Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

Article needs rework

Puff piece. Wikipietime (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The wiki currently indicates that Miller was a political science major at Duke, but this is incorrect. In fact, he was a philosophy major and received his BA in philosophy. I don't know how to edit a locked page, but someone who does should correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B02A:2554:0:50:A48B:CA01 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, almost everything seems to indicate that he "studied political science" at Duke and graduated with a Bachelor degree in 2007, though I can't find anything that definitively states that it was his major. I did find one source, a page at the National Review Institute listing short bios of speakers at an event, the 2017 Ideas Summit, that states "Miller graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy", but I haven't found any other sources yet that state the same (or otherwise) as explicitly. Duke's Philosophy department page notes "Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the subject [Philosophy], most of these students major in another discipline as well", and the PoliSci dept. page also mentions a "Philosophy, Politics, & Economics [PPE]" interdisciplinary certificate program. So he quite possibly could have been a double major, or focused on political philosophy or similar within the Philosophy department. It looks like the PoliSci program and Philosophy programs are both within Trinity (Miller's college within Duke as mentioned in his columns in the Duke Chronicle) and both issue B.A. degrees, so graduating with a BA as a Philosophy major doesn't necessarily mean he didn't major in PoliSci as well. There's even an Interdepartmental Major program that seems to combine two major areas of study into a single, blended major, but I have no idea how that would show up on his degree, if at all (I don't think the degrees offered by Duke/Trinity are tagged, i.e. issued as "Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy" on the degree itself, so I assume "B.A. in Philosophy" is shorthand for a more typical un-tagged Bachelor of Arts degree awarded to a student who majored in Philosophy, and doesn't preclude double majors or similar). The NRInstitute source COULD be mistaken, and all other sources I found were vague about the particulars of his degree (which to be fair is not necessarily relevant enough to warrant detailed explanation for most articles that include his academic background as a brief detail to provide context for a story about particular policies or what-have-you. In any case, the citation for the claim made in the wikipedia article doesn't actually mention PoliSci being his *major*, just that it's a focus of his university studies, so I will see if I can improve the article to more accurately reflect the sources cited. It would be nice if we had more than just a single, primary source to support the NRInstitute bio. I sent an inquiry to the Duke registrar, which notes that degrees and majors are disclosable "Directory Information", but if Mr. Miller has requested it not be released or for whatever reason it can't be disclosed to some random guy I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Even if they do, I'm not sure it can be cited under Wikipedia guidelines for sources. It's not really original research, but it's also not a *published* source. I think it might fall under the "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" exception for use of primary sources, but I'm no expert on the naunces of Wikipedia's citation/sourcing/verifiability policies. I think with something as straightforward as a university, the *canonical* source on their students' declared major areas of studies and what degrees they awarded to their alumni, it should meet Wikipedia requirements for a citable source, even on pages that are slightly more restricted as Biographies of Living Persons. If they can't release the information then it's all moot anyway. Will update further when/if I get a response. Orinthe (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Father's donations

Probably this is his father, though we need to have a source. But the article says "Miller grew up in a liberal-leaning Jewish family in Santa Monica, California.[2] Though his parents were Democrats,..." This is what reliable sources (WSJ and Politico say). The early donations are to Democrats Bill Bradley and Berman. This donation history is consistent with his father switching from D to R over time (maybe under his son's influence?) Also, it says nothing about his mother's opinion or the rest of the family's. Until reliable sources dispute the 'liberal FDR Democrats' claim, we can't put this in. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

His father is a member of the Vice-Chairman's Council of the Republican Jewish Coalition http://www.ymcllc.com/management-team/ and affiliated with the ultra-conservative Claremont Institute http://huc.edu/news/2014/03/19/michael-miller-inducted-board-governors-hebrew-union-college-jewish-institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.204.226 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mother is equally supportive https://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=miller%2C+miriam&cycle=All&sort=R&state=CA&zip=&employ=CORDARY&cand=&submit=Submit+Query This link includes his father and the company's political donations (above link is his mother's contributions): https://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=miller%2C+michael&cycle=All&sort=R&state=CA&zip=90034&employ=&cand=&submit=Submit

This obituary and WSJ article demonstrate linkage between parents and Stephen http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?pid=174041987 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-midcentury-modern-malibu-retreat-for-8-million-1438787014

Per the obituary, his brother seems to be Jacob Miller, VP at Stop IRS Debt in Los Angeles https://www.bbb.org/losangelessiliconvalley/business-reviews/tax-return-preparation/stopirsdebtcom-in-los-angeles-ca-100109354 Here's reviews from unhappy customers: https://www.google.com/search?q=stop+IRS+debt+%2B+jacob+miller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.204.226 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Asdfqwerzcxv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but no reliable secondary sources seem to have referred to this - so we can't put it in, following WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:OR. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a section on these invisible threads would be acceptable. Wikipietime (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Further reading material here about Miller's parents not being as liberal as first thought. Draw your own conclusion on the reliability of the source material.

• http://forward.com/fast-forward/367631/was-stephen-millers-republican-family-shunned-by-their-liberal-california-s/
• https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/stephen-millers-liberal-family-members-have-some?utm_term=.chEJnk2Jy#.etXw8kowj
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-trump-adviser-stephen-miller-divided-a-santa-monica-synagogue-989250

Deepred6502 (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

About the Spencer connection

So, Mother Jones/Duke Chronicle are not enough to show ties between Miller and Richard Spencer because, among other reasons, Mother Jones is considered by some an unreliable liberal tabloid. But Spencer himself (who is... not liberal, to say the least) saying "Yes, it's true, I really told Mother Jones that" is also unreliable, so we don't put anything? We have X telling "I heard this from Y" and Y saying "Yes, I told X this" and it's not valid... why? Because reliable media like the New York Times weren't there to hear the conversation? I don't get it. LahmacunKebab (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's WP:WEIGHT to consider - if only a few borderline sources cover something, the wikipedia article isn't supposed to include it. And while it is true that Spencer makes these claims, he could be lying - in fact other reliable sources seem reluctant to pick up this story, suggesting skepticism. Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately include every dubious claim. NPalgan2 (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Is The News & Observer considered reliable? Now it's mentioned there too: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article130428894.html LahmacunKebab (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say I was surprised The News & Observer didn't come up in my search but I see it was just published today. News & Observer is a credible outlet, I have no objections to including the now-well-sourced content. Thanks for finding it. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Page title

Hi. I changed the page title from "Stephen Miller (political operative)" to "Stephen Miller (aide)" as I didn't really find the term political operative fitting or appropriate. Using "aide" seems marginally better, though it's certainly possible there's even better parenthetical we could use. I also looked at Stephen Miller (disambiguation) to assess the state of the Stephen Millers on the English Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It did need to be changed, however, the man is the Senior Policy Advisor to the President of the United States. "Aide" is a demotion and wholly inaccurate in relation to his position. "Senior Advisor" is what the article title should contain, not "Aide". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be overstating the meaning of the word "aide." Here's an example article, albeit out of South Korea, that uses the term "former senior aide." Aide is also apparently used with this subject as well, for example this piece from USA Today and this piece from Reuters, both from February 12, 2017. This piece refers to Clinton's campaign communications directory as a "top aide." Given the evidence, I'm not sure why you think it's wholly inaccurate. That said, I'm not opposed to an article move, though I'm not sure "(senior advisor)" would be an improvement. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He is simply not an aide. He's a senior advisor to the president. That's a hefty position, much more so than an aide ever would be. There's even an article on the position. You can see it here: Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. Please note that nowhere in the article does it state the Senior Advisor to the POTUS is an aide position. My suggestion is that the parenthetical title be changed to (Presidential advisor). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Rhodes' article is at Ben Rhodes (White House staffer). So Stephen Miller (White House staffer) would be fine with me. (I don't object to either "aide" or "adviser" either—both are commonly used terms). Neutrality^talk 03:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Commonly used, sure. Aide, though, in regard to Miller is wholly inaccurate at this point. He's gone far beyond being a mere aide. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Political advisor?" --Crunch (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it. But... is a senior advisor to the most powerful individual in the world really just a political advisor (since it's not politics he's only advising on)? He's actually a policy advisor, not a political advisor. I vote for presidential advisor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. You've now repeatedly called the term "aide" wholly inaccurate, but without any evidence or substantiation. Meanwhile, as noted, reliable sources from the press regularly refer to him as such. Often in a headline, which I would consider comparable to an article title. To me, your argument that "aide" is not enough ("a mere aide") sounds similar to the argument that a man can't just be a secretary. And yet we have the United States Secretary of Defense (formerly the United States Secretary of War). Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What the hell else do you need other than being pointed to the article on Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and seeing that his current position title does NOT include the word aide? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on primary and secondary reliable sources. If reliable sources refer to Miller as an aide, then it's pretty obviously not "wholly inaccurate" to do so, as you're repeatedly suggesting in this talk page section. You refer to the term "aide" as a demotion, when I'm trying to point out that you're simply wrong about the use of the word. Similar to the term secretary, aide is not a demotion to another title like senior policy advisor, aide is simply a more generic and broader term. You may personally view the term "aide" as a demotion (and that's fine!), but that doesn't change how reliable sources and the rest of the English-speaking world view the term. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that Wikipedia is not to be used as a source. I directed you there so you can see that, in fact, the position Miller holds is not an aide position, by any stretch of the imagination. What reliable sources refer to Miller, in his current position, as an aide as his actual job title, pray tell? Please provide them here. Also, use of the article as an example of how aide no longer applies was a plea for you to use WP:COMMONSENSE. Continuing to try to make the man something he isn't is starting make you look like WP:IDHT is your mantra of the week. How about some of those reliable sources to prove your case, relevant to his current position and job description? Providing that would go a bit further toward convincing me you're acting in good faith here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think "actual job title" is relevant? I think you're confused about how disambiguation works on the English Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? 1- The actual job title isn't necessary, something more accurate is; 2- People would probably like to choose the right Stephen Miller at the disambiguation page; 3- It's easier to do that if the title is accurate; 4- The goal is to create an encyclopedia that contains accurate facts. Here's a "Why?" question for you: Why are you insisting on making this so hard? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it even there? None of the people who held the office prior to him have (Aide, or Senior Advisor, or Political Operative) a parenthetical title after their name? Why not just leave it blank? Synapse001 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Synapse001. The title Stephen Miller is already in use for a different individual. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a strong argument for changing that and making this Stephen Miller the main guy, the 19th century governor is pretty obscure. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

After getting nowhere with MzMcBride over the course of a few days in resolving this amicably and productively, I made a WP:BOLD edit and changed the page title to Stephen Miller (political advisor). I see it as the best description for those looking at the disambig list of Stephen Miller articles, it is accurate - whereas "aide" was not - and it takes the suggestions of others commenting here into consideration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. I was reminded of this conversation again today when reading the headline "Trump aide, CIA head defend president’s fitness for office". In the article text, it reads "White House aide Stephen Miller, in a combative television appearance, [...]". Your continued assertions, without any citations or evidence, that the use of the term aide is inaccurate are pretty clearly baseless. I think any reader who stumbles across this discussion can see that reliable sources and common 21st-century English usage support my position. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) He's still an advisor, regardless of what label a few media outlets claim.

(2) You're going on about this after nearly a year since the last discussion on his title took place? That's... incredibly weird.

(3) The Denver Post referred to him this morning as an "adviser" and "President Donald Trump’s top policy adviser". [1]

(4) Please move on and away from this -- you're serving no purpose here other than to disrupt and sow dissention over a discussion that was done 11 months ago.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, Susan Glasser referred to Hope Hicks as a press aide in this tweet. One of the replies somewhat chided the usage. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed text, he was 16...

I removed this part (see diff below):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Miller_%28aide%29&type=revision&diff=765118756&oldid=765113320

The person was (as the article states) at that time 16 years old. I think its way outside what an encyclopedia biography should mention, details about what a kid did in high school is just not interesting. The short sentence about him starting to appear on conservative talk radio is ok, but detailed descriptions about high shool meetings is not. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Have replaced it per WP:BRD. The content gives background to his rise as a Conservative from a young age to where he is now (also at such a young age). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

To WV: I see no basis for your revert in WP:BRD. You state that the content "gives background to his rise as a Conservative from a young age". It is already in the article that he started to appear on "conservative talk radio". That meeting is simply a boring detail that tells me (and possibly many other reader's) nothing.

I am not trying to get this removed as a fan of Miller, on the contrary I am deeply worried about the president he serves. But if we like a person or feel disgust, we should try our best to distance ourselves, pick out the essential material so anyone wanting to check out who this person is can get a correct a picture as possible. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your last statement is precisely why the content will stay in the article. Have a nice day. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting way of arguing. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What do some of the others that have contributed think of this: NPalgan2, Wikipietime, James J. Lambden, MZMcBride, Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, Lasersharp? Are detailed descriptions of what a 16-year old kid did in high school the new norm for biographies in Wikipedia? Ulflarsen (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As an indicator of later activity, well, maybe. Compare Rush Limbaugh#Early life, which describes at some length the high school and college activities of that individual. It can be seen as an indicator of his early involvement in the field of politics, which seems to be his career area, and that could be seen as relevant. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That reasoning is precisely why the content belongs in this article, John Carter. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the ordinary case, I would say no, high-school-age activity should be omitted. But given (1) that this is something that Miller actually wrote for publication; (2) that it was actually published; (3) that other secondary sources have discussed it at some length; and (4) that it relates to his later career in politics, I think a short, well-sourced mention is OK. Neutrality^talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK to include, but I think the quote needs more context for NPOV. Reading the source, the quote is made in criticism of his school administrators' stance against the war in Afghanistan post 9-11. Lasersharp (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I added context. My concern is not his age but due weight. The only source I can find is politico. Are there others? If not, I don't think the one article is sufficient (surfsantamonica.com is not RS.) James J. Lambden (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The content isn't contested, the presence of it was. By one editor. One reference is completely sufficient on something that isn't controversial or could be a POV issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons concerns are incredibly important and we have an obligation to err on the side of caution.

We're also required to exercise editorial judgment. Not every fact about an individual can or should be included in an article. In this case, there doesn't seem to be a question regarding veracity, but that does not eliminate the question of appropriateness for inclusion.

I mostly find myself in agreement with Neutrality. I think we'd ordinarily not include something like this, but the reasons Neutrality lays out for making an exception here are compelling. I'd be curious what iridescent or Risker think about this.

Just for my reference, the relevant text currently is:

In 2002, at the age of sixteen, Miller wrote a letter to the editor of The Santa Monica Evening Outlook, criticizing his school's pacifist response to 9/11 in which he stated that "Osama Bin Laden would feel very welcome at Santa Monica High School."[2][3]

In some ways, it almost feels excessive to include the Osama bin Laden quote. We could end the sentence after "9/11". However, if you remove the quote, then to me the inclusion of this biographical factoid feels even more questionable. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? Heck, when I was in high school, writing a letter to the editor of the local paper was a *required* part of the Modern English course. We got bonus marks if the letter was actually published, and got to skip the next assignment if our letter was chosen as "letter of the day". Quoting from the letter is undue weight, and according to the Politico article it is not even the most significant writing he did while in high school. I'd suggest instead "While attending Santa Monica High School, Miller began appearing on conservative talk radio and expressing conservative views in published writings.[2] Incidentally, the next sentence about his invitations to Horowitz are not accurate and do not reflect what the reference source actually says. I'm not a big fan of including a lot of information about individuals from the time when they were minors, but in this case it is probably relevant that he was already establishing a national reputation in his area of notability even at this tender age. Risker (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained edit by Thunderclap reverted

I have reverted this unexplained edit by Thunderclap (talk · contribs). The edit removes descriptive identifiers ("open-borders activist" and "anti-immigration website") and replaces them with, respectively, "liberal" and nothing at all. This is not a constructive or useful edit, obviously, as both of the prior descriptors are entirely necessary to define the boundaries of the debate — Peter Laufer is in favor of open borders and Peter Brimelow founded a website which is vehemently anti-immigration. Furthermore, it is without question that the National Policy Institute is both anti-Semitic and white supremacist, and those identifiers are clearly necessary to define the terms of the debate. In addition, weasel words are added to the section about Miller's purported relationship with Spencer — "unconfirmed reports" is not a phrase found in any of the cited reliable sources. For these reasons, the edit is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to protect this page?

I've noticed that this article has been the target of significant vandalism (often from anonymous users) in the last few days -- and I mean, multiple acts of vandalism per day. Do you think it's time to request semi-protection at WP:RFP? Werónika (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Mifter has semi-protected the article for a month. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Note on false claims

Claims that reliable sources unequivocally identify as false should be described as such. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." We don't engage in false balance: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... We ... include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."

