Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 3

Extraneous content
This article is padded full of extraneous content which does not help the reader better understand the article subject. I have removed the following as extraneous. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a bright-line violation of the "consensus is required" page restriction on this article. Please undo your second removal and respond to the argument in my edit summary if you feel strongly.  SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. Will do.
 * Do you have anything to say here that will support your contention that the content belongs in the article and will lend to further discussion and coming to consensus? -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My valid and sufficient endorsement of the consensus text is fully stated in my edit summary. I will have no further comment unless pertinent new issues are raised here.  SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. Leaving it to "I said it all in the edit summary" is bad form and doesn't lend itself to collegial editing.  Please discuss and defend your challenge of removal for the benefit of all.  Thanks.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both versions seem OK. I have no preference. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Winkelvi's edit. We should not be attempting to do a hatchet job on the subject of the article. Everything the subject of the biography may say may not be brilliant but it does not warrant inclusion simply because it was said. Some things said may be hyperbole or better regarded as unimportant filler. "The president is a political genius... who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex" is hyperbole and it makes the subject of the article sound stupid—but it lacks substance. Our guiding principle is to compile information that matters rather than extraneous utterances that play to one side of a story or another. This interview has been described by commentators as Stephen Miller going "off the rails". I think there is a limit to how much of this warrants inclusion in our article. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * BS, your statement, "is hyperbole and it makes the subject of the article sound stupid" is your personal opinion and it's not up to WP editors to change the tone or substance of what the cited RS reports. It is what the RS reported -- in fact rather widely reported in numerous RS -- period.  SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree mostly with what has said here.  Especially regarding unimportant filler and lack of substance.  The article is filled with WP:FART moments.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifico—just because a reliable source could support the inclusion of material is not sufficient in all circumstances for the inclusion of that material. For instance some longwinded blather contains nothing of substance. Why do you feel this particular material warrants inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As self-predicted this is now happening.  Discussion stalled/non-existent.  No further cogent or meaningful discussion = an 'ok' to remove the content in question.  Anyone who has already commented have a reasonable argument against it?  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On first blush I find the removed content helpful in that it illustrates the ... intensity... of Miller's feelings on the issue thereby providing the reader, using Miller's own words, insight that aids in contextualizing his views of and actions on behalf of Trump. Jbh  Talk  16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So...WP:SYNTH? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think SYNTH applies. Just quoting WP:STUFF does not adequately express your particular concern. Jbh  Talk  18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While I admit my comment was poorly framed,, more than a little AGF could have been applied by you in regard to it, . I was attempting to ask if what you proposed could be perceived as synth, possibly causing a problem.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 19:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see how what I describe could be SYNTH as it is not drawing any conclusions – I was expressing why I thought the removed material might not be 'extraneous', not suggesting additional material. Do you believe the removed material has a SYNTH issue? Was it brought up elsewhere on the talk page? I did not see the matter raised in this thread and therefore still do not see why you raise SYNTH as a potential issue. Jbh  Talk  19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to avoid any issues that could be brought up by others. As I'm sure you are aware, at AP2/politically-related articles, DS makes for a very difficult editing environment.  One mistake or misinterpreted insertion of content can lock up productive editing for days, weeks, months.  I'm just trying to avoid the possibility of someone seeing it as synth.  Hence, my question to you whether or not you, in your opinion, think it might be seen as such.  I'm asking for your opinion, touching base, checking in.  See where I'm coming from now?  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the third time I do not see a SYNTH issue do you? Jbh  Talk  20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes. No, I don't, but like I already said, I was merely asking for another viewpoint.  Really, no need for you to be so impatient (or at least seem like you're impatient).  Methinks if you had exercised AGF rather than ABF in the first place, we wouldn't still be doing this. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternately we can simply assume that my mind reading skills are sub-par and "WP:SYNTH?" is essentially meaningless without some additional contextual cue and that asking for clarification of a question is not an assumption of bad faith. Regardless, I'll take you up on the beer! Jbh  Talk  21:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Winikelvi, do not repeat your removal of this text. It is the complete account of the events that made this incident noteworthy, that led to its coverage in hundreds of RS reports, and that explains the situation to our readers. BS, stop personalizing your remarks and address the crux of the issue. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Outstanding! <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "do not repeat your removal of this text...BS, stop personalizing...address the crux..." Sounds like you're giving me an order.  And making personal attacks.  Not exactly in the spirit of collegial editing, civil discussion, and creating consensus, is it? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the guy had a meltdown and it is in poor taste for us to document every salacious detail. That is what doing a hatchet job on the subject of the article means. Just because sources pile on does not mean we have to follow suit. The sources also concede that he "went off the rail". Did he say anything substantive while "off the rails"? Yes. But it is not that "The president is a political genius...who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex". That is merely filler. It doesn't mean anything except in the most figurative sense. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy section"
Per WP:CSECTION, articles shouldn't have a dedicated "controversy" section. That's true no matter who the subject is. Help me relocate or trim the content of that section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You had a point, so I decided to make a "media appearances" section (what with it being a common nexus for several controversies) and relocated the rest. I think it should be enough. (LahmacunKebab (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC))

