Talk:Stephen Miller: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 153: Line 153:

== Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2025 ==

== Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2025 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Stephen Miller|answered=no}}

{{edit semi-protected|Stephen Miller|answered=}}

In the section on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax the verb “finding” is used. This indicates that the belief has been factually or legally established. A judge can “find” someone guilty of murder. A chemist can “find” chemical composition. But Stephen Miller did not “find” that the players were victims because they were white males. I’m not saying that it’s *impossible* for Miller to find this. But it’s extremely unlikely. He had access to confessions? He had access to all the relevant evidence in the case? He had reliable proof of his statement? I propose that a more moderate verb be used, like “asserted”, “argued”, or the like. [[User:VoidSeraph|VoidSeraph]] ([[User talk:VoidSeraph|talk]]) 00:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

In the section on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax the verb “finding” is used. This indicates that the belief has been factually or legally established. A judge can “find” someone guilty of murder. A chemist can “find” chemical composition. But Stephen Miller did not “find” that the players were victims because they were white males. I’m not saying that it’s *impossible* for Miller to find this. But it’s extremely unlikely. He had access to confessions? He had access to all the relevant evidence in the case? He had reliable proof of his statement? I propose that a more moderate verb be used, like “asserted”, “argued”, or the like. [[User:VoidSeraph|VoidSeraph]] ([[User talk:VoidSeraph|talk]]) 00:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Change “His politics have been described as far-right, anti-immigration, and white nationalist.” to “In 2021, one source described his politics as far-right, anti-immigration, and white nationalist” or find additional ones. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:B93F:74DF:699B:1F47 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other sources referenced lower down the article that confirm his politics as described. The lead is a summary. But if you are requesting we should add even more sources then we can certainly do that. Subject is unabashedly proud of his beliefs, and has made a career of writing speeches full of them, so all of this is very well documented. Mfield (Oi!) 04:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the source used should be his own statements. Its inappropriate to just say that that someone said someone supports x, y, and z. Otherwise every article about anyone related to politics would have to claim the person has been described as a fascist, communist, anarchist, etc because literally every political figure is accused of extremism by their opponents. I’m sure he’s a bad guy but naked bias only make him look like an innocent victim. 2604:2D80:6305:600:35CD:EAF8:BC99:6463 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not perform synthesis of material. The sources cited to those claims are from academic journals, not news articles covering political statements. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited for the “white nationalist” claim were books, which most people can’t access, therefore quotes by the author should be used, or at least elaborate on the authors’ claims. Max Paxman (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many left-wing conspiracies alleging that Miller is a Nazi, or is some type of puppet master of the Trump presidencies. These theories are prominent in some corners of the internet and should be included in Wikipedia’s biography on Miller. There is precedent for such a thing, as some left-wing political figures (such as George Soros or Barrack Obama) have a section in their Wikipedia biographies on conspiracy theories surrounding them.

For example, the following site claims that Miller is, “The mastermind behind [Trump]’s cruelest anti-immigrant policies”. This doesn’t seem all that conspiratorial until you realize the context of “Mastermind”, claiming that Miller is manipulating or superior to Trump.
https://americasvoice.org/blog/agents-of-mass-deportation-who-is-stephen-miller/

Here are several other sites promoting or discussing conspiracy theories regarding Miller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/business/media/stephen-miller-plenary-authority-cnn-conspiracies.html

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/body-language-experts-stephen-millers-111335833.html