Miller's claims about "voter fraud" are unambiguously and universally described by the reliable sources as false:

• Washington Post: "Stephen Miller’s bushels of Pinocchios for false voter-fraud claims";
• Washington Post again: "Stephen Miller ... advances false voter fraud claims");
• PolitiFact: "Miller went on to .... false talking points ... We rate the claim Pants on Fire.");
• NBC News: "Miller and Stephanopoulos] got into a heated exchange over Trump's false claims that millions illegally voted in the election";
• CNN: "debunked voter fraud claim" .. "repeated Trump's unsubstantiated claims ... But he provided no evidence to support that claim or other claims of widespread voter fraud.").

The claims should should be simply described as such. We certainly should not replace "false" with "controversial," which fails to accurately reflect the sources (the statements are controversial because they're false; we can mention that they are controversial, but that information must come in addition to, not in place of, the baseline reality that they are false). Nor should we even improperly distance ourselves by saying they were "described as false by mainstream sources." That's akin to hedging the statement "the moon is not made of green cheese" with a clause that says "according to scientists..." or "according to NASA." We should just give the truth, as reflected by the reliable sources, plainly and simply. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We're dealing with someone's bio, it's wikipedia's policy to be as npov as possible. as it stands, it's simply not npov, you're taking out even "according to wapo and politifact" part. There are various reliable sources that do not use unambiguous language regarding this matter, hence it is not "universally described" as you claim. Lasersharp (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've explained above exactly how our policy works. We don't give in-text attribution for plain facts ("according to..."), and in fact doing so is usually not desirable.

Can you point to any significant, mainstream reliable sources which don't characterize the claim as false? Neutrality^talk 14:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As the adage goes, Assert facts! jps (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The claim that there was significant voter fraud is certainly unsubstantiated and probably false. The claim that there was some voter fraud must be true. Washington Post and CNN are highly partisan sources and I don't think we can report their opinions as facts. The claims are unsubstantiated but we don't know if they are false. NBeale (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The many sources that have described these claims as "False." Not "probably false" but "false," "unsubstantiated," and "pants-on-fire false." And there is no evidence whatsoever that the "Washington Post and CNN are highly partisan sources." And these statements are not their "opinions"—they are reported facts. Neutrality^talk 14:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality, the factual falsity of these claims is basically undisputed by any mainstream reliable source. NPOV does not require us to say that "some people believe the sky is blue," because the sky is blue. Lasersharp, if you have found significant mainstream reliable sources which don't characterise the claim as false, I invite you to present them here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality as well - these claims are unequivocally false, and we are not engaging in POV editing for claiming that. There's plenty of good sourcing for it. --Krelnik (talk)

WP:GEVAL is the relevant point here. The most WP:NPOV way to say this is the following: "Stephen Miller made unsubstantiated accusations of tens of thousands of fraudulent voters being bused in to vote in New Hampshire. Investigation into such claims have determined them to be false." jps (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with user Neutrality. We have an overwhelming number of independent reliable sources that unambiguously call Miller's claim false so WP:ASSERT is completely appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Another vote in support of the position outlined by Neutrality. We are not in the business of equivocating in favor of a forced, "equal time for both sides" point of view. What Miller said was false. Not, "some media outlets reported that it was false while others disagreed". Not, "after an investigation performed by the Blah Blah Times, it was determined that..." etc. etc. What Miller said was false, period. And that is the way it should be presented. -- Hux (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering that there may be BLP issues involved here, I have added a note to the BLPN regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, the problem with those sources, though, is that they're all loyal to the Democrats. Remember, NBC News people are openly liberal, with a long-standing tradition of pumping money into the DNC[2][3]. CNN can't be used here, due to the problem that their parent company, Time Warner, had a vested interest in getting Hillary Clinton into office, consistently breaking the top 10 of her largest financial backers[4]. The Washington Post, aside from hiring a crack-team of 20 reporters to perform opposition research on the then-candidate Trump (but not Clinton), has always been a very liberal publication, just as much as the Washington Times is conservative.[5]. Poltifact, of course, isn't a reliable source. That's a left-leaning blog, which chooses to call itself a "fact-checker." Do you have any moderate or conservative-leaning sources that we can use to make sure that the article maintains neutrality? The Patriot Way (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try to break this down because of the many, many flawed assumptions and statements in it. I'll only note that site-wide consensus, as established through an exhaustive RfC (MrX began that RfC, so I'm tagging him), is that Politifact is a highly reliable source. Neutrality^talk 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it a tad premature to refer to allegations of voter fraud as "false"? If I say I have an apple, but have not yet pulled it out of my lunch pail, is my statement that I have an apple "false"? We could say, "I believe you do not have an apple," before I have produced it. But to say "You are falsely claiming that you have an apple" is erroneous and a logical fallacy. Therefore, the opinion/belief/point of view that I do not have an apple is all that remains.

Let's find a way to rephrase this line regarding the voter fraud allegations: "...independent investigations into such claims have determined them to be false." Additionally, I note that the "independent investigations" referred to in the article are in fact derived from The Washington Post and Politifact (The Tampa Bay Times). Both are widely regarded as left-wing news outlets, which makes any label insinuating non-partisanship or bias-free reporting disingenuous[6][7]. I suggest we change the text to read either 1) "has not yet produced definitive evidence supporting his statements" or 2) "...Miller has been criticized by progressive news organizations for not providing hard evidence for his statements." We should also be mindful of WP:CLAIM while including material, here. Thoughts? The Patriot Way (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. Your suggested "rewording" is not source-based or reality-based. He didn't "not yet produce definitive evidence" - he produced zero evidence at all. As for "left-wing": If you come at this from the premise that Washington Post and Tampa Bay Times reporting is "left-wing" then we are not going to get anywhere. Those sources are highly reliable, with buckets of Pulitzers. Neutrality^talk 01:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So have any RS said there was wide spread voter fraud?Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As has been brilliantly put by Neutrality, the claims by Miller are plain false.The abundance of mainstream WP:RS sources that describe his claim as unsubstantiated simply makes the utter falsity of his claim to be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.Further, he didn't "not yet produce definitive evidence" - he produced null evidence at all.And please don't oppose the proposal with the BS claims of Washington Post, CNN etc. all being left-biased!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The claim that what Miller has said is "false" is an opinion (a point of view). There is no proof that millions of people who are registered in multiple states did not in fact do so. There is no proof that dead Americans that are still registered to vote did not, in fact vote. Therefore, we cannot yet say that his statement (again, WP:CLAIM provides helpful guidance with the language, here) is false. The problem is that if Miller or another administration official does in fact produce evidence of widespread voter fraud, then this article will need to be altered to read "The statements first appeared to be false, but were then proven to be correct." The current verbiage does not allow for the possibility for production of the aforementioned evidence. While I'm sure Neutrality is in fact a brilliant individual, his opinion is still just that. An opinion.

Whether or not left-wing reporters are eligible for “buckets of Pulitzers” I believe is not particularly irrelevant in this case. The Washington Post is generally accepted as a quite liberal newspaper (I don't think anyone would dispute that), and thus it would benefit the article to include material from centrist and conservative sources to avoid the appearance of POV. If the text from the Post is in fact true, then non-liberal sources will echo the same facts. The Patriot Way (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how the world works, much less Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim to prove its truth, not on everyone else to prove its falsity. It is, among mainstream reliable sources, undisputed that the claim is false — that there is no evidence that "millions of people who are registered in multiple states" voted illegally and that there is no evidence that voter fraud meaningfully affected the election. This is what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia content is based upon what is verifiable in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The absence of evidence may be enough for Wikipedia to declare statements of living persons "false," but I'm sorry to say I don't agree with your thesis that this standard is also "how the world works." In my world, as an individual with a science background, I am not prepared to declare a hypothesis as disproved until there is a preponderance of evidence illustrating it as such. When you have illegal immigrants voting[8], electroencephalographically-challenged Americans voting[9], people voting multiple times[10], and DNC operatives confessing to busing people across state lines to vote[11], we need to be very careful about referring to statements of widespread voter fraud as "false." True, Miller has not yet provided evidence that any of the 1.8 million registered dead Americans or 2.75 million registered in multiple states[12] actually illegally voted (or indicated how many illegal aliens voted), but I stand by my original submission. It's extremely premature to refer to the statement as "false," and highly inaccurate and POV to refer to liberal news outlets as "independent." The line needs reworking. The Patriot Way (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The spin you are attempting in no way casts doubt on the plain statements of fact that the sources found in the article make with regards to the actual content found in our article and the truth-value of Miller's claim. You are promoting a popular version of right wing agnosticism in the face of overwhelming evidence as to what the truth is. Wikipedia on purpose WP:ASSERTs such facts and does not bend over backwards to argue such things as "we don't know what the Moon is made of", "we cannot know whether the Earth really is round", etc. If you want plausible deniability, you should head over to Conservapedia where they entertain such mental gymnastics as a matter of editorial policy. jps (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, I have to admit I'm a tad offended at your suggestion that I am attempting to "spin anything" and should "head over to Conservapedia." I think we should really to put our best foot forward and try to keep it civil and assume good faith of our fellow editors trying to improve the article. That being said, it is not a fact that Miller's claims of widespread voter fraud are false. That is the opinion of The Washington Post, an overtly liberal newspaper that is now the brainchild of a man who has been very critical of the president. So. Why is this different than saying the moon is made of cheese or that the Earth is flat? Because the contrary has been proven, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. In contrast, there are many examples of widespread voter fraud, and as I mentioned above, DNC operatives have been caught on camera boasting about committing voter fraud. Now you see why that's a false equivalency. A similar trend has emerged on the page of Sean Spicer, but let's try to work through these smatterings of POV one by one. I think even modifying the phrasing to "believed to be false" and "independent investigations" to "investigations by progressive news outlets" would do wonders for the article and really clean up the NPOV tone of the language. Pretty good compromise, no? The Patriot Way (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No compromise necessary. Current wording is perfect. A fact is a fact. Your spin is may be some form of alternative fact. I guess you'll fit in well at Conservapedia, but not so much here. Sorry you couldn't be bothered to read any of the links that have been provided to you, but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a defense now. You're on the wrong end of the WP:CONSENSUS game, so that's that. *shrug* jps (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, I have to say that I am very disappointed to see you repeat your attacks and juvenile insinuations. You should know that there is no "wrong" or "right" end of consensus. There is only consensus, or no consensus. As of now, about a half dozen editors agree with you and that indeed is enough for Wikipedia. However, the beauty of this project is that nothing is set in stone. I will wait until emotions cool off a little bit, and then I'm going to come back and we're going to get this POV stuff cleaned up. You're not on 4Chan anymore, and this kind of rhetoric isn't really what we strive for on these pages. Please try to do a better job of assuming good faith and treating other editors with civility in the future. Thank you for your offering your opinion. At this time, other editors are invited to offer their thoughts on the above proposed rewording. The Patriot Way (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how the content is written and what sources we have to support any of it, the truth is this is just a news-cycle story that has already lost its luster in one-day's time. He said something on national television, there are those who claim he was incorrect in his statement, that's all she wrote. It's a blip, not a national crisis. Let's be sure to not give undue weight to it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody will likely even remember this man in 10 years, much less the content of one of his rounds on the Sunday shows. Or ignoring a late-night host for that matter, which I note has recently been added, for some bizarre reason. The Patriot Way (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Nobody will likely even remember this man in 10 years".... Beg to differ. A top aide to a POTUS making news is quite significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In spite of the tendency of news cycles to ever shorten, it is unmistakeable that this was the main story coming out of Miller's hit of the Sunday talk shows. Even if more dramatic things develop out of Miller's tenure, allowing for two to three sentences of exposition on this entry point does not seem likely to be WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 12, 2017 Sunday news shows

I edited this section to note that Miller appeared on multiple Sunday news shows on Feb. 12, 2017 (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week) and said almost the identical thing, in some cases, identical, on all three. Someone edited this back to mention only Face the Nation. Why? I think it's relevant to state that the controversy occurred, in part, from the fact that he was on all three network Sunday news shows repeating the same controversial claims. --Crunch (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. "...controversial claims." Now see, that's the kind of NPOV language that should be in the article. I agree with this, also. If he referenced widespread voter fraud on all the Sunday shows, then the phrasing should include all the Sunday shows, not just Face the Nation. The Patriot Way (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

High School material

I undid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Miller_(aide)&diff=765720260&oldid=765710313 following WP:BLPSOURCES: 'Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.' and also reservations about how much the exploits of a ~16yo we should cover. (The NYDN is most definitely a tabloid.) Yuri716 notes that booing of the speech has been covered by WashPo, though that wasn't in the material I deleted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/15/stephen-millers-cringeworthy-campaign-speech-for-student-government/ What do other editors think about including this incident?

NPalgan2 seems to confuse tabloid journalism with tabloid newspapers. WP:BLPSOURCES refers to tabloid journalism. Tabloid journalism (which pertains to content, in this case sensationalism or gossippy fluff), is practiced by such tabloids as National Enquirer and New York Post (Post owned by News Corp under Rupert Murdoch). A tabloid newspaper (the format) that is not said to engage in tabloid journalism (the content) is the New York Daily News (owned by Mortimer Zuckerman, who also owns U.S. News & World Report and previously owned The Atlantic). No knowledgeable person would accuse Mr. Zuckerman and the New York Daily News of tabloid journalism.

The New York Daily News article on Mr. Miller is supported by a video and accounts by witnesses to the speech and also sourced by the Washington Post.

Regarding NPalgan2's "reservations about how much the exploits of a ~16yo we should cover" - I have reservations of what NPalgan2 should censor. In this case, the 2 sentences on Mr. Miller are antecedent behaviorisms that connect to his current character and disposition. When there is a legitimate connection of past behavior in explaining tendencies and present/future events, we owe it to the reader to cite that behavior so that the reader can make an informed evaluation.

For the reasons given above, I vote yes to reInstate the 2 sentences with the additional Washington Post cite.

Yuri716 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Copy-paste of Yuri716's arguments for reinclusion from my talk page. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"On Feb 15 I added the following 2 sentences to the Stephen Miller article:

• Miller’s high school curriculum was filled with reading, writing and riling up his fellow students with controversial statements.

• “At Santa Monica High School, while running for class pres Stephen Miller was boo'd off a stage by over 4000 students. ... [purportedly] due to the volatile content of the speech."

Your undo of this revision stated: this is undue weight from a nonRS. Some mention of miller's activism in HS is OK, but BLP for a highschooler should tread light

I have several issues regarding your rationale:

1. The 2 sentences I added were not inflammatory nor did the statements attack Mr. Miller. Indeed, per Wiki rules and guidelines these sentences were neutral. I treaded very lightly in selecting only those 2 sentences.
2. Since the sentences were taken from the New York Daily News - 4th largest newspaper in the U.S. a recipient of many Pulitzer Prizes, The Daily News is considered a Reliable Source.
3. The 1st sentence I had added to the Wiki article was the 1st sentence in the Daily News article. The remainder of the article supported that contention with evidence and first hand testimony. This sentence was fully supported by evidence and testimony in the remainder of the article.
4. The cite link to the site of a video obtained by the Washington Post (and Univision). The video speaks for itself as a Reliable Source.
5. The 2nd sentence was posted by Cody Decker, an American professional baseball player currently a member of the Milwaukee Brewers organization and previously a classmate of Miller at Santa Monica High School. Cody Decker and others were witnesses to Mr. Miller's speech and expressed homogeneous responses. As a public figure, Decker's comments are a Reliable Source.

In summary, these 2 sentences have been Reliably Sourced as an accurate and neutral reportage of Miller as a highschooler. These 2 sentences treaded very lightly, coming nowhere close to some of the inflammatory recollections of other classmates. These 2 sentences reflect a persona that Miller not only embraces and nurtures but is also a persona of which he promotes to this day.

For myself and for a reader of Wiki, I thought these 2 sentences are an interesting testimony of the character of Miller even in high school and of his nascent provocative disposition - a telling and chilling indication of who he would become. I am baffled that you would try to suppress this reportage.

In conclusion, I disagree with your representation of the 2 sentences as being of undue weight, I disagree with your representation that the 2 sentences came from an non Reliable Source, and I disagree with your insinuation that Miller's activism as indicated by those 2 sentences is even remotely a denunciation of that high school-er. Indeed, as per Wiki objectives, those 2 sentences provide true and proper data on which to make a fair and balanced judgment of where Mr. Miller is coming from. As such, I request that you undo your revision of my revision and reinstate those 2 sentences.

