Talk:Mary Miller (politician)/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mary Miller.jpg

Date of Hitler comment is incorrect.
Many news sources, cited in article claim that the "Hitler got one thing right" comment was made during a speech on January 6th, 2021. The original source material was a video uploaded on Monday, January 5th, 2021. My intention is accuracy only. The Congresswoman was probably about to be in session on the 6th, and wasn't ginning up the crowd that subsequently marched on the Capitol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElBartoVerdad (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Source: https://twitter.com/always_margot/status/1346578062700400647 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElBartoVerdad (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole condemnation is bullshit, it is like saying Goebbels was right when he said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" it is non controversial, true, and relevant and she was saying to do the exact opposite and teach children to be good and against evil, but since "politics" all the usual idiots condemn her. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry IP, but your comment is irrelevant: what matters is whether secondary sources make it rise to the level of noteworthiness. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes covering any mass notability is a pillar truism of Wikipedia, . The IP's comment is both irrelevant and incorrect. To be clear to everyone, Hitler's statement of philosophy about indoctrinating all children is not the same as Goebbels's recitation of a psychological factoid. Hitler's is specifically outlining a fascist program for world domination. So that's what fuels the controversy, beyond just the fact that no public official should praise Nazis for any reason. Furthermore, the controversy is about the civilized world having a standard anti-fascist mandate to denounce this behavior, to exhort the Republican party to likewise denounce each incident and all possible incidents, and to end the overwhelming and unique tendency for its members to praise or ally with Nazis. So we must summarize the compound logic process, purpose, and intensity of the controversy. — Smuckola(talk) 02:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop with the bullshit, unlike biden who just quoted a nazi and compared republican senators to that nazi, she never praised hitler nor compared anyone to him, all she did was state a truism that happens to have been said by hitler and that it can be used for good, but the usual useful idiots condemn her because politics and not a single one of those same useful idiots will say a word against biden invoking nazis to attack republicans. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment about Hitler
Hello. About this, I was thinking that the "Comment about Hitler" section should be a subsection of "U.S. House of Representatives". You seem to be saying that it should be a subsection of "2020 Presidential election". Why would that make more sense? To be clear, I'm only talking about what level the section header should be at. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disregard, thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can we avoid the word "excoriated" please? Various synonyms would be preferable. "Harshly criticized", "strongly rebuked", "severely chastised"... there are a number of possibilities. P.S. I think it would also be possible to question whether your recent edits support a neutral point of view, but for the moment I will refrain from further comment -- partly because I'm in general agreement with your sentiments. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, there's obviously no reason to do that!
 * Yeah I seriously question and devils-advocate-criticize all edits here according to the NPOV. I scrutinize every revision of every sentence fragment I write on this article according to the sources. Back and forth. The result is a summary, not a novel WP:SYNTHESIS. Sadly, the situation is so objectively generically bad, so eternally far reaching, and so widely recognized that it's very hard to go overboard according to RSes. It's simply a textbook fascist scenario. I simply added a thin outline of details for readability and background, not taking the readership for granted, for all time. This level of WP:N notability is forever definitive. The only limit is to delete my personal recognition of the fact that she obviously believes in what she said, but regrets getting caught at saying the standard conservative dogma quiet part aloud. That's the part I don't say aloud. Thank you all for your contributions. — Smuckola(talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

About Smuckola's edit summary comments regarding your punctuation, he or she's referring to a Manual Of Style guideline to use straight and not curly apostrophes, and straight and not curly quotation marks. You can see that at MOS:PUNCT. At this point straight or curly punctuation is the least of our worries. Anyway, those should be fixed and not reverted. I sometimes fix 'em myself, when I see 'em. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@mudwater: thank you for the explanation. I’m typing this on my phone. Will try to get this formatting correct on any future edits I make.

@smuckola: I agree with you that her comment was immoral, but I think you have a counterproductive and biased understanding. Obviously the source material provided shares that as well. I know everything has to be sourced, and can try to find more for the body. Given the start of her speech, the audience she was speaking to, and her apology it’s not clear she was praising Hitler. Most conservatives believe their opponents strategy is to indoctrinate young people and slowly shift their believes. Whether that’s true or false, she was painting her opponents with his ideas, implying that’s why her party loses, and suggesting they use the same strategy. Wrong and dangerous, but I think the lead should be as neutral as possible and provide as much sourcing as possible in the body. The way it was initially written is not neutral given the context in the body. When these people read a one sided lead and pushes these people to distrust our institutions.

I really think it should say something closer to, “Received bipartisan condemnation for her statements on Adolf Hitler's indoctrination beliefs.” I won’t make this change, but you should consider it.

