Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coatrack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

RfC about calling Stephen Miller far-right in lead sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

WP:!VOTE

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

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

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

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

• No. "far right" is mostly used as a pejorative WP:LABEL by opponents, and not as a factual representation. Miller has not self-stated he is "far-right", nor does it seem that he is described as such by most sources. Some of the sources presented above also do not make the assertion (e.g. being liked by the "far right" does necessarily not make one "far right"). If you Fox referring to someone as far-right, or conversely Salon referring to someone as "far left" (and not the other way around) - then you know that the label is universally accepted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. NYT, BI, and Bloomberg[2]) identify him as far-right. Cas Mudde, who is a leading expert on far-right populism, identifies Stephen Miller as "far-right". I don't have access to Mudde's recent book for Routledge, The Far Right in America, but this op-ed for The Guardian, he describes Miller as far-right[3]. Michael Wolff and Salon should not be used to source this claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Mudde is a notable academic. I would note that he also calls Attorney General Jeff Sessions a member of the far-right in that same op-ed and that's not something that quality US newspapers do when writing about Sessions (maybe they should, but they don't). So I think it's if anything an "According to Cas Mudde..." source. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per numerous sources that describe the subject as such, as provided above and in the previous discussion. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Numerous RS label him as such. Whether he is or not is irrelevant. We document what RS say and attribute the label. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is utterly uncontroversial, widely used in diverse RS, and can only be denied apparently by elaborate equivocation, obfuscation, and deflection. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per preponderance of reliable sources and WP:SPADE ie he is what he is. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No - whether Right or Left, political labels should ALWAYS be attributed to those who apply them, and not stated in Wikipedia’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, it's been demonstrated elsewhere in the article that more sources describe Miller as "conservative" rather than "far-right". --1990'sguy (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It's how he's described in multiple reliable sources, end of story »? That was true of RSs calling the SPLC liberal (less contentious label, better sourced), which you wrote was a "POV attempt at poisoning the well. » Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence Like I said, I’m fine with whatever sourcing standard gets set for these kind of labels, but it should be done consistently across articles. In any case why are the sources calling Miller ‘far-right’ to be given greater weight than the sources describing him as 'conservative’? NPalgan2 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Because there are more of them and they're of higher quality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you comparing the Miller "far-right" sources to the Miller "conservative" sources (see below) or the Miller "far-right" sources to SPLC "liberal" sources? In both cases, try pulling them up side-by-side and you'll see that's simply not true. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, actually if you read the discussion below, it does show that the sources which refer to him as "far-right" are much better than the generic "conservative" ones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ummmm, what? „Far-right”: NYT (1 article), BI, Bloomberg, Cas Mudde op-ed (plus Salon and Michael Wolff if you drop your standards). „Conservative”: NYT (2 other articles), Politico (2 articles), CNN, WashPo (2 articles), The Hill, LATimes. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• No - strong "No" - per all the 'no' !votes above, especially Masem's rationale. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• No: Per Masem and Atsme. Clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. NPOV means following sources and that's how sources describe him. WP:RECENTISM... not clear on how that's suppose to apply. He's been far-right since, what, high school? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - We just follow the RS, as that's what NPOV requires. O3000 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

But it's been demonstrated above that more sources describe him as conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. The term is not pejorative, it's descriptive. Definitions of far right: Merriam Webster – the group of people whose political views are the most conservative. Oxford Dictionaries – The extreme right wing of a political party or group. Miller's positions on DACA, immigration, racism, nationalism etc. are not just on the far right of the overall political spectrum, but also on the far right of the conservative spectrum. Here’s a list of quotes from reliable sources (duplicating some RS that have already been mentioned by other editors):

Business Insider: A rising star on the far right for years. Miller has so far made a name for himself first as a controversial provocateur and now as a right-wing policy wonk.

New York magazine: Beyond alt. The extremely reactionary, burn-it-down-radical, newfangled far right. ... Many of the right’s most abrasive immigration hawks come from the Golden State: …, Stephen Miller, … are all Californians … Sessions’s former aides Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn helped shape the policies and personnel of the Trump White House: the blitzkrieg of executive orders that lit up the presidency’s early days came at Sessions’s recommendation. … Sessions has come the closest of any member of the administration to enact the policies of the alt-right, starting to roll back the Justice Department’s oversight of police departments that routinely violate the civil rights of their black constituents, refusing to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws, threatening to deport undocumented immigrants brought here as children, expressing no interest in “prosecuting federal diversity and fair housing” (as an approving Richard Spencer put it), pledging to punish sanctuary cities, and denigrating judges who rule against the racialist policies he supports.

