm pretty sure Snooganssnoogans just bolded that text to highlight those particular words they want to add to the lead, it won't be bold when and if it's added to the lead, correct me if I'm wrong @Snooganssnoogans:. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I misread the question then. In either case, I'd review wp:terrorist and come up with more than a simple minded, "it's in the sources so it should be included." In either case the articles not NPOV anyway so have at it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support It's appropriately sourced and a concise summary of the political positions Miller's best known for. I also support putting the sentence before the inauguration speech because, at this point, he's much better known for his immigration activities than for his role in writing the inauguration speech. R2 (bleep) 08:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The description accurately reflects the facts within the cited sources. This seems more than ripe for closing given the clear consensus. Activist (talk) 09:56, 16 October 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.

Request for partial reinstatement of my edit

While I can not make a certain statement that what Miller stated did happen (but, by the same token, neither can NorthBySouthBaranof state certainly it was false), I can ask for reinstatement of the part clarifying where the accusations of his distinction being popular with white nationalists are found. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course I can say it didn't happen - the reliable sources cited are clear that there was no election fraud and thousands of illegal voters were not buses to New Hampshire. Those claims are factually false, the end. We do not give equal validity to unequal claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am no longer defending that, but the part of my edit in the subsection. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Since I received no other comments, I am going ahead and putting it back. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: White nationalist

There is a clear consensus against labeling Miller a white nationalist in Wikipedia's voice. Editors cited WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:LABEL in opposing the labeling in Wikipedia's voice.

Some RfC participants suggested that it would be acceptable to say with attribution that one or more people or sources labeled him a white nationalist. There is no consensus on this point since that was not the subject of this RfC. There is no prejudice against a new RfC to discuss this further.