Vox election summary
This seems to have been removed with no explanation. It's well-sourced and has inline citations to identify where the analysis comes from, and seems neutrally-worded to me. Beyond that, the question of how a high-profile advisor's policies have impacted electoral politics seem obviously relevant; devoting one sentence to an assessment from a high-profile reliable source that focuses on politics seems WP:DUE. Is there any specific objection to it? --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was added as a result of the "Sowing fears" section above, and it nicely expands on the first sentence. It was a good edit and should not have been removed. Brad  v 🍁 06:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question of how an advisor's policies have impacted electoral politics is relevant, however I removed that because the opinion of that one journalist does not necessarily represent a majority perspective of the matter, because there are many varying and conflicting opinions from many "reliable" sources as to why 40 house seats were lost.--IntelligentName (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. However, it will be trivial to add several other analysts making the same point; the xenophobic anti-immigrant fearmongering is widely viewed as a (not the, but a) main reason for the catastrophic losses suffered by the president's party in the midterm - and this is not just analysis but also supported by polling data. With those other sources, will that thus satisfy your objection? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To say that Trump's party suffered "catastrophic losses" in the mid-term election, when he added two seats in the senate and lost only ten more house seats that the AVERAGE lost in all mid-terms since 1910 (data here) shows your political bias. If you don't recognize your bias you wouldn't see bias in sources either. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 14:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A 40-seat loss in the House is indeed catastrophic; not my words, the sources' words. That you disagree with those sources is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Judging this as catastrophic is a subjective opinion, regardless of who makes the judgement. This is an encyclopedia and should summarize facts, such as "Trump lost 40 seats in the house". Stating it as a fact in WP's voice is wrong. Discussing it as a "cited opinion" as you mention below is much more reasonable. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 00:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest that we should include it as a fact in this article, so I'm glad we agree on that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More analysis sources which discuss the issue:     etc. etc. etc. and several of these articles name Miller directly. There's clearly sufficient sourcing to include this here as a cited opinion (not proposing it be considered a fact). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We can definitely add this with attribution, or, if the other sources are included, without. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Sowing fear"
Wikipedia often uses sources with a non-neutral POV but we do not allow such POV to spill over into this website. The phrase "sowing fear" makes Miller look like a Disney villain and is not neutral. One cannot objectively say that someone "sows fear" because nothing universally causes fear. Even if Miller claims that all immigrants will murder Americans, such a claim would be joyous to a hardline anti-American.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * The cited source has a neutral POV - it's a factual news article written by a respected White House journalist. In fact, we should add additional follow-up stories to note that the strategy of sowing fear about immigrants backfired and was part of the reason Trump's party lost 40 seats in Congress. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your implicit assertion that the New York Times is non-neutral; they're one of the highest-quality news sources in the world in terms of reputation, impartiality and reliability. There's a reason the term newspaper of record was literally invented to describe them.  Their summary is The president has sought to sow fear of immigrants by focusing on a caravan of people fleeing violence and poverty in their Central American countries...  It is an agenda Mr. Miller has pushed tirelessly inside the West Wing...  That's pretty straightforward, and I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that "concerns" soft-sells it to the point where it's an inaccurate summary of the source.  I think "sowing fears" might be a bit too poetic, though; "raising fears" is slightly more staid, neutral language while still summarizing the gist of the source.  The key point is that Trump was not merely focusing on addressing concerns, or answering concerns, but on creating them - on making people afraid.  Our summary has to capture that.  Also, I don't think your second objection makes sense - the key point is the administration's intent (ie. they sought to make people afraid). --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to cover the fear-mongering aspect, as RS do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is far from neutral. While it may be perfectly reputable when covering a hurricane, anything remotely political is "reported" with the bias of it staff, owners, and readership base in its city of publication - all of which are far more left-leaning that the country as a whole. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 14:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Its 125 Pulitzer Prizes would disagree. There is clear consensus across Wikipedia that the New York Times is a reliable source, and that's not going to change based on a discussion here. Brad  v 🍁 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That carries no weight with me. See Pulitzer Prize, what do you expect when the ref and players are all on the same team. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 00:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No one's trying to convince you. I'm merely stating Wikipedia consensus. Brad  v 🍁 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * MB, you linked a section of the NYT wikipedia article that basically says that the NYT has been accused, without evidence, of bias, with the exception of some dismissal of the relatively farther left Sanders. Your evidence kind of...proves the opposite of your claim. Please read your sources before gishgalloping them.199.247.45.139 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Thelovelyconch
I have reverted a number of changes made by Thelovelyconch on the grounds that they do not improve, and in fact actively damage, the article. Notably, the edits remove sourced criticism from a reliable source, soften the sourced "falsely" to "erroneously," change the sourced "white supremacist" to "white nationalist", add scare quotes to "net positive," etc. I would ask that these controversial changes be discussed because I do not believe they have consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m going to ‘none of the above’ ... because both presume telepathically knowing what was in his head - “falsely” conveys an intent to deceive, and “erroneously” conveys an honest mistake or a genuine belief that is incorrect. Plus it’s putting judgement first which has the appearance of bias or advocacy.  Conveying an opinion obviously is not describing the event, it is starting with a later review opinion that should be attributed if given, such as is done in the following line re Washington Post view.  (Saying wrong at both start and finish seems a bit ranting too.). So I have switched the phrase to “unsupported claim” to just describe the event in a way that is factual and neutral, leaving the judgement until the next line.  Some of the other edits also seem they should be ‘neither’, seem OFFTOPIC about things not belonging in his BLP as about Trump or about what white supremacists say.  But that’s enough for now.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no. The idea that there was voter fraud in New Hampshire is not just an "unsupported claim," it's a falsehood. False. Did not happen. We're going to report what reliable sources say, and we do not give equal validity to fringe conspiracy nonsense like what Miller spouted there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019
My name is KC Johnson; I'm a professor of history at Brooklyn College. My email is kcjohnson9@gmail.com if you need to verify my identity. While I often use Wikipedia to check election stats, I had never looked at this profile until a friend informed me of it yesterday. I write to request a change from this passage:

History professor KC Johnson criticized Duke for "not [having] an atmosphere conducive to speaking up" and praised Miller's role at Duke: "I think it did take a lot of courage, and he has to get credit for that."

to something along these lines:

History professor KC Johnson criticized Duke during the weeks following the emergence of charges in the lacrosse case for "not [having] an atmosphere conducive to speaking up" and praised Miller's role at Duke during the lacrosse case: "I think it did take a lot of courage, and he has to get credit for that."