New York Times: The ascent of Mr. Miller from far-right gadfly with little policy experience to the president’s senior policy adviser … his economic nationalism and hard-line positions on immigration … bound by a belief in an America-first economic policy that has suddenly moved from the fringes of American politics to the Oval Office

Guardian: Within the White House, the far right has been practically decimated. … The only one to (so far) survive the president’s ire, despite being close to both Bannon and Sessions, has been Stephen Miller …

Bloomberg: President Donald Trump’s senior-most aides have played an unusually prominent role in the U.S. government shutdown drama, ensuring their boss struck a hard-right line on immigration. …"His view of immigration has never been in the mainstream of the Senate," Graham said, describing Miller as an advocate of reduced overall U.S. immigration.

Newsweek with a riff on The Who’s song. "The kid was alt-right."... "By the time Miller enrolled at Duke University in 2003, his right-wing politics had hardened, as did his writing."

Washington Post op-ed by George F. Will, who has impeccably conservative bona fides: The administration is "increasingly dominated by people who explicitly repudiate America’s premises. The faux nationalists of the "alt-right" and their fellow travelers such as Stephen K. Bannon have imported the blood-and-soil ethno-tribalism that stains the continental European right". He called Miller "Bannon’s White House residue" and "one of the people with sinister agendas and anti-constitutional impulses" lurking "within the ambit of [Trump’s] vast, brutish carelessness." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. The label „far-right” is generally used in a way that goes beyond merely saying that someone is more right-wing than most other people in their community, as is recognised by political scientists: "However, this is further complicated by the way we label someone as 'extreme right wing' which tends to be not just a description of political perspective, but also a pejorative and condemnatory term (in much the same way left-wing extremist is used).” Taylor, Max; Currie, P. M.; Holbrook, Donald (2013). Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 9781441140876. That being so, if we’re going to use a term often considered pejorative in the lead sentence about a BLP, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to verify that RSs are widely and explicitly calling Miller „far-right” (and rule out WP:CHERRYPICK by investigating whether other labels like „conservative” are better sourced).
2. Senator Graham and you may consider that Miller’s positions - he even wants to cut overall U.S. immigration! - make Miller „out of the mainstream” but "In recent years, Americans have been closely split between holding steady (38 percent as of June 2017) and decreasing (35 percent). The remainder, around 1 in 4, want to increase legal immigration … [A] Politico/Morning Consult poll asked it a different way, asking how they’d feel about halving the number of legal immigrants over the next 10 years. ... Nearly half, 48 percent, strongly or somewhat supported cutting legal immigration in this way; 39 percent opposed it.” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/how-trumps-immigration-proposal-could-be-trouble-for-dems.html And even if the polls were far lower - a few years ago gay marriage was far less popular in the U.S. and almost no elected officials supported it, but wikipedia rightly didn't (on that basis) call gay marriage or its proponents "far-left". WP:NPOV.
3. "Many of the right’s most abrasive immigration hawks come from the Golden State: …, Stephen Miller, … are all Californians … Sessions’s former aides Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn helped shape the policies and personnel of the Trump White House: the blitzkrieg of executive orders that lit up the presidency’s early days came at Sessions’s recommendation. … Sessions has come the closest of any member of the administration to enact the policies of the alt-right, starting to roll back the Justice Department’s oversight of police departments that routinely violate the civil rights of their black constituents, refusing to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws, threatening to deport undocumented immigrants brought here as children, expressing no interest in “prosecuting federal diversity and fair housing” (as an approving Richard Spencer put it), pledging to punish sanctuary cities, and denigrating judges who rule against the racialist policies he supports." NYMag is an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV source for stuff like this. They publish lots of controversial writing - from people like Andrew Sullivan or Jesse Singal - containing bold claims which need attribution.
4. George Will’s op-ed containing his negative opinion of Miller may be notable but Will’s opinion is not universal among conservatives - see the defenses of Miller in op-eds cited elsewhere in this thread written by conservatives and appearing in nonpartisan RSs like the NYT or Politico. Or compare the positive coverage Miller receives in mainstream conservative outlets like National Review or the Weekly Standard. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Re 1: I don't recall any of the RS equating "extreme right wing" with "far right". Also the quote is taken out of the context of an academic "if ... then" argument (if there are commonalities in personality and cognitive qualities between extreme right and left-wing activists then the critical variable may be engagement with 'the extreme per se' rather than with 'extreme qualities of ideology'. "Further complicated by the way we label ... etc." (Who are "we"?) From the introduction to a collection of essays on violence and terrorism. Another excerpt from your source (pg. 3, second paragraph to last): "Furthermore, it is unclear where distinctions should be drawn between extreme, violent manifestations of the far-right and more moderate political platforms that sometimes espouse similar rhetoric." Seems to be an argument for there being both extreme, violent and moderate, non-violent manifestations of the far-right.