Thank you, Yuri716 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)"

I restored the material with this edit. I searched WP:RSN archives and editors generally find New York Daily News to be fact-checked and WP:RS. I added another source to bolster it and simplified the language. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Democracy Now is not a RS for assigning weight, they're highly NPOV. Whether or not NYDN is fact-checked or not, they are 'tabloid' in that the material they highlight is often highly unencyclopedic in nature and "sensationalism or gossippy fluff". Look at their front pages - lots of the stuff they report would not be included in BLPs or is WP:GOSSIP and so the fact that they published something about Miller does not justify inclusion. WashPo us the only RS that has covered the booing, and I think it's significant no other RS has covered a 17yo's "cringeworthy" speech. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted inclusion in the absence of consensus here and requested third opinion. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's fine to ask for a fourth opinion (Yuri716 has already weighed in). However, please do not WP:edit-war to force in your version when others disagree. Also, as I said above, I searched WP:RSN archives and editors generally find New York Daily News to be fact-checked and WP:RS, e.g. this recent discussion. I have not heard anything negative said about Democracy Now!, which is frequently aired on NPR. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source on the topic: [13]. That makes four sources:

1. New York Daily News
2. Washington Post
3. Democracy Now!
4. Esquire (magazine)

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That Esquire article is a reliable source? Really? "Some conservative reactionaries arrive at their identity after years of imagined grievances, viewing the world through spite-colored glasses. Others are simply born that way." And Democracy Now! (Not Including Cuba, Of Course, Because They're Much Happier Without It) is RS too. And of course the NYDN is a respectable, serious newspaper, not a sensationalistic tabloid. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

On one hand there are notions of fact and expressions of opinion which are grounded in evidence. On the other hand there are positions that deny facts or are expressions of beliefs bereft of evidence. Usually beliefs bereft of evidence are called delusions. If not delusions, there is usually a goal directed personal agenda that wishes to deny the evidence, intentionally evading common sense or formal logic. NPalgan2's tools of his trade for denial include sarcasm and logical fallacies of hasty generalization.

NPalgan2's sarcasm has not gone unnoticed. Unlike sarcasm based on truth, his is based on innuendo. The New York Daily News front page on NBA's Baron Davis stating 'I was abducted by aliens' was yes, a sensationalist hook. In the New York Daily News | article, wherein the article stated 'It was a scene straight out of “Space Jam,” the 1996 film starring Looney Tunes characters, Michael Jordan and a basketball team of aliens.' and '[Davis is a] first-class practical joker. He [later tweeted]: "that alien thing is a joke."' Personally I think the joke was on NPalgan2.

"Some conservative reactionaries arrive at their identity after years of imagined grievances ..." is a legitimate observation. That not all conservative reactionaries have grievances that are unreasonable still remains a valid contention. Since I have many times observed imagined grievances by disenfranchised or non-influential people or persons that fear they are irrelevant, the Esquire article expresses observations that are reliable. It's NPalgan2's twisting of the meaning that results in unreliability.

NPalgan2 correctly observed a lack of consensus regarding adding the cite: of Miller's video and Miller's proneness to creating controversy even in high school. And there is not going to be a consensus on most of NPalgan2 positions and most of my positions. (Although NPalgan2 and I do seem to agree that wiki edits should do no harm to living persons.) In the absence of consensus, NPalgan2 has unilaterally taken upon himself to revert edits he does not like or do not suit his personal agenda. NPalgan2 ( (talk) Warning not to revert) has been warned that these kinds of reversions are contrary to wiki rules. Knee jerk and unilateral editing is also bad form when trying to promote an understanding and resolution.

Thus it seems User:NPalgan2 (talk) has is own axe to grind. It must be asked of NPalgan2:

• Do you have anything to disclose regarding a relationship, personal or otherwise, to Stephen Miller?
• Why would you wish to hide (keep from wiki readers) legitimate observations on Miller's high school behavior?

Assuming you have nothing to hide, will you, NPalgan2, revert the Stephen Miller article to include the 2 sentences on Miller's high school speech and witness statements citing the New York Daily News, the Washington Post and whichever of User:David Tornheim's references you deem acceptable?

Yuri716 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: A request for a 3O was made, but has been removed (i.e. rejected) since 3O's are only available when there are exactly two editors involved in a dispute. While 3O can sometimes be fairly lenient on that requirement, David Tornheim clearly came in here as a previously-uninvolved third party after the dispute had been clearly defined and with the purpose of giving an opinion. Therefore his opinion, above, counts as the 3O (and if not that then as a third party involved in the dispute). If further dispute resolution is required, consider the options given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, partially. Near-unanimous agreement that the Minnesota governor should be disambiguated and a fairly clear consensus that the dab page should be located at the base location, rather than having the aide as the primary topic. Both these moves have been carried out by MZMcBride who could probably have closed the discussion at that point. In any case, most people after his moves seemed to be happy with them. There was also a later discussion about whether a different disambiguation should be used for this article – the majority of were in favour of renaming to "Stephen Miller (political advisor)" and had some reasonable arguments to make their case, so I will make that move now. the No prejudice against revisiting the primary topic issue in a few months when it won't be muddied by having a different topic already there. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller
• Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor)

– General notability NPalgan2 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Having read WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, I believe Stephen Miller (aide) (one of the most significant figures in the Trump administration) should be the primary article for 'Stephen Miller', not Stephen Miller, the 4th governor of Minnesota. Compare the traffic statistics. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Stephen_Miller%7CStephen_Miller_(aide)%7CStephen_Miller_(political_operative) NPalgan2 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY it notes 'Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic: […] If a topic has only ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently (Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)'. Stephen Miller the Trump aide has only come to prominence within the last 6 months (and most notably within the past month and week). I think it would be most prudent to wait and see. We don't know if he will still be notable six months, a year, two years from now. Coreydragon (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the WP:RECENTISM issue, but 'being one of the most influential figures in the presidential administration of the globe's only superpower, considered more influential that many cabinet officers' seems more notable than 'was governor of a state with a population of circa 300,000'. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the aide becoming primary topic, but I'd probably support moving the Minnesota governor. He was governor for less than two years and doesn't appear to have left much historical impact. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The traffic for the minnesota guy seems to mirror the traffic for the Trump guy (on a much smaller scale), as I expect quite a few casual visitors end up there first by mistake. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral regarding Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller
  and Support for Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor), who falls far short of the standard required for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially alongside another governor, Stephen Decatur Miller of South Carolina, whose additional service included that of U.S. Senator and Representative. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor) and create a redirect Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (disambiguation). Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller. As others have pointed out, we don't yet know whether Trump's aide will become the most important Stephen Miller—in the long run, the fame of most presidential aides does not endure. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller as it stinks of WP:RECENTISM to declare him to primary topic so soon.LM2000 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller. Although he's been notable for several months, he's really only been in the limelight for one week. It's way too soon to call him the primary topic. I Support Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor), but only because of the similarly named South Carolina governor. schetm (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved Stephen Miller to Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor) and moved Stephen Miller (disambiguation) to Stephen Miller as this seemed uncontroversial. I updated some internal links and hatnotes in the process. I left the note at the top of Stephen Miller (aide) pointing to this discussion regarding a page move, but I don't think there's any consensus for a page move currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the notion that "Stephen Miller" should be about this fellow, who just happens to be in the news more these days. Approve what MZMcBride has just done. Don't like the way that Steven Miller redirects to Steve Miller, a separate disambiguation page: I think that either Steve and Steven should both redirect to Stephen, or Steve and Stephen should both redirect to Steven. (And am disappointed that nobody has yet written up the first Steve [Stephen? Steven?] Miller I ever encountered: the pianist.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Hoary. In updating Stephen Miller#See also, I noticed the odd Steven Miller redirect as well. I think it makes sense to un-redirect that page and turn it into its own disambiguation page. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • But why the additional complication, MZMcBride? I for one often confuse Stephens and Stevens. One disambig page for /stiv(ən)mɪlə/ is enough. Compare "Steven Smith", which ably handles Steves, Stevens and Stephens Smith. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi Hoary. While I can see the simplicity in putting all of the variants on a single page, I still feel it lacks a certain amount of elegance and accuracy. Is it really fair to lump in the Stephens with the Stevens? I don't think there's any technical reason to do this. If you're looking for a Stephen Smith and you have to look at all of the Steven Smiths and Stevie Smiths and Steve Smiths, I worry that the added noise can drown out the signal. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
        • MZMcBride, the Steves who are uppermost in my consciousness come with a spelling attached: I'm sure I'd never write "Stephen Pinker", say. But for those further down, I'm much less certain. (Just as I don't know if this or that Mr/Ms Saitō is 齋藤, 斎藤 or 斉藤: this kind of problem isn't unique to Steves.) But no biggie, because this is only one more page to check. By contrast, what does annoy me is exemplified by List of people with surname Miller. Suppose I want to look up an alleged spy named ... damn, I can't remember his name, but I know it's something Miller. Ctrl-F in that page for "spy" won't find him. And why not? Because as Robert something Miller, he's only listed in Robert Miller (disambiguation). However, I digress. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller. I don't believe there is a primary topic given how this guy only is a recent phenomena. The page should remain a disambiguation page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller per WP:Recentism. I would Support Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (political advisor) which was previously attempted and makes much more sense in his significant role than simply the ambiguous word "aide". Support Stephen Miller → Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor) to avoid confusion among the many Stephen Millers. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi David Tornheim. It may make sense to start a new, separate discussion about renaming this article to "Stephen Miller (political advisor)" or similar. I think that would be more explicit and clearer for discussion participants. This section is discussing two other potential moves, one of which has now been implemented and the other of which seems to be pretty strongly opposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @MZMcBride: A separate discussion on Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (political advisor) seems reasonable. I prefer not to clutter up the article page with another move template. Does that seem reasonable? So I will make it a subsection of this proposal. If you want to approach it a different way with a full blown proposal like this one, be my guest. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC) The new subsection is below. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal, however, the disambiguation/page title should reflect accuracy: he's not merely an "aide", which is a demotion and vague, terminology-wise. Support title change to political advisor as he is a Senior Advisor to the POTUS (was already changed but Kgirltrucker took it upon herself to bend to an IP's request, even after discussion indicated the move was appropriate). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller, but approve what MZMcBride has done; i.e., making Stephen Miller into a disambiguation page, with Stephen Miller (Minnesota governor) and Stephen Miller (aide)). I agree with others that "Stephen Miller" is a name for which there is no primary topic. Neutrality^talk 18:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) per Neutrality. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pure WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose moving this article to the plain title, although no prejudice against choosing a different disambiguator (I just don't have a particularly strong opinion about that), but endorse the dab page that's already been created at the plain title. It's certainly true that right now people are much more likely to be looking for Trump's senior advisor than for the former governor of Minnesota, so moving the governor to a dabbed title and making the plain title a dab page was the correct solution here. But in terms of long-term notability, it's far from clear at this point that the current White House staffer has become the permanent primary topic of all time going forward — current newsiness does not necessarily translate into permanence. The current situation, where the plain title is a dab page rather than one particular Stephen Miller, is the right one at the present time. If this Stephen Miller somehow accrues a more enduring claim to primary topic, such as he somehow becomes the president or something like that, then we can revisit it when that time comes — but being currently the most newsworthy does not automatically equal permanent primariness, because he could just as easily die or get fired next week, and thus never accomplish anything enduringly primary-topic in nature, for all we know right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: (aide) -> (political advisor)

(1) Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (political advisor)

Other alternatives:

(2) Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (policy advisor)

(3) Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (advisor)

(4) status quo: keep as Stephen Miller (aide)

(5) Stephen Miller (aide) → Stephen Miller (White House staffer) or Stephen Miller (political staffer)

(6) Feel free to add your own proposal and increment number.

proposed per [14]: --David Tornheim (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [revised --David Tornheim (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)]

• Support 1(best), 2(best) or 5(next best) as proposer and per my previous comment: This move was previously attempted and makes much more sense in his significant role than simply the ambiguous word "aide". --David Tornheim (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) [revised 06:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC), 04:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)]
• Support inasmuch as subject is listed among those indicated as Senior Advisor to the President of the United States. Since his portfolio is specified as "Policy", the parenthetical qualifier could also take the form "(policy advisor)" or even simply "(advisor)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support (policy advisor) as choice 1, (political advisor) as choice 2. I originally changed the article title/disambig to include political advisor as a compromise per the discussion here. For whatever reason, that discussion was ignored (or not actually viewed) when an anon ip requested a move be made back to (aide) here and KGirlTrucker81 complied here. There was no consensus for (aide) and it is not only vague/ambiguous, it's inaccurate. Policy advisor is accurate and the change needs to be made. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1. Much better than aide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 5 only: Stephen Miller (White House staffer) should match Jim Messina (political staffer) and Ben Rhodes (White House staffer). Status quo (#4) as second choice. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why should it match the other two when their positions are completely different? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Support 1 With redirects created for the others. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

8/2/17 Press Conference

Volunteer, instead of crying BLP and personally attacking those with whom you disagree in your edit summaries, wouldn’t it be better (and far more collaborative) to attempt to have a rational discussion on the talk page? I think so, and so I have created this section regarding the Miller press conference. So, you apparently believe that the inclusion of Miller’s quote is a BLPVIO. Have I got that right? After Acosta insinuated that only immigrants from Great Britain and Australia speak English, Miller stated that the remark was “‘one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things [Acosta has] ever said.”[15][16][17][ If you are going to claim that any material that contains a quote that could be interpreted as “offensive” or an “attack” is a BLPVIO….well, the existence of Wikipedia is in itself a BLPVIO. Are you prepared to delete Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording? Because if not, this material isn't a BLPVIO. But you can't have both. I'm willing to compromise and leave out the bit about Acosta's alleged "cosmopolitan bias," but if Miller's first TV appearance is notable (which is covered in detail in this article), then so is his second (which was far more contentious). Others of course are invited to weigh in. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "personally attack" you, I criticized, correctly, your edit, which is one big BLP vio. Please stop making stuff up and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Note that baseless accusing others of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack per WP:NPA.

Neither did I "cry" BLP. Here again, your choice of words is inappropriate and evidences your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

As to the quote - there's no reason for it to be here, except as an indirect way of violating BLP by using Miller as a foil. It's not just BLP vio, it's also an underhanded attempt to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies. This is exactly the kind of disruptive editing that earned you your previous topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, facts belong not revisionist idealogue . Keep it in. Wikipietime (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the substance free comment there. See WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipietime, well said. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not exist to document every skirmish in the dysfunctional relationship that the current White House denizens have with the media, particularly CNN. Given the OPs behavior at Talk:CNN controversies, it would seem that this is an attempt to use Mr. Miller's biographical article to attack Mr. Acosta. All in all, this is just giving undue weight to an unimportant...and frankly, uninformed...opinion Miller has on Acosta. TheValeyard (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

See, that's what I'd say too (the first sentence), but then take a look at Sean Spicer. Multiple individual press conferences are summarized in neat paragraphs. One of 'em even made it into the lead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS of course is a concern, but such a large discrepancy in similar articles would just be absurd.