I did an interview in which I was asked by N&O reporter Jane Stancill about Miller's role in the lacrosse case (and how it compared to his fact-free musings more recently--we spoke just after he claimed, w/o evidence, that illegal voters had cost Trump New Hampshire). Ms. Stancill contacted me in my role as a person who co-wrote a book on the case, Until Proven Innocent. I was identified as such in the article cited as a source for the passage above, and the quotes in the N&O article accurately featured me discussing Miller's role in the case. The questions asked by the reporter, my comments, and how my comments were presented in the article referred only to Miller's role in the lacrosse case (where, as I noted in the article, his willing to speak up at a time when few would do so remains praise-worthy, and was vindicated by subsequent developments). I said similar things in my blog and book, which is doubtless why Stancill reached out to me for comment.

It is unclear to me how--or why--a Wikipedia editor chose to apply my comments about Miller's role in the lacrosse case (which lasted, for him, from the second week of April 2006 until the first week of May 2006, or the very tail end of his time at school) to my having "praised Miller's role at Duke"--a subject about which I was not asked by the N&O reporter (and, indeed, about which I never had been asked). I made no comment to the N&O (or to anyone else) about--to cite the examples listed in the profile--my allegedly having "praised Miller's role at Duke" on his having "invited conservative activist David Horowitz to speak"; accusing "poet Maya Angelou of 'racial paranoia'"; describing "student organization Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán (MEChA) as a 'radical national Hispanic group that believes in racial superiority'"; or Miller's role with Richard Spencer in "fundraising and promotion for an immigration policy debate in March 2007 between Peter Laufer, an open-borders activist and University of Oregon professor, and journalist Peter Brimelow, founder of the anti-immigration website VDARE."

Indeed, the quoted comment from me about Duke "not [having] an atmosphere conducive to speaking up" makes no sense in the altered context in which it is used in the Wikipedia piece. A major theme of my blog on the case (and, later, the book) was that supporters of the lacrosse players--students, profs, and staffers--felt uncomfortable speaking up on their behalf in the midst of the Mike Nifong publicty campaign. The book--in chapters 5, 8, and 10--documents the reasons why this discomfort existed, and points out that Miller was the first Duke student to publicly break this silence. But there's no reason to believe such an atmosphere existed before March 2006--it would make no sense. How could an alliance between Mike Nifong, the Group of 88, and the Duke administration that led to Duke "not [having] an atmosphere conducive to speaking up" exist before the event that triggered that alliance--the lacrosse allegations--ever occurred?

The current Wikipedia passage, in short, uses a quote about one issue (the lacrosse case) to apply to another ("Miller's role at Duke") about which I was not asked, the source cited did not present me as being asked, and which does not reflect my beliefs.

2604:6000:9082:D500:59B7:3E04:56F9:961F (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I have moved this to the queue for requests from editors with a conflict of interest, since you're requesting an edit on a passage that discusses you. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The quote has been placed into context as having been made in reference to the Duke lacrosse case. Regards, Spintendo  21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019
change the term "far right activist" 165.134.212.58 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 16:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest information discovered to be added here?
I see in the news that there is a considerable amount of information about this Christian Republican Nazi in "leaked" emails making the rounds, is any of that information going to be added to the BLP, or should that information go on anti-American / Nazi / White Supremacist / Republican / GOP pages? SoftwareThing (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2019 (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. -- 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)
 * Dude, take a seat...they are no way sufficient or an end to the debate--Mapsfly (talk) 03:15, 13 November 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: 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)
 * By this logic, Bernie Sanders or El Chapo Traphouse should be described as 'far-left', since that would be an accurate description of their activities. However, if you check word frequency, you will notice that both 'far-left' and 'far-right' are political slurs only used by people with certain political views. For comparison, 'neoliberal' is not used by free market liberals, 'progressive' is used by few except center-left and left-wing liberals, 'pro-life' is only used by anti-abortion activists and 'pro-choice' by pro-abortion activists, etc. 'Right-wing' or 'nationalist' would be a more appropriate descriptor. Cas Mudde, by the way, is a scholar activist who is very vocal about his views, not even trying to resemble a neutral observer who abstains from using slurs. Humanophage (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The defense of the phrase far-right by claiming it is supported by myriad sources is not legitimate. Firstly, the definition of far-right should be considered. Far-right is used to describe Fascistic, Nazist, or Extreme-Nationalist politics. The New York Times source was an editorial, and therefore the opinion of the author, but by no means a confirmation of the reality. Further, the Bloomberg article defines specific policies of Mr. Miller's as far-right, but that does not necessarily mean that he is far-right as a whole. Further, [User_talk:Jbhunley| Talk ]] cited the same author twice and made an unsupported claim that there are many other articles that back up the single author he cited, however, he did not cite any of those authors. Further, the articles he provided did not use the word far-right, they discussed Populist Radical Right Parties, which [User_talk:Jbhunley| Talk ]] claimed was the definition of far-right, without any sources backing it up. Moreover, the article did not mention Mr. Miller, so per Wikipedia Guidelines it is not relevant to and discussion over this article. Additionally, talk is right that it is important to distinguish between conservative and far-right, but it must be done properly, consistently, and by definition. So while we would like to distinguish Mr. Miller in order to provide more insight into his exact political leanings, when the nature of those leanings as far-right is ambiguous, it is imperative to describe his stated views instead of provide speculation over the nature of those views on the political spectrum.Canijustedit (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are engaging in original research. We don't do that. We use reliable resources. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I took a quick look at your edit history. How come you're trying to remove mentions of Miller being "far-right" while working hard to include mentions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as being "far-left"? Your logic re: Miller contradicts your logic re: Ocasio-Cortez. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My edit history has no effect on what is right for this page. Further, I did that in order to try and create consistency across pages. Considering that the phrase far-left is not being used on her page, I came to this page. It does not make sense why far-right is used on one but far-left not on the others. I am trying to provide consistency. Further, sources that were in favor of Ms. Cortes referred to her endearingly as far-left. The sources used here are from Mr. Miller's adversaries. In the future, you may want to engage with what I write on this talk page in order to advise your opinion about this page instead of any other page, which are by Wikipedia guidelines irrelevant to this one. Canijustedit (talk) 02:32, July 3, 2018‎ (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is a community-based project built on consensus, editor behavior is absolutely relevant. You're making a false equivalence between this page and that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You made the equivalence between this page and the other. You said that because I supported a specific term, that is distinct from the term being used here, on that page, that I can not support a different term on this page. You made a false equivalency. I did not equate the two pages. And if you are to equate them, then you should immediately go and either add far-left to that page or remove far-right from this page. However, I have stopped my campaign on that page, as it was brought to my attention of the lack of precision in either of those terms. For Wikipedia to remain neutral it is pertinent we do not have either far-left on that page or far-right on this page. Please engage with what I said here about why we should remove far-right and not with an irrelevant article. Canijustedit (talk) 02:48, July 3, 2018‎ (UTC)
 * We base content on RS, not on consistency between articles. There is no policy for that. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I support removing "far-right" from the lead. The sources, of which there are few, are all either calling him "far-right" as an insult (because they are hit-pieces anyway) and the others are talking about his immigration policies. Since the previous RfC has a consensus to call him an "immigration hardliner", there's no need to redundantly mention his immigration policies by vaguely calling him "far-right". w umbolo   ^^^  11:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The current intro (and some other bits) is quite strongly NPOV and harms the credibility of the article. In the UK, Miller would clearly qualify for what we call "hard-right", and would be the diametric opposite of the "hard-left" who would be people like the Occupy movement. The "far-right" are the openly racist (which Miller is not) but still democratic (mostly) types currently winning power in Eastern Europe. The "extreme-right" and "extreme-left" are groups who openly espouse military tactics to seize power and then propose abolishing democracy and cleansing the population of troublemakers (i.e. actual Nazis and Stalinists) Fig (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem is the radical left (which today is mainstream -- it bears no resemblance to the liberal Democratic politics of even the recent past) views anyone to the right of them as "far right." That's true of the NY Times and many in the university, sad to say. It's a label they have tossed out for decades, to try to make anyone but themselves look extreme and unworthy of being taken seriously. They did the same to the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro: leftist news sites such as the NY Times referred to him as "far right," while the quite moderate and intellectual Wall Street Journal editors refer to him as "center-right." Quite a difference, from two sources of equivalent stature in culture. Such value judgments should be removed from ALL article headings. They belong in the body of the article, referencing who said it (e.g., "NY Times editors referred to him as "far right"). For example, should we also reference some people in the first sentence as being beautiful?  Won't be difficult to find sources to cite.  And probably find 95% agreement on it.  But again, it has no place in the first paragraph of an article, e.g., "Christie Brinkley, an attractive and well-liked American actress," should only be written as "Christie Brinkley, an American actress." (I doubt her page says that, I write it here only as an example of the point being made).  "Attractive" and "well-liked" is commentary. DonF18 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't support removing "far-right" at all. The negative connotations that the term may have acquired due to the actions of the worst far-right figures don't make its use any less factually correct. See, this is how Wikipedia defines "far-right politics": Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Not only does Miller believe quite strongly in nationalism and nativism; he also, sad to say, has authoritarian tendencies (whoever doesn't think so should explain to me the meaning of him saying "the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned", if not that) (LahmacunKebab (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC))