Re 2: Quoting the source of the source: "On immigration, as on any other issue, it can seem that there's a poll result that supports just about any position." "Question wording matters".
Re 3 + 4: You disqualified New York magazine (with 4 times the circulation and 10 times the online traffic of the National Review, according to the Pew Research Center which doesn't track the Weekly Standard) as "biased statements of opinion" and then called National Review and Weekly Standard mainstream. They're opinion magazines. As one of the libguides says, "The information may be biased so readers should approach them with caution." A quote from the WaPo article you cited as supporting "conservative" rather than "far right" (it also calls Breitbart conservative, the publication Bannon, in his own words, turned into a "platform for the alt-right,": Miller’s driving obsession is immigration, an area where he has long pushed hard-line positions going back to his days as a combative conservative activist at Duke University. That does not sound like center or center-right to me, unless you are arguing that today's conservatism is "obsessed", "hard-line", and "combative". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

1) Well, you said that "far-right" was "descriptive, not pejorative". The point the source was making (in passing) was that "far-right" is a descriptive term that often has pejorative connotations. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't call someone "far-right", but that it has to take certain care doing so, per WP:LABEL. 3) I didn't say we can't use NYMag - I've used them as a source previously, but attributed it as "According to X..." for contentious stuff. I would question whether their headline writer's use of "far-right" for a collection of 28 different articles discussing everyone from Peter Thiel to the Claremont Institute to outright neo-Nazis is suitable for calling Miller "far-right" in wikipedia's voice. I brought up National Review (who absolutely are a POV source) because you cited George Will's op-ed to suggest "look, the mainstream conservative movement rejects Miller, which shows he's far-right". 4) If we had an RS saying "Jeremy Corbyn is left wing. He is obsessed with nationalising public companies, an area where he has combatively advocated hard-line positions," would the Wikipedia community would be OK with rounding that up to "Jeremy Corbyn is the far-left leader of the Labour Party"? There are a vast number of newspaper articles about Miller out there, if RSs are really "widely" calling him "far/extreme-right" there's no need for this sort of WP:SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• There are more RS that identify Miller as far-right than NYT and BI. See for example this Bloomberg article[4] and this Cas Mudde op-ed[5]. Cas Mudde is a leading expert on far-right populism, and is therefore an extremely valuable source for the designation. Someone should try to access his 2017 Routledge book The Far Right in America to see how Miller is described in the book. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Snooganssnoogans: Mudde clearly labels Miller as far right. See Cas Mudde (17 January 2018). "The American far right is crashing after its Trump victory high". The Guardian. Retrieved 2024-05-26. Within the White House, the far right has been practically decimated … The only one to (so far) survive the president's ire, despite being close to both Bannon and Sessions, has been Stephen Miller This is in line with what I mentioned about the general usage of the term, citing Mudde, in an earlier section. Jbh ^Talk 14:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP and the use of unintended polarizing political language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sources aren't rejected on the basis of perceived ideological leanings" - Oh, please. This is gaslighting and you know it. It is entirely ideology that determines whether some heavily slanted and politicized op-ed is a "reliable source" or not, and it's been that way for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A280:4A6:50FB:2A8:9905:B506 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

About the Spencer connection

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

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

Wait, wait. So a source isn't reliable if it isn't neoliberal? Mother Jones is certainly biased (as is literally every source), but it's also known for being factual. Yet again, we see radical centrists denying reality in favor of "balance." This is absolutely delusional. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Why does this site not give the names of the editors/contributors. Reads like propaganda to me. 125.239.104.142 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Contributors to this article can be viewed here NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That the question comes from an individual identified only as an IP address is chillingly recursive. Adambrower (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I agree with biased interpretation.Also would like to add that first describing words seem wrong as well far-right seems sourced but is problematic because it's used by "sourced" writings in very loose fashion, thus by standard definition right-wing would seem more appropriate. Kodakiam (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Immigration hardliner" is sourced