I am sorry for not doing things correctly. Thank you for your patience. Freetus1 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I despise Hitler and Goebbels but on these two points there were dead on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5C03:400:A5EC:6C13:4F93:C213 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it", absolutely true. Look at Trump's BIG LIES about the 2020 election, millions of people still believe it.
 * Hitler: "whoever has the children has the future". absolutely true. This is why when a new regime comes into power in any country of any ideology, the first thing they do is change the school curriculum.

Archived re: WP:NOTFORUM
Hi folks - thanks for your hard work at maintaining this article given the news. I've archived recent discussions a bit early, you can find them above by searching in the archive box or clicking the appropriate link.

For the new folks around here - gentle reminder that talk pages aren't for discussing your feelings about the subject or her actions. We're happy you are here, we hope you will edit Wikipedia, and remember - we're all just hear to build the world's biggest encyclopedia to share free knowledge. (And make sure folks never forget...) Thank you! Missvain (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Uncited claim in lede
The lede currently contains the following claim, with no citation. "Two days later, she was condemned for publicly praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth as a means to power." I believe the facts of the situation are handled much better, with more nuance, in the body of the article. In particular this claim is to the best of my knowledge incorrect, and at bare minimum this claim needs a citation. In particular, I'm concerned that with this statement the article doesn't meet WP:BLP.

The biggest issue with it is that it's not clear that Miller did praise Hitler, and if she did, it's not clear that she praised him for his proficiency at indoctrinating children. What she actually did was say that he was correct in his belief that indoctrinating children is an effective means to power. This is IMO not praising him, and certainly not praising him for his "proficiency". (Whether Miller was endorsing indoctrinating children or accusing her political opponents of doing so - as she now claims - is certainly up for debate.)

I am changing this sentence to the following: "Two days later, she was widely condemned for citing Adolf Hitler in a speech to the group Moms for America." and providing an appropriate citation. I wanted to document this change in full here since this article has recently been the subject of vandalism and is currently protected.