Cunard (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, label Miller a white nationalist? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFCBRIEF does say the question should be neutral and brief, but maybe this is too brief? For anyone without any knowledge of this, Miller has engaged in a lot of behavior that suggests he is a white supremacist, but he doesn't self-identify as such. There is much more detail in the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The article text and the sources are available for everyone to see and read. I'm sure editors will be able to see the context and make up their own minds. This is such a controversial and heated topic that adding "context" to the question probably won't help with anything. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Miller is casually familiar with—and recommended an article written by white supremacist Jared Taylor from—the white supremacist publication American Renaissance, recommended the white nationalist "white genocide" site VDARE, frequently brought up Calvin Coolidge—now a white nationalist icon—for his eugenics-based immigration policies, had a close relationship with neo-Nazi white supremacist Richard B. Spencer (I want to be clear: this is who Spencer is behind closed doors), was in frequent, flagrantly racist communication in almost a thousand emails specifically about racial politics with a then-white supremacist editor at the self-proclaimed "platform for the alt-right" Breitbart News, and touted a virulently white nationalist anti-immigration book where Indian men rape white women and the antagonist is an Indian person called "turd eater". I can't even fathom how anybody could sit here and think there's a reasonable argument to be made that Miller—regardless of how he eschews the term for the sake of his own public image—is somehow not a white nationalist or that it's even ambiguous. If this can't be called directly for what it is—white nationalism—then we've done a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s an interesting argument and analogy, one that may sway minds on a forum or a blog. Here, on an encyclopedia, you don’t have to make an argument. You just have to provide a straight news article that explicitly smears Miller as a white nationalist. Articles that report on an allegation that he sent stuff that you truly believe reflects the views of white nationalism are insufficient. Even then, it would still be problematic in light of BLP. 2600:1012:B04B:B7CF:A5EA:8D98:C09E:5553 (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you're being unreasonable by concluding that, given his affinity for racist websites and racist books, he just might be a racist. But the point is that we should defer to what credible sources tell us, and they hesitate to definitively make that jump. We should avoid WP:SYNTH issues. GeauxDevils (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
TheTechnician27, as I have stated before on the BLP noticeboard, your reasoning to defend your labeling of him qualifies as Original Research. You are doing a synthesis of multiple things he has done, mixed it with perception of the sources, ideas and sites involved in this and drew a conclusion, then you want to insert that conclusion into the article. The reason nobody is taking you up on your demands to criticize your reasoning is that Wikipedia's talk page isn't a discussion forum, and decisions on edits aren't made based on rhetoric and arguments, but on sources and WP policies. Your approach is probably why you've put in, what, 13, 14 different sources for the claim as of now? You're basically providing sources that you have used in your own reasoning rather than neutral reliable sources that made the claim you have inserted in the article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Remember WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.". Look at how you've defended your use of the label. Can you not see how it qualifies as OR?173.177.220.213 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - per WP:LABEL, and it’s a common partisan smear that doesn’t fit well as he’s Jewish. Unless self-declared, or membership in an openly White Supremacist organization, it would have to be widely reported as fact by majority of major RS. If it’s not in BBC, it’s just the usual insults. WP should be cautious and reluctant about spreading sensationalist and personal attacks. One can in DUE weight show that he was labelled as such with attribution, so saying ‘Ilan Omar repeatedly called him X’ as a tiny part of the article would be OK. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, if attributed. It’s hard to deny since the leaked e-mails that Stephen Miller wasn’t influenced by White Nationalism, up to and including citing White Nationalist literature in a positive way. And the non-sequiter that “a Jew can’t be racist and/or a white nationalist” should look up Gilad Atzmon, a self-declared Jewish and Israeli anti-Semite. People can certainly support ideologies that are against their self-interest if they feel passionate about it. Miller constantly spoke approvingly and promoted Jean Raspail, and even chanted “the Jews will not replace us” at a rally. I honestly don’t know why any of this is contested at this point. That being said, I think it’s still prudent to err on the side of caution at this point, and not put it in Wiki-voice. Multiple RS outlets have made the claim in their voice, but it’s better we not do so until it’s an indisputable accepted fact (which is likely not far off). This is still relatively new information. However, it’s certainly due, even for the lead (if attributed to the SPLC and the many media outlets). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone made such an argument about self-hating Jews. If there was a hard news source that uses the slur as a statement of fact, the “Yes” voters would have provided it by now. Instead, we have a handful of cherry-picked op-eds from writers who allege Miller wrote an email that contained a reference to websites which they believe sympathize with white nationalism. Very flimsy. BLP policy requires much better sourcing. 2600:1012:B04B:B7CF:A5EA:8D98:C09E:5553 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
No one made a comment about that specifically, but did imply it was incredulous or nonsensical that a Jewish person could be a white nationalist. See the comment above mine, and from another user in the section above me, as well as on the BLPN board. I used an extreme example to illustrate how people can support ideologies that might negatively affect their own ethnic or racial group if certain elements of the ideology otherwise strongly appeal to them. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I’d like to clarify that I meant it should be firmly attributed, and that we should’t make the direct claim in wiki-voice, until a preponderance of sources make that connection. It seems pretty clear at this point Miller has white nationalist views, and while this is likely to remain part of his public persona, we’d definitely need more sources to explicitly call him a white nationalist, if we were to directly state it in wiki-voice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I don't think labelling people as racists or something like white nationalists is helpful, even if sources exist to support such is claim. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times eloquently explains it, better than I could, in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/18/new-york-times-editor-says-trump-has-put-his-reporters-lives-at-risk. In my own words; if we judge a subject by applying a label, we are no longer objective and lose our credibility. Simply state the facts and let our readers make value judgments themselves. Vexations (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, with attribution - I don't think we're at the point where the sources are so unanimous as to have it be said in wikivoice, but there are plenty of mainstream reliable sources discussing and leveling the accusation. "Has been described as a white nationalist by X, Y, and Z," is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No unless he is described as such by multiple high-quality non-POV sources. (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Reading through the sources, I see him described as "touting", "promoting", and "injecting" white nationalism in his emails, but even the more POV sources don't directly call him a white nationalist. I think that distinction matters--he has clearly promoted material that is white nationalist or at least connected to it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the white nationalism itself is his worldview. That might sound nitpicky, but I think it's a legitimate distinction and we should consider that there's a reason these NPOV sources used the language they did. I'm amenable to saying Miller "promoted" white nationalism in the lead, I just don't think we can come right out and say he is a white nationalist in wikipedia's voice. GeauxDevils (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No: Per WP:BLP and WP:LABEL. As other editors noted above, the sources do not call Miller a white nationalist but only say he promoted "white nationalist" content (also, one of the cited sources doesn't even go that far and just says that some left-wing politicians labeled him such). Even if some of the reliable, neutral sources labeled him as such (and they don't), such a claim would be extremely controversial -- especially for a current political figure in a polarized political climate -- and should not be asserted in Wikipedia's voice. And as an aside, I note that this article is overly reliant on websites like Salon, Mother Jones, and Vox, all of which are openly liberal-leaning. If we're going to even make a mention of a possible connection between Miller and white supremacy, it should at least be using sources such WSJ, AP, UPI, Reuters, NYT, CBS, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No Hard new sites do not refer him as a white nationalist, even the SPLC's exposé doesn't go that far, they just say he has shared ideas and websites affiliated to white nationalism. The only claims cited in the article to back up the label are quotes from political opponents or are from opinion columns, which should preclude the use of the label without attribution as per the "Biased or opinionated sources" section of WP:RS and the "contentious labels" section of WP:LABEL. The amount of references used to back up the claim also looks bad, as if quantity was being used to conceal lack of quality of the sources. You should need no more than 2 or 3 references to justify it, from neutral sources that would use the label, excluding quotes from political opponents or opinion columns. If these cannot be found, the label must be rejected and accusations of affinity to white nationalism should be included but attributed so readers can make up their own minds. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Labeling him as such in Wikipedia's voice violates WP:NPOV and WP:V if it is based on the opinions of "experts" and columnists. Contentious labels demands high quality sources, and opinion must be properly attributed to the source. You also have to consider WP:UNDUE in that scenario. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. As stated by previous posts, he did not claim he is one nor identified himself with the ideology. Referencing the emails in labeling him a white supremacist would call for conclusions on the part of Wikipedia. There is a reason why reliable news sources do not brand people these labels. In addition, Miller is a political operative. He could be merely tapping these white nationalist groups for political ends. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. He is seen in several leaked emails advocating white nationalism, promoting very extremist and violent white nationalist fiction, and promoting white nationalist extremist sites such as VDARE and American Heritage, the latter of which notably considers light-skinned Ashkenazi Jews like myself and Miller to be white. This is fact; this is who Miller is, whether people choose to accept it or not. Treating it as a matter of contention is creating false balance and undermining the very concept of evidence. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No. per WP:WikiVoice we shouldn't take a side in the controversy. Saying that he is a WN would be taking a side. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No - Alas, per WP:LABEL and WP:BLP we often do not call a spade a spade. NickCT (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No because the original question includes "in Wikipedia's voice." Yes with attribution. The recent emails leave little doubt, but just enough that we should wait for RS to pile up before applying the label in wikivoice. It would be absurd to wait for self-identification with a toxic label like this, but we could definitely be on firmer footing with RS.--MattMauler (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No in Wikipedia's voice. As is often the case with this sort of thing, the sourcing itself avoids calling the subject a white nationalist, and instead is careful to say he sent emails covering white nationalist ideas or used it as his source material. It's possible we could mention it with attribution, although frankly those who've specifically made the claim that I've seen mentioned such as AOC don't seem significant enough to cover it in the lead. Do we really have no better people the claim could be attributed to? Anyway, we should mention his use of white nationalist material somewhere in the lead. This could change if sources begin to widely call him a white nationalist, but until it does, we have to follow the sources. Personally, we are free and probably should recognise Miller for what he is, but that's up to individual editors and it's something that has to remain outside wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No - WP:RACIST Cjhard (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in Wikipedia's voice. If attributed, would be acceptable. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No WP:LABEL seems pretty clear here. If not, everything about BLP policy screams "use caution" (Summoned by bot) Bonewah (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No Absolutely not.HAL333 16:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per numerous reliable sources especially after the emails leaks [8],[9] etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam:, neither of your two sources call him a white nationalist without attributing the claim in the body of the article. The first source does it in the title, but titles tend to be sensationalized and written by editors, not journalists themselves, and the second only points out that he was called one in a statement by progressive politicians that are his political opponents. So neither of your sources actually call him a white nationalist as a matter of fact in the body of the articles and therefore do not actually support his labeling as "white nationalist" without attribution. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