Regarding your personal attack about my protesting gutting an article of long-standing material with no consensus, that kind of rhetoric really has no place here and I'd respectfully ask you to remain WP:CIVIL and focus on the content. Check the diagram on my user page for more on this. Again, as I explained to Volunteer, nobody attacked Acosta, rather the argument he was making. Similarly, you chose to attack me personally rather than criticize the content of the material. Hopefully you see the difference and we can get back to the content (keeping WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind, of course). Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I pointed out an easily-discernable pattern in your edits. If you do not like patterns pointed out, perhaps you should not engage in them? If you have an issue with Spicey's article, then Talk:Sean Spicer is the place to air those concerns, not here. By your own admission, what you're doing is adding undue criticism here to correct the imbalance you perceive in the Spicer biography. That's not gonna fly. TheValeyard (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not what I said, bud. That's known as a straw man, a common logical fallacy. Although I see by your attack on Commander Spicer, we know which side your bread is buttered on, don't we? "By your own admission, what you're doing is adding undue criticism here..." Second straw man in the same edit. Don't do it again, please. I see you've been editing for a few months, now. I'm going to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt here, but for future reference: do not attack other editors rather than the content. If you object to material, you may make it known, but you will not go after editors in the process. Please review WP:PAG before you make another edit. Thanks in advance and good luck to you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You aren't being attacked; you're being called out for making poor-quality editing choices, and attempting to edit-war to keep your poor-quality edits in. Those are facts. Which thus far appear to be spectacularly unsuccessful due to a wide variety of other editors being in opposition. So good luck getting this or other editing suggestions to remain in article-space. :) TheValeyard (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So you think your purpose here is to "call out" other editors when you think that their edits are "poor-quality"? Good grief. You're wandering into WP:NOTHERE territory, now. Again, review WP:PAG before making another edit (including a reply on this talk page). Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I will not be taking editing advice from an editor who seeks to use a living person's biography to attack another living person by adding undue criticism of that person. I'm sorry that you feel so personally offended by other editors who disagree with you (I am not the only one, judging by how many times you are reverted in article space), but this is a collaborative editing environment, where any edit you make is subject to scrutiny and possible criticism. The addition of the Miller quote is a bad edit, for reasons explained above by me, and by the Marek guy when he reverted you. Deal with it. Perhaps a cup of WP:TEA would help? TheValeyard (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, see the diagram on my talk page since you continue to struggle with the concepts of the project. You're going on your sixth month on the project. Slow down, and relax. I'm not going to WP:BITE you, since you're still learning how we do things here, but ignorance is no excuse. For the third time: stop responding until you've read WP:PAG thoroughly. Thanks, chief. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, it's trivially easy to put a diagram on your talk page, it actually takes effort to follow it. Just like it's easy to claim "I'm not here to push an agenda" and then, after outlining your agenda on your user page, proceed with the WP:ADVOCACY (I see you removed that, good for you)

Anyway the "going on six month" editor is right, the "previously topic banned from this topic" editor is wrong. This is a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You should probably stop addressing people as "bud" as it's sort of obnoxious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The diagram serves as a reminder to those who struggle with the policies they incessantly link to experienced editors, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. I don't have anyone in particular in mind, though. We should all strive to work together to improve content of articles, not attacking editors. That's why I'm not going to link to your dozens and dozens of AN/I complaints for incivility, edit-warring, and struggles over at AE for similar behavior. In regards to the material, you're both unclear on WP:BLP. Please review WP:CRYBLP. In regards to your personal attack that I am egnaging in advocacy, I presume you are referring to my To do list of improvements to articles? Take a closer look, Volunteer. My article improvement list hasn't gone anywhere, and the fact that you don't like it affirms the need to improve those articles.Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the edit adding the exchange is just not good enough. It has a vague mention of Stephen saying that his statement regarding the statue of liberty was X Y and Z. But it sheds no light on what the statement actually was. The fact that it is about something that was said, is I think important because then it is not IMO a violation of Biography of living persons guidelines. But since there is no context given for it, it simply is not a useful piece of text. Why have text just randomly in there saying that Stephen said that something Acousta said was ignorant, without supplying real context to what they were arguing about? Although, it is probably only news because he did in fact say these things about Acousta. Frankly, I wonder if in the grand scheme of things this really matters. A lot of the article itself has lots of useless information which in a hundred years people will wonder "why is this here"? The most blatant is the Saturday Night Live section. Seriously, since when are open invitations from TV programs to come on the show, and the "surprise" that they do not accept, worthy of being in an article? Maybe we should put on Obama's article that Glenn Beck had phone on his program hoping Obama would call him but never did?75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to fleshing it out with more context, but I don't know if a lengthy paragraph is quite WP:DUE for this exchange. I do agree with you about the Colbert program. That probably shouldn't be in there either, but I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. Feel free to remove if you'd like. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The direct quote "I am shocked at your statement that you think only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. Jim, that is one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish things you’ve ever said." does not belong in this article. It's Miller's POV/spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The fringe, unreliable source media is spinning this as Miller putting the, quote, "cosmopolitan" Jim Acosta in his place. The original edits by Mr. Tempo here attempted to frame it like that, and that is what has been and needs to continue to be removed from the article. TheValeyard (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Muboshgu - in what way is this spin? That quote is the only reason that the presser got so much attention. The line is quoted in literally every RS that covered the presser. Acosta immediately complained about the line to Wolf Blitzer, calling it an "attack on the media." A response to a line like "only Australian and British immigrants speak English" is highly relevant, especially given that the First Lady is a Slovenian immigrant who speaks English. Regardless of how we feel about the validity or worthiness of either party's argument, both lines are relevant. Although perhaps the paragraph could be trimmed to summarize both sides, as in "Acosta accused Miller of discriminating against immigrants on the basis of race and ethnicity, while Miller pointed out that nothing in the immigration bill said anything about race or ethnicity, and referred to his remarks as "outrageous, insulting, ignorant, and foolish." Look at this quote from Anthony Scaramucci: "Scaramucci also accused Priebus of being "a leaker" who had committed "a felony", referred to Priebus as "a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac", and said that Priebus "would resign soon". Including relevant quotes, regardless of content, is standard on WP. See WP:CENSOR. The sources used (WaPo) say nothing about anyone putting anyone in their "place." That's WP:OR. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What is relevant in that quote that we can't get across by summarizing it? Scaramucci's profanities are quite different than a quote like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would be fine with a summary, but honestly right now just the one sentence seems to be the best option. Otherwise you're just going to have this "Acosta said, and then Miller said, which Acosta responded with..." stuff which is way UNDUE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, kindly self-revert that egregious POV and BLPVIO garbage. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The info is straight from the source, which is what makes the connection between Miller's statement, the poem and the far-right. So it's neither POV nor "BLPVIO garbage". On the other hand, you just made your FIFTH revert on this article within 24hrs, and some of those reverts, which restore Miller's insults of Acosta violate BLP. You might want to stop now, especially seeing as how violating BLP was what got you topic banned in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care where you got that bilge from, chief. Your material is egregiously POV and likely BLP-violating. A quote from Miller criticizing Acosta is NOT a BLPVIO. Stop crying BLP and review WP:BLPVIO. Honestly, I'm not being a smartass. Review that page and discover what a true BLP violation really is. Only including Acosta's complaints and eliminating Miller's responses is absurd, which you undoubtedly know.

Regarding 3RR, I made four actually (count again) and I was going to self-revert until you beat me to the punch with your POV content. That is the one thing you've gotten right so far. Finally, you might want to review clean hands, especially given your dozens and dozens of cases at AN/I, AE, and the 3RR noticeboard. This is a long, ongoing problem with you (likely some kind of record without being indeffed). That being said, kindly self-revert, stop edit-warring, and gain consensus on this talk page before reinstating that rubbish. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The comparison to white supremacists won't fly (we don't take that lightly in BLPs) unless the consensus of reputable sources echo it. It's also UNDUE to devote the majority of space to Acosta's comments (to the exclusion of Miller's response) in Miller's biography. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what "consensus of reputable sources" is suppose to be. Sounds like a vague standard which you just made up so that no matter what sources are presented you can always claim it's not enough. The link between his statements and the far right is made explicitly in the given, reputable, source. It's also STRANGE to say that we shouldn't give Acosta's comments too much space relative to Miller's but then call for removing the text that is directly relevant to Miller. So that seems like another lousy excuse just to make a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And the current "...pointed out" wording, which basically tries to take Miller's side in the debate, is obviously POV. And you can't really include the dispute about the quote without presenting the context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And can we dispense with this idiotic fiction that Richard B Spencer is "alt-right" rather than a "white supremacist" (as he is described in sources) like is being done in this bad faithed revert? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This entire tangent of discussing each others block/ban/restriction history is unhelpful. TheValeyard (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Volunteer, please stop attacking other editors. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. You are already aware that your material is POV and UNDUE, as earlier you stated yourself that it was UNDUE to even mention the incident. Now you want to add all kinds of stuff about anti-Semitism, "far-right," David Duke, and cram in whatever else you find. Per WP:RS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because a source somewhere mentions something does not mean that it must be stuffed into every article. Additionally, you really should strike the personal attacks above against myself and James J. Lambden (including the especially disgusting evidence-free accusation that I am an advocate). This is a delicate area, as Stephen Miller is of Belarusian (Eastern European) descent, and unless I am mistaken, you were explicitly warned NOT to be uncivil and launch personal attacks in this area or you would be blocked or subject to another sanction. Pinging Callanecc to make sure I have my facts straight, here. For the nth time: play the ball, not the man. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC) HT, until you are capable of making comments which are not egregious attacks on myself or others - for which you, not me, you, were topic banned - I don't really see a point in responding to your substance free statements. I'm really tired - and it seems other editors are as well - of constantly having to point out that you appear to just randomly quote policy without any relevance, that your claims, especially when you go and start claiming "consensus", have a very tenuous connection to reality (to put it charitably) and that you have this tendency to make accusations against others that you yourself are guilty off. You also appear to think that when you SAY something like "I am not doing X", then the fact that you said it somehow magically erases the very fact that you are actually doing X. That's not how this works. And all that is of course on top of your incessant edit warring (5 reverts on this article alone) and your BLP violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC) VM: As I understand it you were blocked indefinitely for severe violations of site policy. You are in no position to mark anyone with a scarlet letter for their infractions. I can't find a single content-based argument or suggestion in your comment above. If you can't manage to conduct yourself civilly here, conduct yourself out. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC) You DON'T understand it. I wasn't. Stop going around lying about me. Stop spreading bullshit about me Lambden.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Having reviewed the case, the Arbitration Committee found you: "participated in a variety of disruptive activities [arranged covertly], including 'tag team' edit-warring [...], abuse of dispute resolution processes [...], proxying for a blocked user [...] and treating Wikipedia as a battleground." I'd say "severe violations" is a fair summary of that behavior. My mistake was that your punishment was to be "banned for one year" not indefinitely topic banned for one year, although after reviewing the evidence that seems extremely lenient, but I apologize for the mistake. This is not the appropriate forum to rehash your indiscretions and that wasn't my intention but your attempt to frame me as a "liar" necessitated a response. This tangent shows why it's best not to discuss behavior on article talk pages, as Hidden Tempo thoughtfully reminded us. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me also add that I think the current, sparse, sentence is fine. Assuming that any of this even belongs here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, not content with the compromise, Hidden Tempo resumed the edit war... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, we had a good compromise. A nice neutral sentence. Then Rjensen decided to take it upon him/herself to add some content that doesn't match the sources without seeking consensus, and then you chose to unilaterally reinstate that content without seeking consensus. Just so we're being honest, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not get to remove valid and properly-sourced material sourced to a veteran journalist. The edit summary of "That's an opinion piece from a Trump-hater..." is particularly troubling. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's WP:OR, you bet we do. The sources say nothing about "attacked" or "deficit of nationalism," and neither did Miller. The material misrepresents the sources. It really doesn't matter how long the opinion commentator has been writing op-eds - their opinions don't get stuffed into BLPs just because they've been in the game for a long time, even if you really think they should. If you want to put contested material in the encyclopedia, build consensus. It's essential that you understand WP:PAG and WP:OR if you're going to edit in contentious areas. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I do not and will not take a single piece of advice from you, one who has no standing to issue advice or warnings or really anything to other editors. If you feel that i have committed some rule or site transgression, then surely there are steps where you can file a complaint, so I kindly suggest you go do that and cease speaking to me like you are some sort of Brahmin and I a lowly untouchable. You have attacked both myself, Mr. Marek and others repeatedly in this discussion, but I will not rise to the bait. As to the edit in question and the BLP claims thereof, I regret to inform I rather thoroughly dismantled your claim over at the WP:NOR/N board, and do not wish to repeat the process here. Thank you. TheValeyard (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the editor. The diagram on my user page is helpful to avoid false claims and ad hominem attacks exhibited above. Thanks. If you desire to have material in the article, building consensus is a good way to go. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never clicked on your user page and never will. If reliably sourced material is found, then said reliably sourced material can be included in an article. We do not need permission from an editor who states his/her political bias right in an edit summary, esp as I and at least 2 other editors thus far support the inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's partially true. Per WP:V, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Just because there's stuff out there on the Internet does not give editors free license to put whatever they find out there into BLP's. Contentious material must be agreed upon on the talk page before being inserted into articles. Seriously. WP:PAG and WP:OR are enormously helpful in this issue. No political bias here - again, focus on the content, not the editor, and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

When you make a bias clear right in an edit summary, that makes it a part of the discussion. In the future, using neutral edit summaries would be helpful, Mr. Tempo. If you like, consult WP:EDSUM for guidance. As for the content, an experienced journalist's take on the matter, sourced to the NY Times and Politico, is an easy judgement call to make, regarding inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If using an op-ed for your material without consensus was an "easy judgement," then you wouldn't have found yourself smack dab in the middle of a content dispute. Again, you've been here for about 5 months now. Slow down - you don't have to do everything at once. And second time I'm telling you - do not call me "Mr. Tempo." Focus on the content, not the editor. Feel free to continue making your case at the OR noticeboard. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Again VM, don't personalize the disputes. Criticizing individual editors in article edit summaries (as you did here) is not constructive.

Valeyard: HT is right. Edit-warring unsourced claims into a BLP is a big Wiki-no-no. You seem like a reasonable editor but you're picking up bad habits. BLPs are a case where you should defer to experience. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for you, there is no unsourced claim being discussed here. TheValeyard (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to believe content is fortunate or unfortunate for any editor; instead it is either complaint with policy or non-compliant. The content you've added (I believe twice), is non-compliant. It stated Miller "attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism" which is not present in the NY Times source and if it could be construed from the Politico source would not be usable for anything other than the author's opinion. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Libellous article

Richard Spencer is altright, not a Neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.21.40 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tomato tomatoe Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. Read alt-right and neo-Nazi for more on this. Thanks for removing the BLPVIO. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous "alt-right" descriptor. I don't see where consensus to change it has been established. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Spencer is a well-known white supremacist, and indeed that is how we describe him in the first line of his biography. There's nothing "libelous" or UNDUE about accurately describing a white supremacist as a white supremacist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is how the relevant source describes him. "Alt-right" in this context is straight up WP:WEASEL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet, even that's apparently been removed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Does Richard Spencer call himself a white supremacist? The wikipedia page on Spencer is obviously run by a person or group of people with an agenda other than facts. Appealing to that page is persuasive to me. It seems to me that the only thing that makes Spencer a "white supremacist" is the fact that his detractors voted to call him that. It is alarming me how many of these wikipedia pages are being hijacked by people with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

"Miller accused Acosta of having a "cosmopolitan bias" after Acosta suggested that English-speaking immigrants come primarily from English-speaking countries."

This is an obviously biased interpretation of this interaction, to make Miller seem dense. It is clear from the context of the interaction that Acosta was referring to the racial make-up of Australia and England, and not their language abilities. Miller was responding to Acostas obvious insinuation of a racist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.89.91 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, of course, just your own opinion, which is not what we include in encyclopedia articles. This page cites what reliable sources cover, not editor's own opinions. TheValeyard (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is also my opinion. The act only sets up a merit-based system where people who speak English, have an advanced degree, have a job waiting for them, etc. will be given more points and have a greater chance of immigrating. The points are given based on the potential immigrant's ability to speak English and NOT on the predominate language of that person's home country. In other words, I person who speaks English wanting to immigrate from Spain will have a better chance of success than a person who lives in England who speaks Spanish. The way that this article presents the facts, it gives the impression it is choosing sides in the immigration debate as opposed to simply presenting facts. S2pid80it (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but Wikipedia articles cite reliable sources, which generally report negatively on this administration's desire to exclude certain immigrant groups based on religious, cultural, and geopolitical criteria. Your brief editing history shows that you like to pop up on hot-button articles once a month or so, complain "it is biased!", and move on. This is not terribly productive. TheValeyard (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course there's an obvious bias going on here in this article. I just tried to remove some clearly biased material that was reverted back almost immediately because it was sourced. I didn't realize that garbage gets to stay in because it's "sourced." And yes, there is no objectivity in many of the sourced materials from sites like Politico and The New York Times. I suppose I could continue the back and forth and fight, but in the end, there are a lot more important things for me to do in my life than have an edit war on Wikipedia. It's not the first time, and sadly, will not be the last. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia articles "objective" and "neutral."Asc85 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is only to reflect what is written in the mainstream of reliable sources. There's no objectivity? That's subjective, isn't it? You might consider sharing your views on other websites that are forums for opinion or debate. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Miller has been criticized on multiple occasions"—UNDUE for the lead

"Miller has been criticized on multiple occasions for making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy" is WP:UNDUE for the lead because all three sources point back to Miller's defense of Trump's voter fraud claims last February. In fact, two of the sources are dated February 12, 2017—immediately following Miller's comments—and are therefore grossly insufficient to demonstrate that this single incident is of any lasting significance. The Politico article from April elaborates that "Miller also defended the president's unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the November election ... amid other combative and seemingly false statements (emphasis added)," but does not provide any other examples. Given that the voter fraud matter is amply covered in the body, the available sourcing is too weak to justify tarring Miller with this blanket statement in the lead. Volunteer Marek, can you honestly disagree?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also [18]. I'm also pretty sure that the voter fraud thing was done several times, in different contexts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, IIRC Miller made several television appearances in February, although this article only mentions his appearance on Face the Nation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on anti-Semitic and alt-right comparisons

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.