Are there any persons described on wikipedia as "far-left" who did not themselves identify as such? If his immmigration stance makes him far-right so too, was Samuel Gompers. Far-right is a subjective propaganda term. If a thousand media outlets use it, it is still a subjective propaganda term. Remove.
 * We don't use self-identification for such. We use reliable sources. In this particular case, it appears overwhelming. No idea what you mean by "propaganda". That's not what the word means. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove - Starting with a label looks bad and isn't supported :
 * Not generally used in RS - Googling by site for Stephen Miller and then Stephen Miller + far-right shows it just is not the norm.  BBC - 0 for 290 mentions;   Fox - 0 for 716 mentions;  APNews 0 for 396 mentions; CBS 0 for 236 mentions ... While one can google up and find the rare hits, there simply is not a significant portion of his coverage that calls him this so it lacks WP:WEIGHT to state this way.
 * Unsupported by content, does not suit WP:Lead - the article does not have any discussion of it so this is just a WP:LABEL thrown in the first line
 * Factually seems false, failing WP:ONUS - he seems not a member of any group like alt-right Vanguard America or Identity Evropa and has not self-declared himself "far-right" or met the definition there.  Instead he is a member of the White House which seems by definition in the right-side mainstream.   I'm also not seeing the word "activist" as best choice - he's not in protests, marches, petitions, etcetera outside the White House looking in, he's inside the White House looking out.  Even if he does self-declare or something, I'd expect that to be at most the second line -- first you announce the subject, then you can start saying something about it.
 * Not BLPish - WP:BLP is generally for mild statements of fact and life story, not dramatic WP:LABEL posturing.
 * Declaration of bias - starting with a judgement before even defining the topic just looks bad, it is literally a demonstration of prejudice. That serves as a warning label on the article credibility and I'd like to hope WP can do better than that.
 * General precedent - not that we are necessarily bound by such, but looking at prior WH advisors it just seems more the norm to say something functional like "political advisor" without any judgement -- at least looking at Denis McDonough, David Axelrod, Ben Rhodes, Cassandra Butts, or Anthony Lake.

