Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Miller (political advisor) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 6 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

On 11 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Stephen Miller. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Opinion

Much of this is opinion vs fact 2600:100A:B11A:F9E8:528:C5AA:CA34:80E4 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A very slanted article for Wikipedia. The references to what Miller supposedly said in high school are petty and subjective. Lscollison (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? This is a biography of his entire life, not just his time in the Trump administrations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, calling something petty and subjective doesn't make it so. I wish the deniers would provide some evidence instead of simply stating their beliefs as facts. 2601:646:9E80:3FF0:CCBA:63C1:34F2:4946 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is slanted against Miller, and is not neutral. For instance, is it really a "hard line" position that immigrants should enter America legally? After all, America is the most welcoming country in the whole world and takes in 1 million new legal immigrants every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in this article does it say that it is a hardline position to support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. The only instance of "hard line" in this article that I see is An immigration hardliner, Miller was a chief architect of Trump's travel ban, the administration's reduction of refugees accepted to the United States, and Trump's policy of separating migrant children from their parents. Those are hard line positions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. 35.33.131.130 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Bias

Four months without a source O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is clearly biased. It should be rewritten to be more fact based and eliminate the biased language. Too many examples to list. The bias starts in the first paragraph and appears in every paragraph after. 173.94.234.151 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful. You cannot even give one example. You do not even say in which direction the bias goes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

obviously, you are clueless and a partisan 2600:4041:275:1800:EE27:D7CA:58FB:B890 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still not one example given. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off the bat it mentions that "his politics are described as far-right"

1. That's an opinion

2. The source is a business insider article where an author calls him a rising star on the far right.

Are we holding all politicians to the same standard? Are we going to all left leaving politicians, and citing Fox News calling them far left?

This and all articles should be as unbiased as possible. Someone coming to read his page for the first time is immediately inundated with him being "thought of as far right." even if you argue it's true, it's not a identifying label added to both sides. TheSteven97 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSteven97 Miller has been referred to as "far right" by the Washington Post and The Guardian, and as "white nationalist" by a very extensive range of high quality sources. Do any good sources exist to suggest that he isn't far-right? Agreeing with Millar in his beliefs is not the same thing as disputing his white nationalism. Newimpartial (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Using a questionably far left organization to paint him as far right is laughable. And, use of words like 'lies' without specific instances, your bias is showing. LOL 2601:CA:C202:7B90:B1D2:CC8D:59B5:70C7 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still have given no good reason to rewrite anything. Sources are not unreliable just because they seem "far-left" from your position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is correct. The article is obviously, objectively biased. In several places it inserts the word "false" (as in false claim) where it doesn't belong, a violation of NPOV. Saying that some (biased) source said it was false is just grasping at straws-- the person quoted said it was true; the claim may be offset perhaps by a contradiction by someone else, but embedding an editorial "false" in the text is obviously biased. 2604:2000:2FC0:F:CC66:2125:1D94:2091 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article text is based on consensus reality, and what the balance of highest-quality sources agree to be true and false. Wikipedia article text is not based on a kind of bastardized Nietzschean relativism in which one ideologue asserting the truth of a statement means that Wikipedia cannot identify it as false. Wikipedia does not treat "true" and "false" as value-laden emotional LABELs, as convenient as this would be according to the biases of some editors. Newimpartial (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. 2604:2000:2FC0:F:CC66:2125:1D94:2091 (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. The article is biased. 2604:2000:2FC0:F:CC66:2125:1D94:2091 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slanted

the article states he's Anti Immigration when i believe he's anti illegal immigration 148.76.157.50 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our beliefs don't matter. We use reliable sources. If you read the article, you will see that this is well documented. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Wikipedia is becoming less and less reliable. The "reliable sources" that are used are only used to support the foregone conclusions drawn by the biased wiki writer. This is called confirmation bias, and it's wrong. Use "reliable sources" that support both sides of an opinion, or don't claim to be "unbiased". 2806:102E:18:69B5:B8E9:C185:DD6F:4930 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This" <- what exactly? The fact that we follow reliable sources? Do you actually have reliable sources (see WP:RS) that support your argument, so we can improve the article or not? (Also see WP:BALANCE.). Widefox; talk 14:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Quote

I made Special:Diff/1289896906 to remove a sidebar with a cited of Miller's uncle from under "First Trump Administration". The quote expresses "dismay" and "horror" at the nephew's policies on this basis of the Miller family's immigration history. User:Deniss reverted in Special:Diff/1289916374.

My usual preference would be to follow WP:NPOV and balance with additional sources. But the quote wasn't integrated into any passage that could be expanded or revised toward neutrality. Rather, the quote was set off in its own box, as if for emphasis---"disproportionate space" under WP:BLPBALANCE and Wikipedia:UNDUE. See especially WP:PROPORTION on isolated quotes and criticisms on matters in the news.

There isn't any criticism section to move it to, and having that kind of dedicated section wouldn't track Wikipedia:NPOV, either.

Perhaps a paragraph at the end of "First Trump administration", before "Attempts to overturn the 2020 election", could be added for notable assessments of his record during that term? I am not so up-to-date on the relevance of the quote in Wikipedia terms, but I could see it described rather than quoted there, keeping the source citation.

In candor, my personal view of Stephen Miller's policies likely hues far closer to his uncle's than the man's. However, coming to the entry from a news report, I found myself less confident in the text on account of the quote, which struck me as disjointed from surrounding paragraphs. There are already good, cited sources on the facts of Miller's family history in the biographical section above. Citing a relation, and particularly for a statement on subjective feelings, seems rather personal for Wikipedia. kemitchell (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change toics to topics Greatken85053 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2025 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

correct the spelling of toics to topics Greatken85053 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the superscript "according to whom?" in the first paragraph since this question is answered by references 1 and 139 as per the section entitled Political Views. 95.168.120.37 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done LizardJr8 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]