amfucla (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * https://twitter.com/MarkMaxwellTV/status/1346891485791330313 : "Here’s the full clip. Incoming Illinois Congresswoman Mary Miller didn’t slip or improvise when she quoted Hitler and praised how the murderous Nazi built his political movement by indoctrinating youth. She was reading from prepared remarks." --217.234.73.139 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, there is no problem with having no citations in a lead, which exists as a summary of clearly cited things in the body. WP:LEAD. — Smuckola(talk) 13:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * indeed, unconvincing argument. Her words were very clear, it’s not a controversial claim to state that she quoted and in the way that she framed the quote she also praised Hitler. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as every RS in the absolutely entire universe explicitly said. I would appreciate encyclopedic analysis from a logician and wordsmith but to say it's not clear she was praising Hitler is extremely blind of, and reversing of, her words and of all RSes as quoted in this article. Her endorsement thereof is not up for debate, as it is crystal clear out of her mouth as being quite literally her entire point of the prepared speech. So the proposal is a massive pointing at the grandstands and a swing and a miss, a failure of reading comprehension. Though the attempt is admirable, it's what we each are to do in our own heads. When it comes to divining Hitler's inner intent and her connection to it, I'd say the sky is WP:BLUE. As I said in an edit summary when reverting the previous wrong interpretation, I was kinda curious if I can review all the quotes and expand the summary using a few more choice excerpts of quotes, maybe a few incisive words here and there. I was wondering if additional RSes over time would give either a deeper analysis of the subject's moral corruption or of her overall place on the wrong side of infamous history among blithe quotes of evil ideology from positions of public leadership. Ya know, just in case. Maybe it's another "very fine people on both sides" moment if there aren't too many to count in republican politics by now. — Smuckola(talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at the references cited in the article, and I don't see any that say that Miller "praised" Hitler. They say that she "invoked", "referenced", "cited", or "quoted" Hitler. So, saying that she "praised" Hitler would seem to be synthesis of published material. What Miller said was completely reprehensible, and I also happen to strongly disagree with her political views. But I think it would be better if the article sticks to what the sources say. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This fixes the issue, I would say. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, clunky prose and no consensus for that change, article never said she praised Hitler, it said she was "praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth" and that's a fair and accurate way to describe a person saying "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." You are an experienced editor and should know that when an edit is challenged you work towards consensus, not repeatedly try to insert the challenged content by edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I changed that part of the article exactly one time, here So, your statement that I "repeatedly [tried] to insert the challenged content by edit warring" doesn't seem to hold up.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, that was Amfucla. Still no consensus to add and an ongoing discussion, so shouldn't be re-added. Bacondrum (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem. Now, what do other editors think about that part of the lead?  Bacondrum proposes keeping this text: Two days later, she was condemned for publicly praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth as a means to power in a speech where she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future."  I think it would be better to change it to this:  Two days later, she was condemned for publicly invoking Adolf Hitler in a speech where she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." Several other editors have already stated their opinions above, but I think this question has not been resolved yet. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is this utterly appalling turn of phrase: "Hitler was right". Stating that "Hitler was right" is not merely invoking Hitler, that is simply incorrect - it is clearly praise ie: the expression of approval or admiration for someone or something. She is stating the he was right or correct, she is approving of or admiring what he said, she is praising him in no uncertain terms. Stating that "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." is praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth - that's exactly what we say, and rightly so. Bacondrum (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What Miller said is appalling, yes. But she wasn't praising Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth.  She was saying that his statement about indoctrinating youth was correct.  Those are two different things.  Also, another advantage of the change I'm proposing is that it's closer to what the cited references say.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, praise is the expression of approval or admiration, stating that "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." is expressing approval of Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth. Praise is exactly what she did in a dictionary definition sense, it's the word we should use. This is a matter of semantics at this point, stating that a historic figure was "correct" in a certain action is the same as approving of or praising that action. Bacondrum (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I were to say "Nelson Mandela was right about one thing, apartheid was wrong and had to be defeated" I'm praising his efforts to fight apartheid - nothing controversial about that claim. No one wants to be described as having praised Hitlers actions or words, but that is what she did. Bacondrum (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an WP:OR inference. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In looking through what editors have said about this, I believe two editors -- and  -- have said that the article should be left the way it is, saying that Miller "praised" something about Hitler. And four editors -- me,, , and, on this archived talk page, --  have said that it should be changed to say that Miller "cited", "referenced", "quoted", or "invoked" Hitler. Of course, we're not voting, but it does seem that there's significant support for changing the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 06:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No one ever said she praised something about Hitler, please don't misrepresent the argument like that. She praised what Hitler said about indoctrinating children. Do you want to put an RFC together? Otherwise I'm happy to do it. Bacondrum 06:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you think is the best wording, exactly? Here's an edit where you changed it to Two days later, she was condemned for publicly praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth as a means to power. Here's one where Smuckola changed it to She was inaugurated on January 3, 2021 and two days later was excoriated by the global community for publicly praising Adolf Hitler as her role model for his proficiency at indoctrinating youth as a means to power.. And here I changed it to Two days later, she was condemned for publicly invoking Hitler in a speech where she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." -- though either "invoking" or "citing" would be good, I'd say. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "she was condemned for publicly praising Adolf Hitler's proficiency at indoctrinating youth as a means to power" is the best phrasing


 * The quote is not needed what was there before someone put the quote there is sufficient. Wollers14 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to start a new discussion for that, rather than tacking it onto this discussion. I think the status quo should remain, that quote is what she is most widely known for. Bacondrum 20:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is repeated in the body paragraph. It presents a repetition issue. The quote only needs to be listed once. Wollers14 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It made international news, it's a huge deal to see a member of the US congress say "Hitler was right", a massive deal. The entire world gasped. She would be unknown outside of the US without this comment. I would start a rfc but it about its inclusion in the lede but it would be a case of WP:SNOW, so it's just wasting everyone's time. Bacondrum 05:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to Trump rally
Her speech was a day before the Trump rally, as stated in this article itself: she spoke January 5 to Moms for America, vs. his speech on Jan. 6. I edited out the error. 73.172.178.244 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Hitler was right on one thing. He said, whoever has the youth has the future." in lead
A third of the lead should not be spent talking about a controversial comment this politician made. This is not what this politician is known for; she is known for holding office, not for the remark. Care must be taken with BLPs to ensure contentious material is not given undue weight through inappropriate placement in the lead simply because the material is contentious -- contentious is not the same as notable. Please see WP:BLP, WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENT.  Pais  a re pa  21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * She is known for the comment above anything else. She was front page news here in Australia for that, on the other side of the world. I can't think of a single time in my entire life (and I'm no spring chicken) that a US congresswoman has been front page nationwide here. It was a huge, and shocking story, the whole world gasped after seeing what had been said. It's an enormous deal for a member of the US congress to say "Hitler was right about one thing" Bacondrum 05:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It should absolutely be in the lead. As Backondrum wrote, it was a huge and shocking story. Including it in the lead is not giving it undue weight - it's giving it appropriate weight. JSFarman (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

White supremacist
She is a white supremacist and should be put into the white supremacist category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.140.118 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)