So ... it has been going on two years since there was a RFC about this, and the above looks more against it than back then ... should this go to an RFC then or can we find another wording suitable for (almost) all ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, after the SPLC exposé I think it's kind of ridiculous to continue arguing whether he is far-right or not (and this is coming from someone who opposes calling him a white nationalist, as you can see elsewhere in this talk page). What you should understand is that "far-right" is not some kind of insult; it simply states that the subject's politics are "further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right" (again, that's part of the definition that this very webpage gives). And the standard political right:
 * 1) Doesn't use VDARE ("an American website focused on opposition to immigration to the United States and associated with white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right", according to Wikipedia) as a credible source.
 * 2) Doesn't use American Renaissance ("a monthly white supremacist online publication", according to Wikipedia) as a credible source to the point of using the sorta-affectionate nickname AmRen to talk about it.
 * 3) Doesn't compare Pope Francis to the antagonists of The Camp of the Saints ("A speculative fictional account, it depicts the destruction of Western civilization through Third World mass immigration to France and the West", per Wikipedia).
 * 4) Doesn't make nonsensical analogies between the removal of Confederate symbols and the banning of Spanish flags and crosses.
 * And I could keep on, but I find those examples more than enough.
 * Finally, I'd like to address what is almost literally the only argument against Miller fitting the neutral meaning of the term I've ever seen: "he is a member of the White House which seems by definition in the right-side mainstream". By that very same "logic" the Nazis weren't far-right because, well, there were Nazis in the German government, and wasn't the government in the right-side mainstream by definition? So there! (LahmacunKebab (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC))

Vandalized with Political Opinion
This entire article has been vandalized with political opinion backed up with citations of further political opinion. This is a disgrace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.207.66 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of RS is not vandalism. We use RS to document political opinions all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An opinion published in a RS remains an opinion, not a fact and therefore should not be presented as a fact. Note that all quotes used to support the claim all derive from one SPLC article which interestingly does NOT refer to Stephen Miller as a white nationalist, only says that he has affinity with it. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty questionable to label Miller a 'white nationalist' just because he as at tiems cited far right material (most of which is not really white nationalist as cited, but anti-immigration and even racialist, but not really meeting the definition of the term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.60.5 (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not like he's casually familiar with the white supremacist publication American Renaissance, recommended the white nationalist site VDARE, frequently brought up Calvin Coolidge for his eugenics-based immigration policies, was in frequent communication with a white supremacist editor at Breitbart News, and touted a virulently anti-immigration book where Indian men rape white women and the antagonist is an Indian person called "turd eater". Very cool & very not white nationalist.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

900+ emails = "at tiems [sic]"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Op is correct. 1, Miller obviously isn't a white nationalist. He's Jewish, doesn't espouse white nationalist ideology, and doesn't identify as a white nationalist. This is an hysterically insane attack by the SPLC (an overreach even by guilt by association standards), a partisan smear/money making operation with no credibility outside of leftist circles that's been embroiled in its own serious scandals in recent years.  2, more importantly, even if the accusation wasn't laughably untrue, assuming Wikipedia still has NPOV and similar policies in place (I haven't been here in a while), it should still be framed as a disputed accusation rather than stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and it shouldn't appear in the article lead (and therefore search results). Even if the sourcing was solid that's an editing issue, deciding where and if it's appropriate to place material in a particular article. If this attack is included at all it should be much lower in the body of the article. The current version is not encyclopedic and gravely violates Wikipedia's policies on potentially defamatory biographical material. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, not in wiki-voice...
It seems the lead should contain some mention of this. Perhaps:

Following the leak of emails promoting white nationalist and anti-immigration talking points and websites, Democratic Congresspeople including Senator Elizabeth Warren called for him to resign or be terminated.

Would that do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)