---

Question: Should we include this sentence that Miller's differentiating between the Statue of Liberty and Lazarus's poem is also done by anti-Semites and the alt-right? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Options:

• Keep the sentence
• Remove the sentence

Comments

• Remove: This sentence violates WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. It has nothing to do with Miller himself, and it gives the reader an impression that Miller might be anti-Semitic and alt-right through the association fallacy (even though Miller himself is Jewish). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Remove COATRACK BLP vio. Non-accurate description of the alt-right movement, which while rather amorphously defined, also contains many people and omovements who are not antisemitic (while also containing some that are). If we want to associate Miller with antisemitism or the alt-right we should have something stronger than a factually correct argument that was also made by other people.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

These "other people" who made this "factually correct argument" (sic) are... the alt-right and anti-semites! So you're sort of arguing against yourself there Ice. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Content that violates WP:COATRACK usually is factually correct. The issue is not the factuality of the content, it's that the content does not directly pertain to the subject and often has WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

How in the world does it not pertain to the subject?  Volunteer Marek  22:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is supposed to discuss Miller, his biography, and his views. This article generally does this, but then it essentially says "oh, by the way, these other people also say similar things as him." I don't see any sources that directly says that Miller directly got his beliefs from anti-Semites, and he does not attribute his views to them. This is kind of like making an article about myself (which is probably not going to happen anytime soon) and mentioning that I tend to be an inclusionist and then saying "oh, by the way, here's a list of other inclusionist editors." I'm not disputing that anti-Semites and "alt-right" people make the same arguments as Miller, but that is irrelevant to him -- and let's remember that Miller is a very controversial living person who currently holds a position of power. WP:BLP definitly applies, and we need to be very careful about this article, to make sure that it is neutral and that our readers also see it as neutral. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep It's explicitly brought up by the source we use so it's NOT WP:COATRACK. And it's well sourced so it's obviously not a BLP vio. Whether Miller is Jewish or not is completely irrelevant - what's relevant is that he's repeating alt-right quotes. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because The Washington Post violates WP guidelines and policy does not give us the right to do so. And how is Miller "repeating" alt-right quotes? Does the source actually say/show that Miller directly got this from someone like David Duke or the KKK, or is it guilt by association? It's pretty clear that the latter is the case, and if so, this mention shold be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I won't take a Keep or Remove position here, but may I say that I agree with Volunteer Marek on a few points. The sentence is not a violation of WP:COATRACK. All the "typical examples" given in the COATRACK piece are characterized by digressions of multiple statements or many paragraphs, or by changing the subject permanently for the remainder of the article. None of the examples given are of single, short sentences. I also agree that the matter of Miller himself being Jewish is entirely irrelevant; the passage is about what has been said, not about who people are. Cpaaoi (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Uh, unless the Washington Post is personally sitting in its living room editing Wikipedia, it is impossible for them to "violate WP guidelines". The only way that claim would make sense is if you meant "WaPo is not a reliable source". Which is probably what you're trying to insinuate but are unwilling to say explicitly because you know it's nonsense. You can always at WP:RSN if you want. Volunteer Marek  22:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I never said that WaPo got the facts wrong in this story -- I'm sure anti-Semites use the same arguments. My problem is with using this "oh, by the way" fact to imply that Miller is an "alt-right" anti-Semite on Wikipedia, using Wikivoice. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You said, quote, "Just because The Washington Post violates WP guidelines and policy...", which is a nonsensical statement. It's also wrong (going by the intent behind the statement). If you really want to question WaPo as a source, WP:RSN is over that way --> Good luck with that. And no, nothing is being said in Wikivoice that's not in the source. Nice strawmen though. Volunteer Marek  13:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many other Wikipedia guidelines and policies besides WP:RS. I wasn't referring to RS when I said that. I was mainly referring to WP:COATRACK, and also to WP:BLP to an extent. Also, about Wikivoice, I'm talking about the article subtly implying that Miller is somehow a racist anti-Semite simply because other people (with no evidence that Miller actually got his views from them) make similar arguments as him. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

One way or another you were claiming that Washington Post was violating... our policies. Which is a silly thing to say. And it's already been explained that coatrack has nothing to do with it. It looks like you tried to call the source's (WaPo's) reliability into question in a round about way, got called on that, so then backtracked and changed your stated reason to something you saw someone else say in this thread. In other words, you've desperately cast about for any excuse to justify your spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT !vote. Volunteer Marek  19:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep This is an essential point he was making, discussed in the cited source. and this is central to Miller's shtickpolitical philosophy. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. It's the main focus of the source, which specifically talks about Miller and uses it to delve into his political views. The argument that it has nothing to do with him is absurd, while the editors who say they feel it's an association fallacy, that it's an inaccurate description of what the source says, or that they don't think he can be associated with an anti-Semitic group if he's Jewish are all imposing their own WP:OR on the topic. If you think the Washington Post is wrong, send a letter to them asking them to retract it; but until they do, we have to go by what they said. We can't just omit it because people don't like (or disagree with) their conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Remove = BLP violation to insert WP:LABEL unless it is widely said of the person, and lead WP:BLP guidance "must be written conservatively". This seems just to have picked the most inflammatory commentator. That's also calling into question the WP:NPOV of the article on the out-of-sequence event description, giving such WP:WEIGHT to such an isolated case while not even mentioning the 'Miller facts were correct' reported repeatedly at places including the WP fact-checker, or the some POVs 'Miller trashes Acosta' framing of Fox et al side of the universe. It would be enough to simply say heated exchange with Acosta and cut the paragraph at the third or fourth line, dropping the detail of individual quotes and later side-remarks that are just outside opinions and not really part of the exchange or involving Miller. Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not WP:LABEL; this covers terms applied directly to the subject (e.g. "pseudo-Miller", or "Miller, a well-known Marshal of the Empire, ..."). The WP:NPOV guidelines also state in the lead section that a piece must represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". And it could be argued that it is quite significant for a person speaking at the White House to repeat favored talking points of political extremists, and could be POV to obscure this fact. WP:WEIGHT takes no account of the frequency of the subject under examination; rather, it requires "all significant viewpoints" to be considered when this subject is represented, "isolated" or not. Whether Miller is factually correct or incorrect is not the subject of this RfC WP:OFFTOPIC. Your point that "It would be enough..." is a statement, not an argument or appeal to guidelines. Please see: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many thanks! Cpaaoi (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Cpaaoi - WP:LABEL is about avoiding Value-laden labels, it's not saying to sneak them in by innuendo is OK. And look -- either it's directed to him and WP:LABEL and it's not and it's WP:OFFTOPIC -- either way it does not belong.

And if you look, WP:NPOV more completely says "representing proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Both proportionate and significant is referring to the WP:WEIGHT prominence of the view -- and Googling for 'miller facts correct' gets at 700K versus 'miller alt-right anti-semitic' at 48K. This line is way down in the minor frequency for the coverage of this exchange, it simply does not rate inclusion by it's prominence in the coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is not about avoiding value-laden labels. It is about avoiding "contentious opinion". I reject your false binary choice. It does not necessarily have to be squarely aimed at him, nor removed as irrelevant. Context may be a valid reason for inclusion. It may or may not be that other significant views have been published. That is not an argument for including or removing a point in question; rather that would be cause for discussing the inclusion or exclusion of the *other* significant views. And, to repeat, the question of whether Miller is factually correct or incorrect is WP:OFFTOPIC. Please see the WP:LISTEN guidelines. The question at hand is whether Miller's words have been seen in the context of political extremism. The given source (and I confess that I prefer The Washington Post to generic Google searches) clearly links the two, and points out that Miller's words produced further "heated" extremist commentary. Cpaaoi (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What folks said directly about Miller words, about 15 times more prominently ... versus something said about others also say ... no Nono no no no. No. My input is that this is just trying to sneak innuendo WP:LABEL in, quite a stretch, and something whose WP:WEIGHT is not significant ##s among millions of hits in various other comments. Suggest skip it, can simply say heated exchange happened, period — and if it goes to more, follow NPOV in proportion and with some from the right too. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes yes yes yes yes; You are misrepresenting WP:LABEL and WP:WEIGHT guidelines. Suggest keep it, can simply say that Miller is repeating catchphrases of hate groups; would be POV to do otherwise (yet another guideline misrepresentation by you...). Cpaaoi (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot): It's a tough call. A single source making note of a correlation is not exactly the highest possible achievement of WP:WEIGHT for a statement that is suggestive that Miller shares an affinity for the perspectives of the alt-right broadly--or at least is willing to parrot and utilize their language. And this is a BLP, afterall. The thing is, it's not per se irrelevant to discussion of the quote (which is present in the article regardless of the outcome of this RfC) that Miller co-oped a recent talking point known to have been used recently by others, which could not have happened by happenstance. Given the subject's position, it's reasonable that a certain amount of attention would result, and I think a single source may be sufficient under these circumstances to warrant inclusion. On the other hand, I can fairly well guarantee that some who have/would vote "keep" on this would otherwise vehemently oppose it if it were some other public figure without the associations that Miller has. So the question is, how much flex are we prepared to allow here, when it comes to our reading and weighting of the sources, out of consideration of context? I guess I just barely lean include on this one, but it's truly a close call. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep sourced to an impeccable and non-partisan source, that's really all that is needed. TheValeyard (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

LOL non-partisan? You're joking, right? Opinion pieces are meant to be partisan. We're not a newspaper and we're not in the political commentating business; we're an encyclopedia.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sticking "LOL" in front of every hyper-aggressive retort of yours doesn't really say much for the rest of your arguments. OpEds can be used with discretion, this being one of those times. TheValeyard (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol look, I'm gonna call a spade a spade. I get that some of y'all got an axe to grind, a POV to push, and a personal distaste for Stephen Miller, but let's stick to building a comprehensive encyclopedia while we're here. You're free to share your political commentary on your own social media. Heck, you can even start your own blog while you're at it. It's a free country. Many political commentators posit that Obama's 2012 slogan "Forward!" was a homage/wink-wink-nod-nod to communism and Mao Tse-tung's Great Leap Forward [19][20][21] [22]. These are all opinion pieces that contained the same association fallacy you're trying to inject into Miller's article. Either get rid of all or get rid of none. You can't have it both ways. Stop trying to push your own political bias down Wikipedia's throats. This project is bigger and more sacred than any editor and we don't want to lose credibility over something as straightforward, clear-cut, and asinine as this.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol look..., that's where people stop reading. TheValeyard (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL people? Seems like someone has multiple personality disorder. Consensus is overwhelmingly on our side, so you better get used to it. Everything you wrote is nonsensical hogwash and pathetic wikilawyering. Please read WP:DICK for your own benefit.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're frustrated over your complete inability to do anything about it, "gangsta", but my vote stands. Also, it looks like you tried to call me a dick (which in itself seems to violation of the project's personal attacking/harassment policy), but instead linked to some overly-politically correct "Don't be a jerk" essay. It helps to look before you leap. TheValeyard (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, now Mr.Certified Gangsta has gone from being just rude with his infantile (nice username btw) little "lols" to making WP:NPA by accusing other editors of having "multiple personality disorder". Thanks for illustrating why your !vote should be appropriately discounted. Anyway, this isn't even an op-ed. It's from "Morning News". Volunteer Marek  13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. This appears to be an un-encyclopedic insinuation. If it remains, at least indicate clearly that it is presented as evidence (hopefully among other stronger pieces of evidence) of the subject's antisemitism. At present it seems very passive-aggressive.--Rpclod (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I barely understand what the sentence means, That's a poem and that's a statue ? and can only assume that what is implied is that the two have different 'significances' and that one can endorse one, while rejecting the other. This is very thin ice on which to build a criticism, when anyone not knowing the significance of the distinction (including all non-US?) is not going to understand the accusation even, let alone whether it is fair or whatever. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Not really sure about the sentence in question, but the whole paragraph is very undue and difficult to parse. Is there a need for so many quotes? I hate our obsession with including every detail in horrible to read counter quote form when we should be able to sum up the main points succinctly with one or two part quotes. AIRcorn (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove. WP:COATRACK with an agenda to lead readers by the hand towarding reaching what would end up being a synthesized conclusion, which then leads us to a WP:BLPVIO. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove and shorten this & the preceding paragraph, as out-of-balance. Those interested in this person will want to know about his main deeds in his current political position, not a blow-by-blow account of these "heated exchanges", with voice-over commentary: Noyster (talk), 14:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It is important in context to explain that he is using the language of neo-Nazis and the alt-right, which was his entire point in using it. The sentence is sourced impeccably, and is therefore not WP:OR, and not a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Typical association fallacy. And the source is an opinion piece and the whole point of opinion pieces is to have a partisan angle.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove: (Summoned by bot) The sentence is a weak attempt at an association fallacy, it's too feeble to include unless a clearer and more frequently made criticism can be articulated. Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and Aquillion. Editors shouldn't be second-guessing RS like The Washington Post.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