First of all, Politifact concluded that all experts they interviewed said Miller (and other three officials) is not a white nationalist. Would someone kindly construct a list of experts who have directly called Miller a "white nationalist". Until someone provides a mountain of direct evidence that Miller is in fact a "white nationalist", the claim should be treated as a fringe view.
Second, I believe laser focusing on labels is largely a waste of our time and detracts from consensus building. I'm not sure whether this RFC is specifically about writing the lead, but yes, the lead should summarise major controversies, but applying a label is not summarising. Politrukki (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It should also be noted that every source used to support the slur is from one ideological spectrum - the left. That speaks volumes. If the slur was a matter of fact, rather than opinion, we would see an abundance of sources from all sides of the aisle that use the label. As far as consensus goes, the anti-Miller voters are currently outnumbered by the pro-Wikipedia policy voters, showing there is no consensus at this time to smear Miller in his biography. Therefore, the smear should be removed per BLP policy until, or if, consensus is reached to reinstate the smear. 2600:1012:B04B:B7CF:A5EA:8D98:C09E:5553 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that the editor who asks why the extant WP:BLP notes that the individual is a white nationalist should probably research what a white nationalist advocates and then compare and contrast. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact Here is Wikipedia White Nationalism Entry which may help discover why the individual BLP being covered is considered to be a white nationalist. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
SoftwareThing, we don't read an article about a label and then apply it to the subject of the article. We go by what reliable sources report. --Malerooster (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Malerooster. This isn’t as urgent, but I also noticed another editor reinstated a label that was taken out previously. For some reason, Miller is labeled as “far right-wing” despite the fact that no other government official’s political leanings are described in their biographies. Barack Obama for example was the most liberal politician ever to be voted into the presidency by voting record, yet he isn’t described as “left-wing” let alone “far left-wing” in his biography. This label should also be removed and justification needs to be given for why Miller’s biography should be treated differently than that of other presidential advisers. 2600:1012:B04B:B7CF:A5EA:8D98:C09E:5553 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
"justification needs to be given for why Miller’s biography should be treated differently than that of other presidential advisers" is not how WP treats such content. That's even if all the premises you state were correct. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Neutral point of view policy applies site-wide. The “far right-wing” label is derived from two low quality sources: a Business Insider clickbait article and a Salon hit piece. I can find just as many op-eds that call Obama “far left.” We don’t add it because it’s not neutral. Policies help us (well, are supposed to help us) keep our personal views out of articles, so when a person does or says something a Wikipedia editor doesn’t like, that person doesn’t get smeared like Miller was/is. 2600:1012:B04B:B7CF:A5EA:8D98:C09E:5553 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
"...Business Insider clickbait article and a Salon hit piece..." -- If you spot anything in the extant article that is not accurate, please do fix it. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
It’s protected, so no can do. Even if it weren’t, who decides if the characterization is “accurate”? The gen Z’ers who wrote the Salon and BI blog posts? Or do I get to unilaterally determine if the label is accurate? You see the problem with using partisan op-eds to violate LABEL guidelines as Markbassett and others pointed out? We run into problems like this. Interestingly, the biographies of leftists are never vandalized in this manner with administrators willing to set aside policies to let it happen. 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B026:28AB:1C5E:78B4:AD9A:1843 (talk)
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.