 * The current sentence in the intro is fine. This version is WP:UNDUE (too long for the intro and cites too many sources, including op-eds which shouldn't be used). Miller is obviously an extremely controversial person for many reasons, and he's been in the news a lot -- so we need to make an effort to keep the lede concise and leave the detail/citations for the article body. I think the current sentence in the lede is appropriate in length/detail. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading your comment more closely (and correct me if I'm mistaken), it seems you didn't see the current mention in the lede -- it's the last sentence of the lede. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I do think it could be expanded to include relevant details, and still be quite concise. While I think JzG’s suggestion is fine, I’m sure some sort of middle-ground compromise could be reached. Right now, I think it’s imparting far too little information on a major point (and I mean beyond any possible recentism- this is now a major element of his biography, according to weight). I think it likely deserves more than one brief and abbreviated sentence. Its placement in the lede is appropriate, though. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be fine if it’s made clear that these are just reports and allegations. I don’t believe Miller has acknowledged that he sent the emails. It should also be properly cited. We could look to Adam Schiff’s page as a template, to see how editors dealt with mass calls for his resignation post-Mueller report and moves to censure him after staging a “parody” of Trump. Or Chuck Todd’s page with the material that came out in the Wikileaks, about him allegedly having Hillary’s communications manager at his house for a dinner party during the election without disclosing it. We should use those pages as a helpful guideline to ensure we comply with BLP and stay neutral. 2600:1012:B041:56B5:89FC:58CF:AE11:C449 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019
Delete "White Nationalist" in the first paragraph. This is a fake racist edit that someone added. He is not a racist. Should be deleted ASAP. Reiz45 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Your personal disagreement with the cited reliable sources is noted, but irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The documents released in to the public domain support the white supremacist / white nationalist / neo-Nazi classification of the extant article's WP:BLP. Don't forget that Wikipedia seeks to be unbiased and to avoid WP:NPOV and references and citations are used to confirm text. The available evidence supports the BLP noting that the individual is a white nationalist. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you should really read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Muboshgu, your link describes a subjective and supposed affinity for white nationalism yet does not specifically label him a white nationalist. The editor made that decision on their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.139.114.186 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This "white nationalist" wording seems highly inappropriate. If left in, it should be changed to "accused white nationalist" since that's all that the citations support. There is no evidence cited that suggests that Miller has ever advocated for white nationalism. Erikmartin (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"reliable source?" good heavens. he may or may not have killed John F. Kennedy, but John Seigenthaler was right about wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3018:900:FF00:C9BD:22AF:7AD:D65D (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with this commenter. The "Reliable sources" used to back up the edit express an opinion, not a fact, and they're all sourced from the SPLC which, credibility questions aside since their Maajid Nawaz debacle, NEVER calls him a white nationalist, but only says he has an "affinity" with white nationalism, a lesser accusation. If a journalist called Obama a communist in an opinion post published in a newspaper considered a RS, it wouldn't justify modifying Obama's page to refer to him as a communist. This is exactly what has been done here, and it strikes me as a form of sourcewashing, quoting an opinion published in RS that the editor agreed with in order to present an opinion as a fact. The reasonable thing to do would be to say that he has been accused of being a white nationalist by many people based on an e-mail leak. As it stands, this edit brings Wikipedia into disrepute as a neutral source of information. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "...credibility questions aside since their Maajid Nawaz debacle..." Issuing retractions does not make a source less credible, but more credible; there's a good reason why Breitbart is both considered unreliable and also rarely issues retractions. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They didn't issue a retraction. They smeared a Muslim reformer as an anti-Muslim extremist and refused to retract the smear until he sued them. They then tried to get the case thrown out, failed, and were advised by their lawyers to settle. They were forced to pay 3.4 million dollars because they refused to retract a lie until legal action was taken. How is any of that an example of being a reliable, honest actor? 173.177.220.213 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a tool of political debate and there is a clear difference of opinion about this issue that is split by American partisanship. Nearly one third of the references for this article are to justify this single statement. Whether or not Stephen Miller is a White Nationalist, it should not require such extensive references to "prove" this entry. There should be one or two clear, concise, articles articulating the veracity of this point. That the editor felt the need to include so many articles that were all published within a 24 hour period and cite the same original sources show in my opinion an awareness of the tumult that this addition will make, and not a genuine intent to reference. I am here to argue that creating a section that discusses this issue would be better aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that this is the place to debate the merits of this label, as American editors will likely agree or disagree based on their political leanings, which (including this very talk section) shows American politics interfering with the goals of Wikipedia. Politically motivated edits like this are bound to damage the integrity of Wikipedia and I am concerned about where this will lead. We all have an obligation to be neutral when using this platform, and I would ask all of you to remember that. 67.180.178.20 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are assuming the consequent, that editors are politically motivated. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, Specifico - he's not assuming anything, but is noting a demonstrable trend in Wikipedia editing that follows ideological leanings rather than comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia articles. It's possible that he may have noticed that there are actually individuals who spend hours and hours editing articles such as Trump-Ukraine scandal, a page that has never been visited more than 124 times, trying to get the left's view of the situation in front of readers. The IP editor is correct and offers sage advice to editors who may unfortunately have allowed their own political views to get in the way of building an encyclopedia. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "has never been visited more than 124 times" (this seems like an oddly specific number, which confuses me even more). That article has been viewed 122,901 times in the past 60 days.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  19:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. The redirect page with the wrong hyphen gets no more than 124 views a day. The actual page gets thousands of views a day, with over 13,000 views yesterday. We really are living in a post-factual world aren't we – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit rich coming from someone who trusts CNN, believes Adan Schiff when he says he doesn’t know who the “whistle blower” is, and thinks Wikipedia is edited in a non-ideological manner. In any case, if 13,000 is the record, we’re looking at less than 1% of Tucker Carlson’s or Hannity’s audience. If you’re trying to convince people to vote Warren, Muboshgu, your time would be better spent joining her campaign and knocking on doors rather than smearing Miller or trying to convince people that the latest attempt to overturn the 2016 election is based on something real on the opinion columns of Wikipedia. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince anybody to vote for anybody. I'm trying to keep this discussion on topic and it is quite off topic. This is the talk page for Stephen Miller. We are discussing whether or not he is a white supremacist. The evidence seems pretty clear that he is. Who else would be promoting VDARE conspiracy theories but a white supremacist? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is off topic. Anyway, it’s not for me or TheTechnician27 or anyone else to decide if he’s a white nationalist. That would be synth. Look at David Axelrod’s or Valerie Jarrett’s biographies. THAT is how you write a BLP on a government official. You don’t describe an official in a Republican administration as “right-wing.” That’s just bizarre. Note the absence of “left-wing” from Axelrod’s page or James Carville’s for example. If a credible source, preferably multiple sources from both sides of the aisle, not just the hard left as it stands now, explicitly says he is a white nationalist, then we can review BLP policy and think about specifically labeling him as such in Wikipedia’s voice. A few articles from Miller-hating media corporations saying “he allegedly sent an email that contained a link that allegedly led to a white nationalist site” is insufficient for “he’s totally a white nationalist!!” material. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "A bit rich coming from someone who trusts CNN …". Aaaaaand the mask slips off.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  21:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No mask here. I’ll scream it from the rooftops. I don’t trust CNN. I did 15 years ago or so. That was long before Jeff Zucker, the Project Veritas tapes, the Harvard Shorenstein Center study, and the Wikileaks bombshells. What about you, Technician? As the editor who first added the “white nationalist” smear, are you willing to admit that you despise Mr. Miller and anyone else who opposes the open borders agenda? Or are you going to continue to carry on the “I’m just an honest, unbiased volunteer who edits without fear or favor!” charade? 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Project Veritas doctors all of their videos to fit the narrative James O'Keefe wants to present, not what's actually true. There is no such thing as an "open borders agenda", all you're doing is regurgitating right-wing talking points now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "a loaded question", Alex?  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  21:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Attacking the messenger is a waste of time, Muboshgu. And you’re reciting Nancy Pelosi’s attacks now. Just today, she joined you in attacking journalists, accusing James Rosen of perpetuating “right wing talking points” after asking fair questions. Ask Pueblo Sin Fronteras what they think about borders. Even if you think Project Veritas faked their reportage (they didn’t), CNN is by far the least trusted “news” corporation on television.
 * You can keep your mask on, Technician. I’m honest about my perspective and don’t need one. So you continue smearing public figures you don’t like and disregarding BLP policy, and no administrator will do a thing to stop you because they agree with you. Just don’t make the mistake of telling yourself that you’re building an encyclopedia. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will continue to do my best to improve and maintain the encyclopedia as I have since I joined, and by all means, you can keep pretending this thread isn't a transparent attempt at concern trolling. No skin off my back.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, do you guys say that kind of stuff with a straight face while typing? “I am fair, objective and non-partisan!” <calls a Jew a white nationalist, with op-eds about an email with the backing of administrators who share my hatred of Miller> “See? I’m a neutral volunteer who just wants to build an encyclopedia.” It’s rhetorical but I wonder about that often. Nobody really believes that, so they? 2600:1012:B050:4453:48EF:C350:27CC:AB4E (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are the sources in the article for the claim that Miller is a white nationalist. This claim looks pretty well-sourced to me. – bradv  🍁  20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's break them down then...
 * DOESN'T CLAIM HE'S A WHITE NATIONALIST. Claims he referred to articles from news sources that also host white nationalists and says things that are similar to theories in white nationalist circles, but never comes out actually saying he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Never claims he's a white nationalist, said he promoted ideas the author of the article claims are racist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist, says he promoted a novel the author considers racist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist, says he promoted articles from a news sources used by white nationalists.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't outright claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Doesn't claim he's a white nationalist.
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Claims that he is a white nationalist, that you cite, are actually quotes from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, Stephen Miller's political opponents. Are accusations from one's political opponents to be considered facts if published in a newspaper? If the New York Times quotes Trump calling a Democrat a communist, does that mean him being a communist is a fact?
 * BASED ON THE FIRST SOURCE. Opinion piece, not factual claim.
 * So, to sum up, all of these different "sources" are ultimately based on just one source, the first, which never actually calls Stephen Miller a white nationalist, only that he has "affinity" with white nationalism, a different claim. The only times in your citations that there is any claim that he is, these are quotes from Stephen Miller's political opponents or an opinion in an opinion piece. This is not well sourced, just because one source is quoted in a dozen publications doesn't mean there are dozens of sources, it just means one single source quoted in many publications. How can you seriously claim this is fine? 173.177.220.213 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - The opinion articles above, with one exception from what I can see, all make the same allegation: a variation of "Stephen Miller sent an email that contained a link to a website that we believe promotes white nationalism." Moreover, the one op-ed that comes closest to explicitly smearing Miller as a white nationalist, from NY Magazine, makes the following statement: "Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not it is worth maintaining a semantic distinction between individuals who openly identify as white nationalists and those whose words and deeds betray an ideological commitment to maintaining the United States as a majority-white nation." The one source that comes closest to supporting the smear acknowledges that the label is a matter of an opinion.
 * However we feel about Miller personally does not give us license to treat his biography any differently than we treat any other governmental aide. Nobody has been able to give an answer why we call Miller "right-wing" in his opening sentence, a complete departure from the template used for Democrat aides and even Republican aides. Miller alone is defined as "right-wing." Being a boogeyman of the "open borders" crowd doesn't allow us to collect a hodgepodge of left-wing sources that allege he sent a naughty email (and yes, I'm familiar with the "just because they're on the left doesn't mean that they're not reliable" defense), putting two and two together in our heads, and then pretending that the sources said something that they didn't. If I send an email containing a link to a Ruby on Rails website, that doesn't make me a coder. I know we're all supposed to attack centrist and conservative media companies as "fake news" or "right-wing trash," but if we're going to make incendiary claims about Jewish Americans being white nationalists, wouldn't it be prudent to have sources from multiple ideological perspectives?
 * I have a photo of Obama smiling with Louis Farrakhan. Is Obama a black supremacist and anti-Semite? I have an email from Glenn Thrush stating that he is allowing John Podesta to pre-approve his articles because he has "become a hack." Shall we open Thrush's article with "Glenn Thrush is an American hack who..."? Do you see the danger here? If we continue down the dark path of bending Wikipedia policies to better suit our ideological perspectives, we'll get further and further away from an "encyclopedia" and ever-closer to a becoming just another vile hate blog in the tradition of Media Matters, Vox, or Deadspin. I don't think any of us wants that. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sending paragraphs from a story to ensure accuracy is not uncommon in journalism, and there is no proof that Podesta asked to have anything changed." Please stop the whataboutisms and stick to the topic at hand. I don't think you've provided anything to refute the idea that Stephen Miller is a white supremacist. Maybe this thread should be closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not a whataboutism - it’s the exact same situation. You can defend Thrush and argue that it’s fine for “journalists” to allow campaign managers to copy edit articles pre-publication, but that doesn’t explain why Thrush called himself a hack and begged Podesta not to tell anybody if it was compliant with Politico policy (it wasn’t, hence the pleading and “hack” reference). The fact remains that you cannot smear someone with a label based on the fact that you or any other administrator REALLY thinks that his actions qualify someone for that label. You need a hard news article that explicitly refers to that person with the smear. That’s why you can call Miller an “aide” and an “advisor” - reliable sources explicitly call him an aide or an advisor. We can close the thread if you absolutely must have it your way, but at least add the neutrality tag to the article. Multiple editors have come here to dispute Technician’s BLP violation and there is no consensus to add the smear. 