LOL if you don't think WaPo is a partisan news source (especially the op-eds), I got a bridge to sell you. Are we gonna start citing National Review and The American Spectator next? How about Breitbart? Wikipedia also isn't a newspaper, so it doesn't really matter what your opinion of WaPo and Jeff Bezos is..--Certified Gangsta (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually at least National Review would be reliable in many cases. But thats the difference - there's huge gulf between outlets such as WaPo and even National Review and garbage like Breitbart. Volunteer Marek  03:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• RemoveWikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because you cited a partisan news source that tried to link them together doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as "partisan" source on Wikipedia. Either reliable or not. And this one is reliable. Volunteer Marek  03:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the discussion. The reason why the sentence should be removed is because it violates WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. The fact that WaPo is a reliable source is irrelevant. There are many reliable sources that show George Washington owned slaves -- but it is inappropriate to mention this in the article about Washington state. The WaPo article does not state or imply any connection between Stephen Miller and the anti-Semites (nothing says that Miller was influenced by or got his views from these people), other than through the association fallacy. These are two unrelated facts of two different people/groups that happen to say the same thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. You can frankly find any spin you want to find from so-called "reliable sources", especially when it's merely an opinion piece.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your statement suggests that you do not agree with nor plan to respect Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. In that case, perhaps you should consider an alternative venue for your contributions, since WP:NOTHERE would apply. By referring to the Washington Post as "so-called "reliable source"" (sic) you are suggesting, twice (once with the absurd "so-called" and then again by putting it in scare quotes), that is not a reliable source. That's of course plain bunk, though you are welcome to try and convince others of that at WP:RSN. Second, you are falsely claiming that the source for the statement is an op-ed. It's not ([23]). So please stop making shit up just to justify your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT vote. Volunteer Marek  13:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove This is a WP:BLP, and an association fallacy is inappropriate for this article. This sentence also is a COATRACK that has nothing to do with Miller. The fact that racists probably say similar things to what he says is irrelevant to the article, and nowhere does this article or the WaPo article say that Miller got his views from these people. The sentence sounds like an attempt to subtly accuse Miller of being racist and anti-Semite himself even though he is Jewish. Just because this irrelevant fact came from Wapo means nothing, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, as Certified Gangsta pointed out.Knox490 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! You can find many quotes of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and black nationalist Louis Farrakhan praising Barack Obama from 2008 and 2009 from reliable sources [24] [25] [26] and even more questionable characters applauding his Cairo speech A New Beginning. It doesn't mean these contents are encyclopedia and belong on Obama's Wikipedia entry. This should be common sense.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - Summoned by bot. As noted above, this is WP:COATRACK and not suitable for a BLP as it is not directly related to Miller. By including, we are comparing Miller to anti-Semites and the alt-right. Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove - seems trying to sneak in a WP:LABEL, and a long stretch to do so. Unless its speaking about him or his life this is also just WP:OFFTOPIC. Besides, anti-semitic seems a ridiculous innuendo to try when Early life starts "Miller grew up in a liberal-leaning Jewish family". Finally, to match WP:BLPguidance to write conservatively it would be enough to simply mention a heated exchange with Acosta, if is significant to his life, going for the speculative is neither useul not in keeping with the guidance. Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You've !voted twice. Please strike one of your !votes. Volunteer Marek  13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and struck-through the "remove", and left the comment intact, that seems fair. ValarianB (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I see it now and will strike it here, maybe put some more up above. Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - It is a straightforward BLP violation as I said two months ago. It is a testament to broken processes and the persistence of a motivated few that it has remained so long. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Aquillon and others. A reliable source, the Washington Post, has made the comparison, Wikipedia editors are not using something unrelated to the subject as the basis of a criticism if it is actually in the source. Requests for comments are hopefully about the substance of the argument and not a simple headcount. Any calls for removal based on a "coatrack" argument should be discounted. Any calls for removal based on "WaPost is biased" should be discarded as frivolous until the person can make a successful case for WaPo's discrediting at WP:RSN. ValarianB (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - well sourced, pertinent and perfectly valid. The oppose votes boil down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And no, it's not a BLP violation if it's well sourced, however much it hurts your feelings. Volunteer Marek  13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek -- You've !already voted at 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC). Please strike one of your !votes. (Thanks, your oopsing too made me feel better about my oops.) Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and struck the !vote (but like with Markbassett's comment, not the content). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, "IJUSTDONTLIKEIT" has nothing to do with my reasoning. This article is a BLP of a very controversial political figure who currently is in power (meaning that, in general, we should be extra careful making sure this article has a NPOV), and I (and others) believe this sentence violates WP:COATRACK and implies that Miller is racist and anti-Semitic. Simply saying similar arguments (especially on a topic as random as the architectural history of the Statue of Liberty) as anti-Semites does not make one an alt-right anti-Semite. Better sources are needed. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep -- properly sourced to an excellent well-supported, well-crafted article. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Remove - Let's not editorialize. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep No, let's not editorialize; let's let the editors of the given sources do that for us, and let us describe it here. Having now looked at the quality of the arguments against inclusion, I can see little to justify the exclusion of this brief and well-sourced point which also has the virtues of notability and of offering context consistent with what is generally evident from Miller's biography, and the Trump administration, and the flavor of 2017 US politics in general. Had Miller's discussion from the lectern been notable for a fierce debating point about Churchill's suspicion of Russian Communism, and had the news sources also picked up on this and conveyed that fact to their readership, it would be valid to note it here, and I doubt anybody would have raised an eyebrow. Given that Miller was repeating a classic and tired old saw from the wing-nut extremist peanut gallery, and that this was accurately described, with context, by a reliable source, there is but feeble justification for excluding this on grounds of slander or irrelevance. If a person repeats obviously unpleasant things said by obviously unpleasant people, it can hardly be surprising if a later description of that speech is obviously - displeasing. Cpaaoi (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The source never said that Miller was repeating (consciously adopting their arguments, knowing that it came from them). It simply says that Miller happened to say similar things to alt-right and anti-Semite people. Saying that Miller got his arguments from those people violates WP:COATRACK (and let's remember that this is a BLP of arguably the most controversial American political figure today), and that these ideas are prevalent among anti-Semites/etc. does not count as acceptable evidence for WP. Since his statement is factually accurate, it is reasonable for someone who clearly is not a racist/etc. to use it as an argument. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"use it as an argument"? Really? Is there some argument about the Statue of Liberty? I thought it was pretty stable. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please -- I don't want to argue about the Statue of Liberty (we can let Miller and Acosta do that for us :) ). My point is, without a reliable source stating that Miller (one of the most controversial current political person alive) actually got his arguments from racists and anti-Semites, we should not make subtle implications that he did. He may or may not have, but saying "Miller says this. Oh, by the way, these other people say the same thing" violates COATRACK, BLP, and NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's you stay on topic. RS discussion of this bizarre line of banter from Miller tells us the connection. And in case I was too oblique above, it's not as if he had any other reason to discuss the Statue of Liberty and then some WP editor made the SYNTH connection with anti-semites. Anyway, he's not a politician, so I think calling him "political" is not helpful. He's just one of thousands of staffers. I think you may be misapplying COATRACK, which has to do with irrelevant content that RS do not say is connected. In Miller's case, RS tell us this is apparently what they call a dog-whistle meme of some group of ideologues. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove because this article is a BLP of a really controversial person. We should not connect him (who is a Jew himself) to anti-Semites unless an RS clearly supported that. If we include this COATRACK phrase, we could also add the similarities between statements by communists and more mainstream liberal politicians, as User:Certified Gangsta somewhat mentioned above. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The RS *does* clearly support the article text. As for the asinine analogy with "liberals and communists", we could only add statements on "similarities" between communists and mainstream liberal politicians if there were reliable sources to that effect. In fact, we would need to. But guess what? There is no such sources. So this is a ridiculous comparison. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Remove: clear breach of COATRACK. Cjhard (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not. If you genuinely believe it is, rather than just repeating what someone else erroneously said somewhere to justify the IJUSTDONTLIKEIT !vote, then please explain, clearly, how it's a COATRACK when the source explicitly makes the connection. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not breach of COATRACK, clear or otherwise. Indeed, there can be no such thing as an 'unclear' COATRACK violation, for the reason that COATRACKING is an obvious and unfettered drowning of one subject with another subject - like a well-stocked coatrack hidden under coats. And it is not 'clear' that this is obscuring the subject with other material, but an entirely relevant and sourced point directly concerning the material at hand. Cpaaoi (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Another author at the Post has now explicitly linked Miller's vocabulary directly to extremisms including anti-Semitic Stalinism. Far from the claims above that this page is being 'burdened' with extraneous material, I propose that the context is already too thin as it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/bolshevism-then-and-now/2017/11/06/830aecaa-bf41-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ff991951184b

• Keep in some form; this has been a persistent line of criticism for this very public figure and proper weight does require us to mention it in context. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 7 November 2017 (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.

David Horowitz References

• FrontPage Magazine - Steve Miller
• Rosalind S. Helderman (February 11, 2017). "Stephen Miller: A key engineer for Trump's 'America first' agenda". Washington Post.
• Lisa Mascaro (January 17, 2017). "How a liberal Santa Monica high school produced a top Trump advisor and speechwriter". LA Times.

64.175.41.41 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Larry Elder References

• http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542867067/trump-aide-stephen-millers-combative-style-goes-back-to-high-school
• http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-speechwriter-santamonica-20170117-story.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/us/politics/stephen-miller-trump-white-house.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-a-key-engineer-for-trumps-america-first-agenda/2017/02/11/a70cb3f0-e809-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20171010053253/https:/twitter.com/mollylambert/status/831410123528507393/photo/1
• https://web.archive.org/web/20171010051719/https://twitter.com/clarajeffery/status/892827664536420352
• http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/exclusive-the-high-school-speech-by-stephen-miller-that-offended-students-and-got-him-thrown-off-stage

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni6OpZN6IqU

64.175.41.41 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Policy Council discussion

Editors here might find this discussion to be of interest. Please comment there if you have anything to add: Talk:United States Domestic Policy Council#Stephen Miller as director? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NOTNEWS, UNDUE, others apply

To this diff. I do not think it belongs in the article. The Cuomo interview was a brief blip in the news cycle. User:Volunteer Marek please reconsider your revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

his is what Miller is known for, being a dishonest cheerleader for the Trump administration, as numerous sources have noted. TheValeyard (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What does Cuomo have to do with this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - meant the Tapper bit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Blip? blip blip blip... It's central to Miller's professional role. When it blips and blips same way repeatedly we don't call it a blip. Definitely belongs in the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right"

I have reverted James J. Lambden's removal of the phrase "far-right" from the lede of this biography. A wide array of high-quality reliable sources describe him as coming from the far-right of the political spectrum, including The New York Times (The ascent of Mr. Miller from far-right gadfly with little policy experience to the president’s senior policy adviser came as a shock to many of the staff members who knew him from his seven years in the Senate), Bloomberg News (Miller was well known for publicly advocating far-right policies on immigration), etc. There is no BLP issue here, given the quality of the sources, so it's rather a matter of deciding whether the qualifier belongs there; given the sources, I think it does. But I'm open to discovering that there's consensus otherwise, and if that consensus is that it should be removed, we should remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion there is universal agreement among sources that he is far-right (if he isn't, then who is?). Notably, he was described specifically as a far-right figure by Michael Wolff in the book on the Trump White House; Wolff writes: Miller, a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body. Except, other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller’s views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone. Miller's views differ very strongly from what is traditionally considered conservatism in the United States and the western world—for example in his hatred of NATO (a position traditionally mainly found on the hard left in the US, quite unsurprisingly since it primarily serves Russia's interests, although in recent years some extreme-right elements have embraced what used to be considered pro-communist/pro-Soviet/pro-Russian views)—so there is clearly a need to distinguish him from traditional conservatives who support western values and who oppose communism/the Soviet Union/Putin's Russia. --Tataral (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that Putin is no left-wing communist, but a right-wing, autocratic, kleptocratic nationalist, which explains why the far right love him.[27] -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Putin, the former KGB agent who regards the downfall of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy in modern history, is essentially both pro-Soviet and far-right at the same time, and deeply anti-western and anti-American. He has certainly abandoned many aspects of communism as it was traditionally understood, but his political worldview is still fundamentally based on being pro-Soviet, and he presides over a regime that engages in extensive pro-Soviet historical revisionism and that hero worships Stalin to an even greater extent than the Soviet Union did itself after around 1960. In any event, the views held by Putin are incompatible with what is regarded as conservatism in the western world, and people who work on behalf of Putin primarily work against the western world, and they also work against everything the Republican Party proclaimed to stand for and identified as its core values, at least prior to Trump. --Tataral (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh stop. These are value labels that are not encyclopedic nor universal. That the discussion has devolved to making claims that Putin is right wing, its clear the decision for the label is not about accuracy but association. "Far-right" offers no insight at all over "right" and serves to inject an opinion that his views are on the edge. That's always a matter of perspective that varies from source to source, country to country. It's very easy and a rather intellectually shallow exercise to portray mainstream elected and appointed officials as "far-X". Save the extreme labels for members of extreme organizations, not simply just in the party that has an opposition party. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

" "Far-right" offers no insight at all over "right"" - that's a obviously ridiculous assertion. I myself, and many others, as well as multiple sources, do apparently find it "insightful" to distinguish between "far right" and "right". It's just as insightful as including the fact that a dog is a Canis and not just a mammal. Indeed, if it wasn't insightful, you wouldn't be here objecting to it so strenuously. And while your opinion of who is and who is not "mainstream" is noted, we actually rely on reliable sources for our articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Take it up with the mainstream reliable sources cited. You seem to be objecting to the way reliable sources depict Miller; we can't fix that problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Mainstream reliable" ACCORDING TO YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.237.195 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The "mainstream" sources listed are all left wing associated and have an overall political agenda of labeling certain right wing parties as being on the fringe or extreme and thus using the term "far-right" but there is no indication of actual far-right ideology with regards to Stephen Miller except the aforementioned name calling. "Take it up with mainstream...we can't fix that problem" yes we actually can fix it by being more selective in what is cited. Why cite something that is proven to be heavily liberal and not anything on the other side. The responsible thing to do is to use facts and not subjective opinions. Distinguishing should be made when there is actual evidence to support such claims but I do not see it here. "Far-right activist" needs to go. (Dgarza42 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC))

Doesn't matter if you agree with a 1-line screaming text from an IP user or not, the Wikipedia has policies on sourcing, verification, and reliability of the sourcing. The citations noted for Miller's far-right beliefs are more than sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me repeat something I noted elsewhere. The term "far right" is a common term of art for what is mostly described in the literature as the populist radical right. It differs from right-wing and conservative in its emphasis on authoritarianism, nativism and anti-immigration policies. I dug up a couple of examples several days ago to illustrate the point:

• Cas Mudd, ed. (2017). "Introduction to the populist radical right". The Populist Radical Right: A reader. Routledge. ISBN 9781315514574. (The populist radical right shares a core ideology that combines (at least) three features: nativism, authoritarianism, and populism (Mudde 2007)... In Europe the nativism of the populist radical right has mainly targeted 'immigrants')
• Mudde, Cas. "The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties:Towards a Fourth Wave" (PDF). C-REX Working Paper Series,. 2016 (1): 1. Retrieved 2024-05-16. (Since the start of the third wave of populist radical right politics in postwar Europe in the early 1980s, more articles and books have been written on far right parties than on all other party families combined.){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

These happen to be by the same author but there are lots of examples out there of the terms being effectively synonymous per the usage in the second quote. The point being that the term far right does not mean 'more right' or 'more conservative' it is used, specifically, to denote views and parties which are anti-immigrant, populist and authoritarian. A far right party may or may not stress religion, 'family values' to the extent of the traditional American right and it certainly does not encompass the free trade policies of conservatives. It is a distinct area of the ideological spectrum, the populist radical right, and labeling a person with far right views as simply right-wing or conservative is simply incorrect and inaccurate on its face.

It is not a derogatory term. It is a simple adjective describing a common, distinct, set of policies and values. Others may see the label as derogatory because they see the values of the far right repugnant but, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is no different from saying someone is a Family Values Christian. Their views are undoubtedly repugnant to a large group of people but it is not controversial to say someone holds those values nor do the people so labeled typically object to being called such. Just as Miller has not, to my knowledge, objected to being called far right. His views are what they are and the proper term for them is far right. Jbh ^Talk 15:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Miller appearance on Tapper show

DHeyward removed, among other things, an extensively-sourced discussion of an appearance by Miller on CNN which was extensively commented upon in reliable sources. I feel like the section should be trimmed for concision and WP:NOTNEWS (avoiding extensive quotes, for one), but I'm opposed to removing it entirely; there's too much "there" there, to not justify some mention of the incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Lazarus comments

Since the RFC closed with no consensus and the closer suggested various ways forwards, I dug for more sources a bit. After reviewing them, I think that it's clear that first, there's definitely more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:RS and WP:DUE for a sentence or so noting that the argument appears to come from the far-right / alt-right; however, while the antisemitism of the people the argument is popular among are mentioned in multiple sources, the main thrust of the coverage seems to be that it's a popular white supremacist talking point, rather than focusing on the fact that they're anti-Semitic. This addresses all the issues mentioned in the RFC closure (there are many more sources for that formulation, and it avoids indirectly implying that Miller himself is anti-Semitic - it does associate his arguments with white supremacists, but I think that that is well-sourced enough to stand.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Miller has been criticized on multiple occasions for making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy"

"Miller has been criticized on multiple occasions for making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy"

This line ought to be excised entirely. Are we going to start putting this into the introduction of practically every politician or public servant? (28/01/2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.47.245 (talk)

If multiple reliable sources cover that angle, yes. Miller in particular has become well-known for lying in interviews. TheValeyard (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources would say the same of any politician, its a totally irrelevant bit of information to have in the introduction. Seeing as this is rarely done on the rest of wikipedia, it gives off the image of anti-right bias. Shouldnt we strive to be objective here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.47.245 (talk)

No RS do not say that of all politicians. Anyone for whom that's a widespread oft-repeated observation would also have it cited in the article and possibly the lede. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But it isn't totally irrelevant because it has been reported by multiple reliable sources and just because it may or may not apply to other politicians isn't a reason to change it here. If you can give good cause that it shouldn't be lead then show that and consensus can be applied, until then it is relevant to the article. NZFC^(talk) 02:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It should probably say "Miller is renowned for making false or unsubstantiated claims regarding public policy." And also mention his unwavering loyalty to Trump. zzz (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, then you are just adding stuff that isn't in the sources and would be undue weighted. The sentence is fine as it is. NZFC^(talk) 02:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are right, that would be SYNTH. I'll see if I can find a source. zzz (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you guys honestly going to tell me with a straight face that this treatment is equally applied to Left wing politicians? Hate to get partisan, but just at the Hillary Clinton page. One of the most dishonest politicians by any measure (including "RS"), well known for consistently making false public statements. Why is not sufficient to just have Miller's sub-par honesty record in a subsection?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.47.245 (talk)

First, please remember to sign your posts using four ~. Second, you are arguing other stuff exists (or in this case doesn't. If that is the case and you can show it with multiple reliable sources, take it to the Hillary Clinton talk page to discuss it there and get it added. It doesn't change the fact that it should be here also. NZFC^(talk) 03:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, if you go here you will see there is already a discussion that you can be part of on adding stuff to her lead. NZFC^(talk) 03:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias", as they say. Not all criticism is equal; criticism of Miller centers on his demonstrable falsehoods regarding illegal immigrants and voter fraud and his dalliances with white supremacist rhetoric. This is not at all comparable with criticism of Hillary Clinton, which is generally centers on straightforward political disagreement. TheValeyard (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Describing Miller as "far right" in wikipedia's voice in the lead sentence of this article goes against Wikipedia's implementation of WP:LABEL & WP:NPOV in other biographies of contentious figures. Just compare the lead sentences and leads of the following:

• John McDonnell who has said his "most significant" intellectual influences are "Marx, Lenin and Trotsky"
• Senator Lee Rhiannon - multiple decades of pro-USSR activism, today she and her faction of the Australian Greens are regularly described by RSs as far/hard left 
• Jeremy Corbyn 
• Jean-Luc Mélenchon actually *is* called “left-wing” in lead sentence (but even he doesn't rate "far left".)