Winkelvi, who is systemically going through my edits, followed me here and removed the term "immigration hardliner" from the lede.[6] It was removed under the rationale that the term was WP:OR and not found in any of the sources in the lede. This is incorrect as the NY Times source in the lede explicitly calls him an "immigration hard-liner"[7], and several other in the lede (and body) delineate his staunch opposition to immigration. A simple google search furthermore shows that most of the roster of obvious RS American news outlets have described him as a "hardliner" or "hard-liner" on immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And yet none of these alleged RS's allegedly mentioning Miller with that terminology were in the article. When the content was added ("immigration hardliner"), the edit summary used to justify the addition of it was "stating the obvious" but not one source verified it as such. Because this is a BLP, the content had to be removed (see the policy on unverified content in BLPs for further explanation). Just for the record, I've been editing this article since February 2017, seven months longer than your first edit at this article. It's actually been on my watchlist since before Trump's inauguration. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's source #12, the NYT article titled "How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families". It was in the article before I made my edit, after I made my edit and after you reverted me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. I looked at that source immediately (as well as the others in the same paragraph attached to the label you added) and the term is simply not there. In any of those sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We should not have to Google to find the sources, if they are not in the article then it is literally not sourced. This is a BLP, if you two Snooganssnoogans and Winkelvi don't understand the care that is required to sourcing then please don't edit BLP related articles. Accusations of WP:FOLLOWING should be presented at WP:ANI. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Strike through part of my own comment after reading the edit conflicting comment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're implying I'm working against BLP policy, and that's simply not the case, Emir. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. I have stricken out my comment regarding you Winkelvi. It is also good that you clarified about the date of who edited the article first, as that casts doubts on the accusations against that you are systemically going through another users edits. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Accepted. :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Emir: Again, like I said very clearly in my opening post: the term is sourced in the lede. It's source #12, the NYT article titled "How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families". Other sources in the article also substantiate the wording. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(repeating from above for the sake of Emir who's being addressed) No, it's not. I looked at that source immediately (as well as the others in the same paragraph attached to the label you added) and the term is simply not there. In any of those sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Follow-up: I now see it's in a photo caption. One mention in a photo caption is hardly sourced content worthy of inclusion as a label. Are there other reliable sources that refer to him as such? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Add this into ctrl+F without quotation marks: "hard-" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a problem with "immigration hardliner" being in the article if it's well sourced (and by more sources than just one instance in a photo caption). My objection was purely based on BLP policy and sourcing. We can't just label BLP article subjects something if it's not well-sourced, and we certainly can't say it in Wiki-voice. The edit summary was, "stating the obvious" -- which, if you think about it, is not a neutral edit summary and indicates what was added is OR rather than sourced. It was a red flag to me. When I looked at the attached sources, I found nothing that stated "immigration hardliner" (having missed the one passing mention in the photo caption). If there are several sources which have referred to him as such, it can be added back in (not in Wiki-voice, of course). Have Trump Administration officials/staffers referred to him in that manner? Has he, himself, done so? Those would be better to use as sources than a passing mention in a photo caption, as well. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Photo captions in RS =/= RS" is a new one. But like I said, this language is supported both verbatim and through synonyms by multiple existing sources in this article alone. Note that I didn't even bother to read most of the sources which are in this article, but I could still find more than half-a-dozen:

# Verbatim (hardliner, hard-liner, holder of hardline positions): [8][9][10][11][12]

# Synonyms (architect of a hard-line approach, immigration hawk): [13][14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In the NYT reference, it's a passing mention in a photo caption. Even though it's in a reliable source, if that's the only reference to someone, it's not something we would add to a BLP as an applicable label. See WP:VNOTSUFF for more. That's where I'm coming from on this. Now that you've provided more mentions of the description, I can see that it's fine to add to the article, however, it's still not okay to do so in Wiki-voice. It needs to be couched as "Miller has been characterized as a hardliner on immigration". Because... where is the qualification from sources that show how he is a hard-liner? Just because a writer for the NYT thinks he is, unless that writer/those writers are proving it via scholarly evidence, a direct quote from Miller himself, and so on, we can't say it as if Wikipedia is declaring him to be a hard-liner. There really needs to be verified qualification. This is a BLP - BLPs have to be treated very carefully. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think several of the sources do a fantastic job fleshing out how exactly he is a hardliner on immigration. This Wikipedia page is blessed with a multitude of in-depth profiles. The burden of finding a quote from Miller himself where he says "I am an immigration hard-liner" is unreasonable, and is not a requirement I'm familiar with. Of course, Miller's self-descriptions (if covered by RS) do belong in the article, in particular if they rebut something, but that's a separate discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting there be a "burden" on any of us to find Miller referring to himself as a hard-liner on immigration. Frankly, I'm pretty certain he would welcome the characterization as it's not really a negative label. That said, we have to present it as neutral - neither positive nor negative - and that's where the biggest burden and responsibility lies for this particular issue of inclusion. That's why I suggested if there is an instance of either Administration officials using it in reference to Miller or Miller saying it about himself, that would be even better because it's rounding out the usage as well as perception of the terminology. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)