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 page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Requested move 11 November 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– A pageview analysis shows that this Miller has received far more views than the other Stephen Millers. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A mere page view analysis for a recently active political figure is biased by WP:RECENTISM. No other evidence provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miller is not recently active, as his infobox shows. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's active. Very recently active. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified, what I'm referring to is that he had roles in Trump's administration and will continue to have those roles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:RECENTISM. Is he more important than a former governor of Minnesota or a former governor of South Carolina in the long-term? Or how about the other ten or so? And please don't edit your comments after someone has already responded to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly the primary topic, the other pages are not nearly as notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply as he has been a major figure since 2016. Additionally, he is going to be appointed as Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House. The other Stephen Millers are nowhere as notable. Danski14^(talk) 19:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially the definition of RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:RECENTISM. Theparties (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per points raised above. The Account 2 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENTISM. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the WP:RECENTISM grounds cited above, and because of the sheer commonality of the given name, surname, and combination. I would also note that all of these are easily confused with the many names at Steve Miller. BD2412 T 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

SPLC

Including that someone is listed as an "extremist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center is useless information, akin to noting that they are listed by the John Birch Society as a communist. 128.92.214.163 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Humanitarian disaster

This article is WP:NPOV. There is barely any mention of the work he did with sessions on the children being seperated from their parents at the border. The article makes its look like he's a ok dude, when in fact he is absolute scumbag. scope_creep^Talk 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obama started separating kids from “parents” at the border. Furthermore people entering this country illegally are breaking the law. If someone robbed a bank & was caught, the authorities would remove him from his kids because he was…wait for it…breaking the law. Where is your humanitarian concern for the 300,000+ kids who are missing? 97.75.132.204 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did your parents ever commit a traffic violation? That's breaking the law! They should have been sent to jail forever and you should've been removed from those criminals'care! 176.87.176.163 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Bias

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]

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]