I'm not going to clog up this page with links, just google any of these guys + far or hard left. There're tonnes more RS descriptions of the people above as "far left" than there are for Miller as "far right", but the wikipedia consensus has been to demand a rather high bar for this sort of label.

• Even an anodyne label like “left-leaning” or "progressive” is not used for the Southern Poverty Law Center anywhere in the article. See Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence 

In any case, look at the sourcing given for Miller as "far right". Salon(!); Michael Wolff the muckraking journalist (how is he an RS for placing people on the political spectrum anyway?) whose book has been generally panned for retailing dubious gossip - see the article Fire_and_Fury, which doesn't even mention this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nikki-haley-trump-rumors/552080/ NPalgan2 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

First we don't apply other stuff exists and based each article on its own merits, then secondly you can argue a couple of the sources aren't reliable but NY Times, MSNBC and Business Insider are all sources as saying Miller is far-right. NZFC^(talk) 22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Salon is not RS for calling someone far right. I wouldn't use Michael Wolff for making claims in Wikipedia's voice. That leaves three sources -nyt, msn, BI. WP:LABEL says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" Three sources calling Miller far right is enough to say that this label is "widely used", but far, far more for the figures I linked is somehow not enough? This is a matter of consistency and neutrality across articles. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And as a reminder WP:OSE says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." NPalgan2 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you are applying WP:LABEL wrong as calling someone far-right isn't the same as calling them racist or a terrorist. And if you do want to compare to other article, just have a look at Radical right (United States) article and click on people in the infobox and see how many of the former and current politicians are labelled far-right also. NZFC^(talk) 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

1) You're seriously arguing "far right" is not a "contentious label"? 2) WP:LABEL Words to watch: ... extremist 3) LABEL applies not just to stuff like "neo-Nazi", but to calling, say, the ACLU progressive. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

4 (you're way off-base dismissing Salon) sources is sufficient to note that the subject is considered far-right. This is a perennial topic on this talk page, so feel free to review those past discussions before belaboring the point yet again. TheValeyard (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that anybody would consider it controversial to label Miller "far-right". SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Would we use a conservative outlet widely considered an embarrassment by conservatives to label someone as "far left" in wikipedia's voice?https://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551 "in liberal intellectual and media circles it is widely believed that [Salon] has lost its way.... Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told POLITICO. “... They’ve become — and I think this is sad — they’ve definitely become like a joke, which is terrible for people who care about these progressive institutions.” “Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore,” wrote Laura Miller, one of Salon’s founding editors who left the site for Slate last fall. “The name is still being used, but the real Salon is gone.” NPalgan2 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing Salon. I think "right-wing" or "far-right" are pretty much all over the place. Such as would be found in a search engine result. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about "far-right" as you know perfectly well. If Miller is widely described as far-right by reliable sources used for making statements in Wikipedia's voice then there's no need for Salon and Michael Wolff. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Salon, but Michael Wolff is actually used further down in the article, so I have no problem with it also being referenced in the lead.

We shouldn't use him anywhere in the article. http://www.businessinsider.com/accuracy-of-michael-wolffs-new-trump-book-in-question-2018-1 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/michael-wolff-fire-fury-credibility-325399 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/07/michael-wolffs-fire-and-fury-some-of-the-facts-just-dont-stack-up.html https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/michael-wolffs-alternative-facts https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-wolffs-book-should-be-met-with-skepticism-riddled-with-errors-and-rumors/ NPalgan2 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone going to defend having Wolff in the article? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Give us some time, people have a life outside of Wikipedia. As for Wolff, I'm happy for him not to be used as a reference in the far-right comment however I do believe he should still be in the article as what he has said has gain significant coverage. Instead as what he has said has been disputed, what should happen is his comments should stay along with other references as above saying that others believe his comments aren't valid. NZFC^(talk) 15:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Wolff being criticized for accuracy in one area does not automatically invalidate a reliable source that quotes him in another. That's about as classic a logical fallacy as one can find around here. ValarianB (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's right. I have seen Wolff criticized for exaggeration by alleged embellishment of dialogue or juxtaposition of unrelated incidents. But the far-right label on Miller is well established and it's not an original conclusion of Wolff's. Miller has apparently been viewed that way since his college days, and there are plenty of other sources for the far-right tag. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ValerianB, what "reliable source that quotes him"? The quote NZFC is talking about comes directly from Wolff pp.64. Specifico, that's the second time you've said that "plenty of other sources for the far-right tag". Again, how about citing them here? NPalgan2 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

NPalgan2 while it maybe could be agreed to take it out as a source for far-right, the fact that it agrees with other sources means it doesn't need to be. As said above, you shouldn't take out the paragraph but instead expand on it with your sources disputing it. NZFC^(talk) 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"the fact that it agrees with other sources means it doesn't need to be."?!?!? Please read WP:QUESTIONABLE "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." A non-exhaustive sample of some of the things reputable journalists have said about Wolff: "dubiously sourced » "getting eviscerated over its accuracy « »reporting methods that have come under scrutiny « » riddled with errors and rumors" "suggests a reportorial sloppiness that cannot be wished away or ignored" "Wolff is not merely out of his depth—he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology—" NPalgan2 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, ignoring the fact that you can take out the claim of far-right, why did you take out his paragraph as well? It is public information that should be mention on the article, if others disagree with it then you write that also. Not remove everything because some others say it is questionable. Others don't think it is and it is valid to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZ Footballs Conscience (talk • contribs)

I think your fixation, borderline obsession, with Wolff is becoming disruptive. There are 5 citations for "far-right", that is sufficient, and I think this should be wrapped up before your returning every few days to edit against consensus on an article subject to discretionary sanctions becomes actionable. ValarianB (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"It is public information that should be mention on the article." Sigh. WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." NPalgan2 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

So that doesn't mean it needs to be taken out completely, I see you have been on the Fire and Fury page as well "Reviewers generally accepted Wolff's portrait of a dysfunctional Trump administration, but were sceptical of many of the book's most controversial claims." Unless you can find something that says what he said about Stephen Miller is wrong, then it should stay. Many reviewers have agreed that he paints a picture of what was going on in the White House, so here he is painting a picture of Miller. In fact what he has said seems to be his own picture of what he saw rather than anything overally controversial. Instead of taking it out add something that says others disagree. NZFC^(talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: NPalgan2 has opened a thread about this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Salon and Michael Wolff reliable sources for calling someone "far-right" in Wikipedia's voice?. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC).

The MSN link is an exact duplicate of the BI piece (it's just been made into a video). It should be removed (we don't cite a press agency article separately in the dozens of papers it may have been republished in.) NPalgan2 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC about calling Stephen Miller far-right in lead sentence

Should Miller be called far-right in Wikipedia’s voice, in the lead sentence or otherwise? NPalgan2 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:!VOTE

• No I'm going to quote admin User: Cenarium's ruling in Talk:Fidel_Castro/Archive_17#Request_for_Comment (with minor alterations) "First off, the following principles are supported by broad community consensus: we should seek WP:verifiability rather than trying to impose one's subjective truth, WP:NPOV mandates that no undue weight should be given to a subset of views (even if reliably sourced), and the opening sentence requires the highest level of consensus (short of the title). Hence, when sources coming from a particular [political outlook] seem biased toward a certain view, it is necessary to analyze the reliable sources on [another] level ... in order to describe [Miller as far-right] in the opening sentence, we would need this descriptor applied uniformly and unequivocally across ... reliable sources." Note also Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence which was closed using similar arguments, and WP:LABEL: contentious labels should not be used unless "widely used by reliable sources".

There are four sources currently given for calling Miller - a prominent figure in the Trump admin who has received a great deal of media coverage - "far-right":

1. Business Insider: "he has been a rising star on the far right for years" "How a 32-year-old far-right darling became the man who writes Trump's biggest speeches — including the State of the Union". Business Insider.
2. NYT: "the ascent of Mr. Miller from far-right gadfly" Thrush, Glenn; Steinhauer, Jennifer (11 February 2017). "Stephen Miller Is a 'True Believer' Behind Core Trump Policies". The New York Times.
3. Salon: "Miller's far-right views, specifically on immigration, are well-known" "Lindsey Graham slams Stephen Miller, says "White House staff has been pretty unreliable"". Salon. 21 January 2018. Salon is not suitable for making statements in Wikipedia's voice. WP:BIASED "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."" If we wouldn't call someone a sexist in Wikipedia's voice based on Betty Friedan, we shouldn't be calling someone far-right in Wikipedia's voice based on Salon. In any case I'd question the WP:WEIGHT that we should assign a source that is no longer well-regarded even on the left.
4. Michael Wolff: "other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone." Wolff, Michael (2018). Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Henry Holt and Co. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1250158062. It's completely undue to have Wolff calling a WP:BLP far-right (and incompetent) anywhere in the article at all given Wolff's multi-decade reputation for shoddy journalism. See Michael Wolff, Fire_and_Fury#Reviews and Fire_and_Fury#Nikki_Haley_controversy. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."

So there are two RSs - NYT, BI - that have described Miller as far-right. OTOH there are lots of RSs that don't apply any such label at all e.g. this profile in WashPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-immigration-agitator-and-white-house-survivor/2018/01/21/7a1f7778-fcae-11e7-b832-8c26844b74fb_story.html or here https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/government-shutdown-immigration-graham-miller-354747 where he is "a pugnacious conservative". NPalgan2 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• No. "far right" is mostly used as a pejorative WP:LABEL by opponents, and not as a factual representation. Miller has not self-stated he is "far-right", nor does it seem that he is described as such by most sources. Some of the sources presented above also do not make the assertion (e.g. being liked by the "far right" does necessarily not make one "far right"). If you Fox referring to someone as far-right, or conversely Salon referring to someone as "far left" (and not the other way around) - then you know that the label is universally accepted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. NYT, BI, and Bloomberg[28]) identify him as far-right. Cas Mudde, who is a leading expert on far-right populism, identifies Stephen Miller as "far-right". I don't have access to Mudde's recent book for Routledge, The Far Right in America, but this op-ed for The Guardian, he describes Miller as far-right[29]. Michael Wolff and Salon should not be used to source this claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per numerous sources that describe the subject as such, as provided above and in the previous discussion. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Numerous RS label him as such. Whether he is or not is irrelevant. We document what RS say and attribute the label. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is utterly uncontroversial, widely used in diverse RS, and can only be denied apparently by elaborate equivocation, obfuscation, and deflection. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per preponderance of reliable sources and WP:SPADE ie he is what he is. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No - whether Right or Left, political labels should ALWAYS be attributed to those who apply them, and not stated in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Like "A, B, C....W, X, Y and Z state that Stephen Miller is a Conservative"? - that would make for some pretty awkward text. And of course we could never list all the voices to attribute. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to attribute to EVERY source that uses a political label, however a representative sample can be selected and they can be attributed. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And ideally using the "highest quality" sources as the representative. The NYTimes applying a label has much more weight than, say, SFPost. --Masem (t) 01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well now you seem to be conceding that there's some sample that is sufficient and that there's some sample size that's redundant. Once we stipulate that, it implies that an overwhelming sample is sufficient simply to state it in WP's voice, just as we state hundreds of other attributes in WP's voice when they are obvious, uncontroversial, and widely documented. Do you have any sources that state Miller is not "far right"/"right wing"/"alt-right" and take issue with such a characterization? SPECIFICO talk 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative, and I don't see anything immediately from Miller himself to say either way. Labels always need some type of in-text attribution since they cannot be proven as fact. That someone is widely considered a label is a fact though. --Masem (t) 14:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, this is the second time you've raised that straw man. Asking you to provide a single source stating Miller is not X is not "proving a negative" it makes it look like you can't follow through to substantiate your position. I'm asking you not to "prove" anything, just to provide a single instance of what you claim. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that no sources exist does not mean that there is no entity that disagrees with the "far right" label; they may simply have decided not to talk about it or address it (a "don't feed the trolls" type approach). If this were the case, then unless I ask all 7 billion people on the planet personally, there's no way to demonstrate opposition to the "far right" label. It is not appropriate for us editors to presume the lack of any opinion counter to the "far right" label means that the label is uncontested and thus can be treated as fact. (It's the same argument used elsewhere here "Oh, no one within our RSes disputes this, so therefore it must be true") We can certainly say that "some/many/most" consider the label appropriate, and that's a factual statement particularly if that's coming from NYTimes and other high-quality RSes. --Masem (t) 15:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would add one thing to the above, in that we are talking a contentious label in general ("far right"). If we were talking something far less contentious, say "conservative" or "right-leaning", then one might be able to get away with saying that in WP's voice, with all other factors the same, though I would still think we would prefer to make sure some type of attribution is used. Even when we are talking something positive about a person, we'd still be careful to not state that as a fact, but use attribution for it, that it is a fact many source think this positive term applies. But with something that is contentious, we better be extremely careful to avoid saying that in WP's voice. --Masem (t) 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "contentious" if only a handful of Wikipedia editors (and no published source) dispute it. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. That is more than sufficient reliable sources to use that descriptor, and I'm always of the opinion that a politician's ideology should be right up front in an article as long as there's no dispute among the sources and the ideology can be summed up in a word or two. Essentialy this boils down to Jbhunley, i.e. call a spade a spade. The contention that such descriptors require in-text attribution is directly contrary to our neutrality policy (specifically, WP:YESPOV - do not present verifiable facts as opinions). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk)
• Yes. Widely used by numerous reputable sources, and I don't feel there's actually anything contradicting it or indicating that it's controversial. To me, the argument that it's inherently a pejorative label doesn't hold water - it's a term used by academics to describe political positions. If Miller seemed to directly dispute it or otherwise reject it, we might have to be more cautious (or at least note his objection, if it's well-sourced), and if it were only used by a few sources with a clear point-of-view I could understand attributing it and keeping it out of the lead; but it's used as a neutral descriptor by a huge number of mainstream publications, with no indication that it is controversial or disputed. Therefore, we have to reflect that characterization here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, Aquillion, but many RSs (NYT, Washington Post, The Guardian, etc), have described the Southern Poverty Law Center as progressive and neither the SPLC or any RS has ever pushed back and indicated it's "controversial or disputed". But on that talk page you take the position that we shouldn’t call the SPLC progressive. (In Miller’s case, there’re the RSs listed at bottom who call Miller conservative. They could have called him far-right but chose not to. Don’t these sources deserve WP:WEIGHT too? And RSs have published op-eds by well known conservatives defending Miller https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/02/immigration-stephen-miller-jim-acosta-trump-215451 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/immigration-stephen-miller.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/03/stephen-miller-a-thinking-persons-donald-trump/?utm_term=.417691999cf2 ) I’m fine with whatever bar the community decides on for these sort of labels, but can we talk about whether it’s being implemented consistently? NPalgan2 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - As per my discussion above and here I've made my position quite clear. Though there is only five sources attached currently in this article, there are many more reliable sources that state Miller is far-right and has been since University. NZFC^(talk) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No (Coming from RS/N). "Far right" is a subjective term/label and regardless of how many RSes use it, it still is a subjective term. The only aspect that should come from so many RSes calling him far right is that per WEIGHT, we need to describe that he is seen as far right by some/many journalists and any controversies related to that, as outlined per WP:YESPOV. This assumes that Miller has not himself called himself far-right. When WP presumes the ideological stance by the media of a figure in the current limelight, even if that assessment in the media is near universal, that's still a problem, reflecting the bias of the "now" and using the court of public opinion rather than academic, rather than how should be writing in the long-term. If, 5, 10, 20 years from now, Miller is still the subject of analysis, more distant and academic in nature, and those sources call him far-right, then we might be able to say that in WP's voice then. I would also caution about limited only to what RSes call a person rather than using all sources. RSes are only required for factual claims; statement of opinion (of which labeling someone far-right falls into) can be taken from non-RSes though the expertise of the author should be considered ("Random Joe's Blog" may not be, but a Republic congressperson opining in Breitbart might be). --Masem (t) 23:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  The term "far right" is a common term of art for what is mostly described in the literature as the populist radical right. It differs from right-wing and conservative in its emphasis on authoritarianism, nativism and anti-immigration policies. The term itself is only pejorative insomuch as the positions it espouses are antithetical to liberal Western democratic values. In other words it is no more pejorative than saying someone is Islamist or Monarchist or a member of the Christian right. Jbh ^Talk 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 16:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes "Far-right" is the mainstream, sourced terminology used to describe people like Miller. The citations bear this out. TheValeyard (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Widely used by reliable sources as a statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes However, I don't believe the lead sentence is the most appropriate place for the designation. Take Noam Chomsky for example. He is arguably one of the most left-wing figures in America, yet he isn't referred to as such in the lead. The rest of his article, though, is replete with "far-left/left-wing" descriptors. Based off that example, and there are more (Michael Moore is one), I believe it is totally reasonable to include some type of statement that Miller is viewed as a "far-right" political figure—just not in the lead. Beyond the four current sources, a cursory Google search will result in several more reliable sources referring to Miller as "far-right." Seems fair to me. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly well supported and also entirely consistent with the normal meaning of the term - he's a white nationalist and not even slightly concerned about showing it. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe Seems that it is mainly left-leaning media and individuals that label him this. Seems derogatory. Has he ever referred to himself as far right? Has right leaning news ever referred to him as far right? Do we have examples of people being labelled as "far left"? Just a few thoughts. Dig _deeper ^talk 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• NO - it is noncompliant with NPOV and RECENTISM. If in doubt of how to apply NPOV in the lede of a conservative politician, refer to the BLP of a liberal politician and you can't go wrong. We do not type-cast/label BLPs in the lede based on the opinions of opponents. If you need guidance, look at the BLPs of Valerie Jarrett, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi and Keith Ellison, the latter of whom Perez cited as having a history with Louis Farrakhan - oh, and take a look at Farrakhan's BLP and compare his extremist views to the ledes of conservative politicians. The systemic bias in our political articles is pretty obvious, especially if we're debating a contentious label for a conservative that we would not even think of including in the BLP of radical left, or extreme left wing radical politician. We can certainly include such labels in the BLPs of political extremists provided we do so in the body, and use in-line text attribution per our PAGs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM (for your continued and disruptive rants about "liberal bias" in reliable sources and Wikipedia) and WP:OTHERSTUFF. How other articles are written is irrelevant. (and oh, Louis Farrakhan's article describes him as "antisemitic and a proponent of an anti-white theology", so your claim is not just irrelevant but also false).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - This seems like a bit of a Motte-and-bailey. Our description of "far right" says it's "often associated with Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism." I'm not aware of sources claiming Miller supports those ideologies. To imply he does, without impeccable sourcing, is a BLP violation. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - it's how he's described in multiple reliable sources, end of story. Anything else is WP:OR and WP:WEASEL (especially weasel).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• There are more RS that identify Miller as far-right than NYT and BI. See for example this Bloomberg article[30] and this Cas Mudde op-ed[31]. Cas Mudde is a leading expert on far-right populism, and is therefore an extremely valuable source for the designation. Someone should try to access his 2017 Routledge book The Far Right in America to see how Miller is described in the book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Snooganssnoogans: Mudde clearly labels Miller as far right. See Cas Mudde (17 January 2018). "The American far right is crashing after its Trump victory high". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-05-16. Within the White House, the far right has been practically decimated … The only one to (so far) survive the president's ire, despite being close to both Bannon and Sessions, has been Stephen Miller This is in line with what I mentioned about the general usage of the term, citing Mudde, in an earlier section. Jbh ^Talk 14:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  Jbhunley, your link is to an op-ed, and there is nothing that describes Miller as far-right. Regardless, we don't hang contentious labels on BLPs in the lede, especially when citing to op-eds. We do consider the qualifications of op-ed authors, and in this case we have an academic whose research agenda is focused on liberal democracies defending against political challenges which basically equates into a POV that considers conservatism a challenge. Context matters. If we include their opinions/academic research, we do so in the body with in-text attribution to that author/academic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  This was in answer to a question specifically about how Mudde refers to Miller. As to it "not describing Miller as far-right" — read the quote, he is specifically described as the last of the far-right people still in Trump's good graces.