Feb 2020 marriage

Would this not be warranted for inclusion? His wife is politically engaged. Event held at Trump hotel, Washington. Wikipietime (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed a link that was already linked to. --Malerooster (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

See also section

Can these links be worked into the article per MOS? The section seems bloated. I tried to remove a few but was reverted. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

He is not far right or anti immigration. 72.175.212.51 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 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. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

NPR "Hatemonger" profile

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/17/914217956/hatemonger-author-jean-guerrero-on-stephen-miller 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:2420:8C4E:D368:CFD3 (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Miller is Jewish" in "Personal life" section

The words "Miller is Jewish" and "Miller was born ... the second of three children in the Jewish family" appear further up the article, so Miller is Jewish.<ref>"'Demonizing a Jewish staffer': Stephen Miller responds to white supremacist accusations". Haaretz.com. Archived from the original on June 11, 2020. Retrieved June 11, 2020.</ref> in the "Personal life" section seems somewhat questionable. It's obviously redundant, so what is the point of including it? Or, should the text Accusations of white supremacy directed against Miller have been met with Miller's fellow Republicans and right-wing media emphasizing his Jewishness. be incorporated into the "Personal life" section so readers who aren't reading the article carefully from start to finish are not left with the impression that his Jewishness is a more important part of his personal life and his public image than his advocacy of white supremacist positions? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Add |children=1. His wife Katie gave birth to a baby girl in November 2020 219.78.191.120 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing for this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-katie-miller-baby-announcement-photos-2020-11
All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking to topics which are inflammatory