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are literally asking "what about" other articles that are not the subject of this talk page. That is whataboutism. And you're ignoring the fact that what Thrush did is standard operating procedure in journalism to ensure that there are no mistakes in a publication, as I quoted, and failing to notice that Thrush was likely calling himself a hack as a joke. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s the point, or at least should be the point, of having site-wide standards. You can’t pick and choose which articles should get BLP protections and which ones don’t. Otherwise, you run into the situation you have now. Liberal editors smear conservative politicians, and then liberal administrators make sure that the smears remain by pretending that BLP isn’t a thing. Then, everyone just has to say “we’re not liberal, we’re non-partisan!” and everyone goes home and has a Merry Winter Solstice. Let’s say Thrush did nothing improper. Why would he plead with Hillary’s campaign manager not to tell anyone what he did? That just seems odd, wouldn’t you agree? 2600:1012:B006:4BF8:3DDE:EFAB:C78:224E (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, nobody wants their private correspondence to go public. And Stephen Miller is not the same as Valerie Jarrett or David Axelrod, but they are treated the same way by BLP. If we had evidence that they were white supremacists, we would say so. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree on Thrush. I think his email communications and quick departure from Politico after the uproar speaks for itself. I was talking about calling presidential aides “left-wing” it “right-wing.” It’s bizarre and betrays the biases of editors who are VERY interested in Mr. Miller’s biography. At least all three people have this in common: none of them have been called a “white nationalist” in any reliable source’s hard news section. 174.193.129.95 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , what you're doing here is a reversal of the burden of proof and an appeal to ignorance. "Provide evidence Stephen Miller is NOT a white supremacist, if you can't, then we assume he is". Not only that, but the claim is not even that he's a white supremacist, but that he's a white nationalist. All the sources quoted to support the addition of the smear are all sourced from one article, the SPLC's and I invite you to re-read it, because there is no direct claim that he is a white nationalist, they claim he gets info from sources considered white nationalist and has an affinity to ideas associated to white nationalists, but they never take the leap to say "Stephen Miller is a white nationalist". So that one source that is ultimately at the heart of all the other quoted sources doesn't make the claim that has been added to this article. In case you want to invoke the "duck test", that the revelations about Stephen Miller in this source make him "sound like a duck, look like a duck, act like a duck, so he's a duck", according to Wikipedia rules, the duck test cannot be used to argue for article content. The reasonable approach would be to say that he has been accused of having affinities with white nationalism rather than making a claim that is not present in the reliable source currently quoted to support it. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the sources (besides the Levitz column) state that he has promoted white nationalist publications and theories, but do not explicitly call him a white nationalist in their own voice. Personally I agree with Levitz that there really isn't a practical difference between being an avowed white nationalist and promoting their ideas—but I think that caution and BLP demand that we hew closely to the wording of the sources on this point. Cheers, gnu 57 20:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Mr. Levitz's article came out months before these emails were leaked. Were we speaking on April 9 when that article was published, I would've wholeheartedly agreed that calling Miller a white nationalist—not just saying "Such-and-such have called Miller a white nationalist"—would have been a disservice to the encyclopedia, but the SPLC's exposé is clear, irrevocable evidence that Miller is a white nationalist, that is to say that the spade is in fact a spade.
 * It should also be noted that this issue has already been discussed over at the BLP noticeboard. TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It can also be noted that some members of Congress are calling him a white nationalist. “It’s clearer than ever that Stephen Miller is a far-right white nationalist with a racist and xenophobic worldview. His beliefs are appalling, indefensible, and completely at odds with public service,” said CPC Co-Chairs Mark Pocan (WI-02) and Pramila Jayapal, CBC Chair Karen Bass (CA-37), CHC Chair Joaquin Castro (TX-20), and CAPAC Chair Judy Chu (CA-27). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, political opponents are not reliable sources. The President of the United States has called Hillary Clinton "crooked", can I go to Hillary's wikipedia page and start off her bio by saying she is a crooked politician, citing a New York Times article where Donald Trump is quoted as saying "Crooked Hillary"? I bet you wouldn't tolerate such a change based on such flimsy argument, so why are you using that same flimsy argument here? 173.177.220.213 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the SPLC's exposé is so clear, then why does the SPLC NEVER claim he was a white nationalist? They only said that his e-mails reveal an affinity for white nationalism, but they never go out and claim "Stephen Miller is a white nationalist". This is YOUR PERSONAL CONCLUSION from the exposé, that you have put into this article, therefore, you are in breach of the No Original Research rule, for you have included claims in the article based on your own conclusion from the SPLC's exposé. If you want to include the SPLC's claim, then you can't call him a white nationalist, you have to say "he has been accused of having affinity with white nationalism". All your other sources are just derived from the SPLC's exposé, and therefore they add nothing to the credibility of the claim, it is dishonest to quote them all as if they were additional sources rather than just retelling of the same original source (which doesn't make the claim you have inserted into this article). And quotes from his political opponents are obviously not reliable sources either. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, political opponents are not reliable sources. The President of the United States has called Hillary Clinton "crooked", can I go to Hillary's wikipedia page and start off her bio by saying she is a crooked politician, citing a New York Times article where Donald Trump is quoted as saying "Crooked Hillary"? I bet you wouldn't tolerate such a change based on such flimsy argument, so why are you using that same flimsy argument here? 173.177.220.213 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the SPLC's exposé is so clear, then why does the SPLC NEVER claim he was a white nationalist? They only said that his e-mails reveal an affinity for white nationalism, but they never go out and claim "Stephen Miller is a white nationalist". This is YOUR PERSONAL CONCLUSION from the exposé, that you have put into this article, therefore, you are in breach of the No Original Research rule, for you have included claims in the article based on your own conclusion from the SPLC's exposé. If you want to include the SPLC's claim, then you can't call him a white nationalist, you have to say "he has been accused of having affinity with white nationalism". All your other sources are just derived from the SPLC's exposé, and therefore they add nothing to the credibility of the claim, it is dishonest to quote them all as if they were additional sources rather than just retelling of the same original source (which doesn't make the claim you have inserted into this article). And quotes from his political opponents are obviously not reliable sources either. 173.177.220.213 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, while I DO believe that he is a white nationalist, it is such an incredibly loaded term for such a high-profile political figure that I don't think advisable to introduce the subject like that in a neutral webpage. Just let people draw their own conclusions. (LahmacunKebab (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC))
 * If this is going to be an ongoing dispute, then I recommend a Requests for comment to help resolve this question. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that an RfC is probably the best solution here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree -- we should have an RfC on this. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I’m not opposed to an RfC, but I do think the obvious sockpuppet should probably probably be ignored. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)