  As to your, and others', assertion that far-right is somehow a contentious please read the diff I linked and its follow-on for my response to that. Far right is used to describe a particular cluster of views which are not adequately or accurately described as conservative or merely right-wing. Dismissing the views of academics who study the radical populist right aka the far right as having a prima facie negative bias which somehow invalidates their views requires some evidence to be convincing.

  I suppose that you could dispute radical populist right and far right being synonymous regardless of the plain usage of an expert in the field. Possibly you could argue that the authors of the various popular press pieces that simply refer to him as a conservative are more familiar with political taxonomy than an acknowledged expert, not just in political science but in the study of the far right. However you would need to present a very convincing argument to be persuasive. Jbh ^Talk 18:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  JB, please re-read the sources because the only RS that might pass as having labeled Miller far-right (and it isn't enough to use WikiVoice) is Business Insider.

  1. The NYTimes article reads ascent of so that one fails...
  2. the Salon article fails as being Miller's widespread view because it states specifically that it's his views on immigration that have been far-right, which was debunked by the WaPo article, and...
  3. the Wolff book is simply not a RS, and certainly not one to hang a contentious label on anyone...
  4. As for the Mudde reference, you need to read the quote again...there is no mention or Miller being far-right...use of that term is absent as it relates to Miller. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"As for the Mudde reference, you need to read the quote again...there is no mention or Miller being far-right...use of that term is absent as it relates to Miller."<--Oh ffs: "Within the White House, the far right has been practically decimated. With Steve Bannon’s departure, and recent excommunication, the Breitbart faction has become marginalized.(...) The only one to (so far) survive the president’s ire, despite being close to both Bannon and Sessions, has been Stephen Miller". You know we can read, right? We know how to click on hyperlinks too! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do not see how the WaPo article 'debunked' anything. It gives an example of him supporting a deal from the Dreamers but he is also accused, by his own party no less, of scuttling the deal although two WH aides say it was Trump's idea. That single issue/instance does not really do much to 'debunk' the history of his views/actions/statements.
  I suppose that if you don't like far right I could go for 'right-wing, anti-immigration extremest'. I have no qualms whatsoever with labeling the guy described here as far right but to soft-sell him as a conservative is a massive NPOV violation unless American conservatism has gone so far off the rails that this guy's views are mainstream. I would even go so far as to say he could be described a conservative known for his far right views on immigration (but he holds other far right views so that is a bit problematic) to side step the labeling issue but whatever the solution it needs to be made clear in the lead that he holds extremist views. That is pretty much a defining element of Miller and it needs to be right up front. Jbh ^Talk 21:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd point out that many RSs call him "conservative": "As a young conservative in liberal Santa Monica, Calif" WashPo "But some White House officials, including conservative adviser Stephen Miller," WashPo "Miller's youth as a conservative contrarian at Santa Monica High School" LATimes "White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a pugnacious conservative who has a keen focus on restrictive immigration policy."Politico "Stephen Miller, the conservative White House adviser who has been spearheading the West Wing's immigration push," CNN "Miller, a White House aide, is well known for his conservative views on immigration. " The Hill " Miller, seen as one of the last remaining conservatives in the White House," Politico "Mr. Trump's statement was a victory for conservatives in his administration, including Stephen Miller" NYT "from his days as a young conservative to his current role in the White House. " NYT NPalgan2 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the NYTimes article says far-right. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the NYT "far-right gadfly" one isn't either of the two NYT articles calling him a "conservative" which I linked to. NYT reporters have written lots of articles mentioning/about Miller. The "gadfly" article seems to be the only time they've described him as "far-right". NPalgan2 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

WaPo doesn't confirm it, either. It's all about cherrypicking and being noncompliant with NPOV, which is typical for edits in conservative articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment whatever the end result, the way the introduction looks at the moment with the WP:POINTy line of citations is quite ridiculous. It just looks like a bitter Hillary Clinton aficionado has Googled "Stephen Miller", "far-right" and then spammed the intro with as many off-the-cuff passing mentions of the term in news articles. The problem is, if we as an encyclopedia are now describing bourgeois Jewish conservatives as far-right as a means of group therapy to heal the bad-feels of I'm With Her-ers, then what are we now calling neo-Nazis, KKK, fascists and the like on Wikipedia? The really, really, far-right?

Sorry to say, but it doesn't look like it is meant to be informative to the reader.... when you read it, the image you internalise is the wounded grimace of a really upset American liberal. It is a bit like the SPLC now claiming anybody who doesn't praise homosexuality sufficiently and support ulimited abortion is akin to a Nazi Stormtrooper on a rampage through Eastern Europe. Exceptionally funny to watch the American circus from the outside and the display of unrestrained narcisstic personality disorders put before us, but I'm not sure we should be putting this kind of stuff in an encyclopedia as serious content. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It may appear that way, but actually these long lists of citations usually come about for the opposite reason. In this case, the obvious and uncontroversial tag is disputed for whatever reason by a small group of editors who won't accept consensus. So the NPOV text ends up with excessive numbers of cites in order to quell that criticism. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - NPalgan2, Claíomh Solais - you're getting the same song second verse of the argument that has been used on more than a few conservative articles to justify noncompliance with NPOV - except the "small group" mentioned is much larger than "small", and the consensus they've been accused of not accepting has typically been "no consensus". If you get a chance, take a look at the exorbitant number of Trump articles, or I should say Coatracks, such as the Racial views of Donald Trump. The same applies to the RECENTISM of the Trump–Russia dossier which includes unverified allegations that are now under congressional investigation and may result in yet another special counsel and possibly even the firing of McCabe. Better yet, just click on the "nav box" at any Trump article and start reading the articles. This BLP is just another in a long line of conservative Coatracks where WP sometimes exercises a double standard when it comes to NPOV...depending on which group of editors dominate the respective article and its RfCs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme, you're needed at Jimbo talk to rail against the leftist conspiracy here. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

, I don't rail...I reel 🎥🎬🎞...but mostly about fishes, and occasionally about things that smell like them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Coatrack?

User:ValarianB, do you know what WP:COATRACK is? How is 3 well known mainstream journalists *criticising this precise passage* coatrack? "Wolff's description of Miller was described by Eliana Johnson of Politico as "patently false/absurd", Nick Riccardi of Associated Press wrote that "some people seem to believe that [Miller] must be dumb since he works for Trump", while John Podhoretz of Commentary noted that he was "no Miller fan" but that the passage revealed "why you can't trust Wolff's assertions, which often demonstrate his own blithe ignorance."" NPalgan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You are using this article to attack Wolff, and have been reverted twice. Kinda textboox, there. ValarianB (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Righting great wrongs isn't your job here. Take it off-wiki. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm raising this at WP:BLP/N. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Forum-shopping is kind of not good form here. It's kind of a problem. Let it go. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ad_Orientem has also said that Wolff shouldn't be in the article, period. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ValarianB I added the first edit after NZ Footballs Conscience wrote "if others disagree with it then you write that also." The second was from RedState quoting journalists criticising Miller paragraph. It was removed because RedState is "not RS". (But Salon is?) The third edit was from Weekly Standard and EW. These aren't the same edits. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is essentially the same content, just reworded and with different sources. You're still using Miller's article to criticize Wolff. Note that this edit is your 4th attempt in a day, which seems to be over the limits set on this article. ValarianB (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Editors need to review the editing restrictions listed at the top of this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, NeilN. It's good to know an admin is keeping an eye out as a preventative measure. Debates can/should be conducted in a civil fashion (collegially but not like the Berkley debates. ) Frustrations over noncompliance with NPOV can escalate, especially when it involves the application of contentious labels in WikiVoice for political opinions about a BLP - worse yet when the sources do not support the material, as in this case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP and the use of unintended polarizing political language

This discussion about the best descriptor for Miller's political leanings has caused me to realize that I can think of no examples where a person on the right has described his or her self as a "far-right" person. This description seems to me to be a descriptor used by folks on the left who wish to pigeonhole people on the right. Yes, the NY Times bandies this descriptor about, and the NY Times is a Reliable Source. Wouldn't an accurate and neutral way to describe Miller's leanings be something like: "Miller is a self described nationalist, who has also been described by some as far-right"?

One passer by (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with using weasel words like "who has also been described by some". If reliable sources call him X and the X label isn't disputed by other reliable sources, then Wikipedia should just call him X too to remain neutral. This is the standard held for all Wikipedia articles. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with the assertion that describing someone as far-right (when well-sourced) is automatically polarizing or controversial. If you want to argue that it's controversial to call Miller far-right (given that numerous high-quality mainstream sources have done so), you would have to show similarly high-quality mainstream sources objecting to the term. Otherwise, it feels like a lot of the complaints here are WP:IDONTLIKEIT - people who feel that a well-sourced aspect of the source is controversial simply because they, personally, disagree with it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Any disputed label is contentious. If we were to describe Miller as Christian when he insists he's not, that would make "Christian" a contentious label. Doubly so when the label puts a member of the administration in the same group as Nazis according to Wikipedia: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." James J. Lambden (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with inclusion of any contentious labels in the lede. For examples of NPOV, see Valerie Jarrett, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Ellison and Louis Farrakhan. You won't see any contentious labels in the ledes of those articles, (probably few in the body but if there are, they must be included with in-text attribution to a RS) and the same should apply WP-wide. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I literally just pointed out to you that your claims about other articles are both irrelevant (per WP:OTHERSTUFF) and false (for example Louis Farrakhan article's lede does in fact use several contentious labels). I'm going to AGF here and assume you didn't see my comment before repeating your false claims again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't make false claims. Please provide one...just one contentious label in WIKIVOICE in the lede of the Farrakhan article, VM...just one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You won't see any contentious labels in the ledes of those articles..., well that's because reliable sources do not place contentious labels on those people, as they do not tend to do or say contentious things. Fringe sources who think Pelosi, Perez, et al are contentious figures don't get an equal voice in the conversation. TheValeyard (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true...there are plenty. The main difference is the simple fact that editors of those articles adhere to NPOV and don't cherrypick those RS because it doesn't fit their narrative. Hmmmmm...which goes back to what I said originally, but I'm not going to be baited by logical fallacies. I've said what needed to be said and provided supporting sources for all of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, it's possible there is no person on Earth who agrees with you or believes you should be pounding the table with this stuff. There's nothing controversial or extraordinary about identifying Miller as 👉🏻far-right, 👉🏻right-wing, extreme-👉🏻right, 👉🏻right-right, or any other 👉🏻-right. Maybe you could look up how he identifies his own views. 👉🏻"Very-right" for starters -- according to the persona he adopts on TV interviews. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd tend to doubt that there's any, much less plenty. Reality has a liberal bias, as they say. ValarianB (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Reality is who the US has in the WH and Congress, and when it comes to NPOV, it's better to get the article right than wrong. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No idea what the WH and Congress has to do with this. It’s better to follow guidelines and use RS. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Unhelpful sniping. ValarianB (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Atsme, you would do better to start a blog and maybe become a cable pundit. Wikipedia is not a good fit. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 😂 Good one! I was actually going to recommend something similar for you. To show how much I care, I have a suggestion that may help avoid carpal tunnel syndrome caused by striking the same keys repetitively each time you respond to editors with valid concerns over NPOV and Coatracks (funny how those concerns always land on Trump-related articles, isn't it?): make a voice recording of your canned talking points, and upload the recording as an ogg file. Then all you have to do is add the file inline instead of typing the same thing over and over. Atsme📞📧 17:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what "Reality is who the US has in the WH and Congress" was supposed to mean, the majority party does not dictate the truth. The Wikipedia follows the cited reliable sources, and if many call Miller a far-right activist, then the article should as well. If we take one of your examples, Valerie Jarrett, and look for criticism, one finds the "sources" are to sites like worldnetdaily, daily caller, etc... ValarianB (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no - you mean conservative sources? Can't have that - they're biased, unlike biased left leaning sources or sources that are in a flat-out war with Trump. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Those so-called "biased left leaning sources" are accepted as reliable sources in this project, while many right-leaning ones are not. Sources aren't rejected on the basis of perceived ideological leanings, but rather they are rejected when they are deemed to be unreliable and untruthful, and their claims unable to be verified. It isn't the Wikipedia's fault that the Breitbarts and the World Net Dailys of the world tend to be deceptive in their reporting. TheValeyard (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)