The article suggests articles on xenophobia and conspiracy theories. While Miller may push those topics, this is a biography of a living person and as such Miller shouldn't be used as a case study in xenophobia through interpretation of his actions. Also the category "American white supremacist" seems a bit much since Miller doesn't publicly identify with that moniker. The article as a whole reads as if it's trying to convince the reader that Miller is a bad person. While I don't dispute that, it's simply unfit style for a Wikipedia article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the 'see also' section in accordance with my understanding of wp biographies of living persons. I left the category tags since they're more used as a way of wiki editor organization than a statement about the person. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
However, I'd like to remove them as well since the article doesn't substantiate that Miller actually is a white supremacist beyond association, but I'd like to talk about it first. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Miller’s desire to keep his racist views out of the public circle should not discount their accuracy. There are countless examples of Miller’s bigoted views towards people of color. His perceptions of gentiles are equally derogatory. Surrounded by so many “goyim” of course he is not going to articulate his motivations and true philosophy. Desires to remove racist and white supreme its from descriptions of Miller are erroneous and misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.36.127 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I never suggested removing references to white supremacy allegations. Tags are the things at the bottom of the page which link communities of editors together in portals where they can easily keep track of subjects that interest them. There's nothing in the article about "Stephen Miller's views on 'goyim'" and I can't find anything online outside of some obviously fringe radical left-wing anti-Semitic groups. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that Stephen Miller was Trump's 'head racist in charge', and pushed policies that were anti-American, anti-immigrant, and just anti-notwhite. I don't know where IronMaidenRocks figures after all of his racist antics that he's not racist and can edit out all his evil behaviour. Maybe IronMaidenRocks is a Trump sockpuppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.146.230 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can someone teach this person how to use Wikipedia? Thank you. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

needs 2021 update re "america first legal"project

suggest new page about america first legal, a project stated by miller in april 2021. seeks to act like a conservative aclu and deluge biden administration with many lawsuits. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-biden-stephen-miller-courts-b1827954.html

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/stephen-miller-launches-america-first-legal-to-fight-left-in-courts-trump-applauds/

2601:48:C601:50E0:6152:B46:8F5C:D400 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)arbitrary aardvark gtbear at gmail

Overemphasis on religion

I think that there is an odd (possibly anti-Semitic) focus on his parents' lives. For example Donald Trump (who as a more [by traditional historical weighting of being a president] important person) only has 2 sentences rather than the close to half dozen listed here. The only reason I can fathom for the emphasis is to emphasize that his parents are Jewish (mentioned 3 times: "Jewish family" "anti-Jewish pogroms" and "Ashkenazi Jews" as well as a 4th implied via mentioning "yiddish"). This emphasis seems to me intended to link Miller's personal political agenda more strongly towards Judaism, a religion which generally abhors his philosophy. I suggest something more like: "Miller was born on August 23, 1985, in Santa Monica, California, where he was raised. His father was Michael D. Miller, a real estate investor, and mother Miriam who emigrated to the United States from the Russian Empire's Antopol, thus escaping the 1903–06 anti-Jewish pogroms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:460:3620:45AF:2FBB:7404:810F (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

note:added header. :^) 173.87.170.14 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory categories

Remove the grossly anti-Semitic categories "Alt-right politicians in the United States," "American white supremacists," "Far-right politics in the United States," "White nationalism the United States," and "White supremacy in the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.120.209.67 (talk)

  • i also noticed this. this request seems reasonable given that i'm sure the subject denies it, and i've seen no proof, just guilt by association plus the usual hostility from the leftpress. the allegations are unsubstantiated and should be removed. hopefully i can use the template correctly 🤞:
  • see the IP's request above. the alt-right category mentioned above actually is a series template upon which Miller is included. far-right seems an okay descriptor but these three categories are unproven, probably defamatory, and certainly not very nice:
    1. American white supremacists
    2. White supremacy in the United States
    3. White nationalism in the United States
  • thank you for helping. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done I've removed those, as they certainly aren't defining characteristics, and not supported by the article prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is just one more article that mischaracterizes someone on the right, especially those who worked in the Trump administration. Specifically, the characterization that Stephen Miller is "anti-immigration" is false. He is, indeed, against illegal immigration, as all citizens of any sovereign country should be. Eegorr (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Eegorr, if that's the case, then why was he working to limit legal immigration as well, trying to reduce green cards, asylum, etc. [10][11] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
maybe because we were (and are) being inundated with illegal immigration? Eegorr (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You are not makign any sense: the question was "anti-immigration or not", and Muboshgu demonstrated that he is against the legal kind as well. Speculating about his reasons does not change the answer to the original question.
Also, this page is for improving the article, not for xenophobia propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Eegorr, you didn't respond to Muboshgu's comment. Miller also sought to limit legal immigration, especially of people with the wrong color, not just illegal immigration. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
i did respond. You guys just don't get it. Eegorr (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Eegorr, you responded poorly. (And it took you 11 months to respond?) What does "inundated with illegal immigration" mean? Assuming it's true, which I don't, what does that have to do with limiting green cards, legal asylum, etc.? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Illegal immigration is when someone enters the country and does not seek asylum. OTOH, it is not illegal to cross the border or enter the embassy if one immediately seeks asylum. That's how it is often done. For example, if Trump and his family did the right thing and entered the Russian embassy and sought asylum in Russia, that would be the right procedure. According to international law, one does not have to seek asylum and then wait to cross the border. One can do it at the border, and then must be admitted into the country and usually taken to an asylum center with other asylum seekers, or do it as soon as possible after crossing the border. "U.S. law enshrines the protections of the international Refugee Convention, drafted in the wake of the horrors of World War II. The law provides that any person “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … irrespective of such [person’s] status, may apply for asylum...”[12] The Trump administration (and Miller was the chief architect of how wrong colored people were treated at the border) changed this and forced people to wait or even returned them, placing them in danger. --- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
please remove that he required Latinos to speak only English. Is that a provable fact? Only reliable sources right. 2600:1004:B172:D806:2174:A207:23C8:663D (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Remove the defamatory lie recently added to the article that falsely claims that Donald Trump "incited his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol." [13]. 109.120.209.67 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
It was not a lie. Trump is a fascist. Judge in Colorado ruled he supported the insurrection. Trump should go to jail. 49.228.230.116 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

The Millers only had one child, any reliable source said that they had the second one? 218.250.38.128 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like two, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-secrets/baby-no-2-for-stephen-katie-miller-son-jackson-grant. Washington Examiner is a bit iffy but this is a pretty uncontroversial claim. Also they link to Miller's twitter account as he tweeted about it Cannolis (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the "America First Legal Foundation" itself relevant enought to get it's own article? Just noticed that they filed an amicus brief in Trump's document case in Florida: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/360/1/united-states-v-trump/ --JensMueller (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What sort of WP:RS coverage does it have? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Besides the two sources cited in the article (WSJ and CBS), there's this from Politico: "Stephen Miller to launch a new legal group to give Biden fits," and there are more recent mentions of it in other media (e.g.) filing a suit related to trans issues in schools in Fairfax VA, but it's behind a paywall, so I don't know if it's just a mention or more in depth--MattMauler (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased description of a character

Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of the world, do you think this bio delivers all the perspectives ? 2604:3D08:1282:4500:5D19:81BC:7E33:3364 (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It delivers the noteworthy and notable perspective, yes. We don't give a platform to the fringe. ValarianB (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased. What you call the fringe is composed of Americans who believe in morality. Wikipedia is not neutral. TideWater11 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

TideWater11, please provide some evidence for your assertion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
it's definitely biased. It said he's anti immigration and that's a lie. He's anti illegal immigration! 2600:1700:3551:2800:BC93:F9C0:7BC6:457A (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Nope, also anti-legal immigration.
Stephen Miller: Trump will implement ‘spectacular migration crackdown’
Emails show Stephen Miller pressed hard to limit green cards – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)/Archive_4&oldid=1262388741"