https://snyder.substack.com/p/stalinism-and-stephen-miller-video

https://link.motherjones.com/public/41978477 66.182.226.22 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not cite articles from advocacy organizations or Substacks, particularly on BLPs. It also does not report on conspiracies unless they are so prominent that they lead to several articles. Obama’s birth certificate was a significant political controversy that spanned from rural voters to the White House. George Soros conspiracy theories are also prominent and have been the subject of analysis, particularly because of their intersection with foreign government involvement and antisemitism. A few people online claiming that Miller is a Nazi is far from that level of significance. The two articles you linked, from HuffPost—which should not be used per WP:HUFFPOLITICS—and The New York Times, concern one brief incident that has lost relevance. As far as the word “mastermind”, it isn’t deniable that Miller has been extremely influential on Trump’s immigration policies, but that language is already reflected in the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What any one person believes to be relevant is certainly irrelevant, especially when faced with a New York Times article. I was under the impression Wiki editors had no issue recording this part of history as long as the sources are reputable or even extremely popular. 2601:155:480:8120:61B4:D115:3CD2:C2D0 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that not all that has taken place, history, as it were, is recorded in an Encyclopedia, even if it is reported on by reputable sources.
I agree with ElijahPepe that this topic should not be added. Ileanadu (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen Miller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SusanLesch (talk · contribs) 20:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
ElijahPepe, here’s the part where I need you to read the article closely top to bottom. I’ve made many tiny changes. Thank you. Does it look all right? –SusanLesch (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll take a look now. No guarantees on a response tonight but definitely by tomorrow night. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll check back in a couple days. Thank you. –SusanLesch (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the edits look fine. My only complaint is the lede, which is much more abstract than it probably should be, and I also believe that the only section that should have been split off was the University one. Other than that, no issues here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the new §Family. In 2025-present, I left the sections because the new §Wider influence is needed and is well-sourced. Is that all right? I asked a talk page visitor for help with the lead. Would you be willing to assist? I like the way it closes with criticism and opens neutrally. (Not easy to do.) When the lead is stable, I can pass the article. –SusanLesch (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of these changes are meant to try to portray Miller as an influential figure. It is one thing to follow what reliable sources say, because some of the writing does veer into that sort of language, but this is a biography. Just as an example, Niccolò Machiavelli has a focus on his life and work while covering his influence, which is what my intention was with writing this. In order to write the sort of abstract article about someone’s influence, you need at least the baselines of their life and career and—ideally—a volume of literature, which takes time. There’s a reason for the dry writing, because it is important that the facts are known before there can be an assessment on how influential someone was or is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Machiavelli example is lost on me, but I take away that a reputation takes a long time to assess and Miller is only 40. You wrote less than 10% of the article. My contributions are so tiny they don’t even tally.
I removed one superlative (“highly”) and added two words (“and controversial”) to the lead. If you agree, I can see removing the string of name-calling (“far-right…”) and leaving only the SPLC assessment (both were here before I came). Would you please edit the lead if you want it changed? –SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that is by added text. Authorship is the statistics as the article stands; 81.6% of the article currently is from one or more of my edits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens, that’s a big difference. Can you please give me a link to where I can find the 81.6%? –SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The XTools page has the “Authorship” section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I stand corrected. –SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with those descriptors and even the assessment myself, since I can’t see where they particularly fit into the article, but apparently there is consensus to keep them. Specifically, what I’m talking about in terms of the abstract language is the first paragraph. It is important that the reader knows what positions Miller specifically served in. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I imagine you know, they all fit with the first paragraph under §Views, (sourced to books I can’t obtain). I added Miller is an unelected advisor and his jobs do not require Senate confirmation. because nobody else did. Perhaps this is a battle of résumé style: I wrote functional and you like chronological. I’ll give you a couple more days and hope you will make your changes. –SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is reordered. Any changes needed? –SusanLesch (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, seems fine enough to me. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did make a change. I disagree with this being said twice in the lead: a senior advisor to the president and the White House director of speechwriting from 2017 to 2021. Please fix that. –SusanLesch (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, no, it wasn’t done. I removed one of three instances of “director of speechwriting” in the lead. –SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YIt is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
YI am copyediting like crazy. For example the word “behest” is now used once not twice in close proximity. This flag will remain here until my review and copyediting are over.-SGL
YCouldn’t you use normal English in something like this? Rex Tillerson had disputed with Miller over immigration While maybe technically correct I don’t think I have ever read the word “dispute” used as an active verb. -SGL Same here: He had previously conflicted with Kelly. What form of English are you using there? -SGL
Changed, though dispute can be an active verb and I have read it as such. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using “sparred” twice, three sentences apart, isn’t ideal. Not a GA requirement to fix. -SGL
YIs this a topic sentence or the beginning of a non sequitur? In Kelly’s White House Office, Miller was largely successful in influencing Trump. -SGL
I don’t see the issue here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ElijahPepe, you seem to have lost interest. What is your agenda? Why do you have twenty GA nominations pending? –SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven’t. I need time to look over this. I don’t have an agenda. My only goal is improving Wikipedia’s coverage of Trump-related figures, because much of it is paltry and defined by driveby editing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YThis sentence has been rewritten. The word “enjoin” can mean to impose or to prohibit depending on context. It’s gone now. Miller supported a choice model for the family separation policy in which families would be forced to decide whether they would willingly separate their children or waive their child’s humanitarian protections, enjoining them in detention. -SGL
YIt is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Earwig finds possible copyright problems with Ms. Guerrero’s book (69.9%). Because it is one of two Stephen Miller biographies that I know of in existence, this might go away. -SGL
Most of the phrases in Earwig are proper nouns and specific events that would be difficult to reword. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Do you know of any Miller biographies other than Guerrero and the “Trump’s Inner Circle” one?
I’ll be away for a day or two. –SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with the latter biography. The only one I am aware of is Guerrero’s book. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as well. Guerrero was a TV reporter here. Won an Emmy. She’s excellent. I got my hands on a copy of Jones. Found a mistake in about the first five pages. He, apparently as do many others, takes for granted that California is liberal. Guerrero is aware that Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are recent governors. He might be OK to quote for generalities but I prefer Guerrero. –SusanLesch (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning spot-check of sources. This is a creation of the article’s author, not reflected in the source: His influence in writing speeches amplified after Trump was convinced by Bannon to read from speeches written by him and Miller. Besides being horrendous English. –SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fabrication. “Bannon has convinced Trump to stick to scripted speeches written by him and policy aide Stephen Miller, which people in Bannon’s orbits see as a critical development”, but perhaps that could have been misread. I made it more clear. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another unsupported sentence: In contrast to the internal faction of Trump advisors revolving around Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff who previously served as the chair of the Republican National Committee,[failed verification] Miller was affiliated with Bannon.. I have to join the Atlantic to read the second citation. But I object to the first one. Not supported by the source given. –SusanLesch (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uuntangled this using the Atlantic source. It wasn’t that complicated. I am struggling against tangents and digressions. This article would have benefited from a peer review or copyedit before jumping to GAN. -SGL
YThree “failed verification” and one “clarification needed” tags are waiting for the nominator. -SGL
Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a “page needed” flag as well. -SGL
Done. Seems like someone added that randomly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YIt is broad in its coverage.
Yes, seems to cover the subject. -SGL
My problem with tangents is part of this bullet. the article should avoid undue emphasis on tangents, such as coatracks, and trivia. The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. For example, this list was indefensible:

In November 2023, The New York Times reported that Miller was leading an initiative to appoint several lawyers to Trump’s second term, including Chad Mizelle—who served as the acting general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, Jonathan F. Mitchell—the former solicitor general of Texas, Aaron Reitz—the chief of staff for Texas senator Ted Cruz, and Brent Webster—the first assistant attorney general of Texas.

It’s gone now. -SGL
YIt follows the neutral point of view policy.
Article generally uses neutral language. -SGL
YIt is stable.
Other than disruption I caused by this review, the article is stable. -SGL
YIt is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Images are appropriate, and mainly public domain from the White House. With thanks to Gage Skidmore for a couple portraits. -SGL
Overall:
Comment. I don’t want to blame the nominator who is not a primary author of this article. But I do think the nominator could and should have done most of the work I’ve done this week before nominating this article at GAN. Don’t know his agenda but he must have one. He’s working on a new GAN nomination while I clean up the mess here. As mentioned above, a contentious article like this should go through peer review and copyediting before GAN unless the nominator is willing to put in prep time. –SusanLesch (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, by Authorship (not by Text added) nominator is the primary author. His nomination of more than twenty articles at GA at once is overly demanding of Wikipedia’s resources. Perhaps he will see fit to help in the future with the backlog of nominations. –SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, you aren’t kidding – you put in work on this article. Thanks, Susan, for going above and beyond. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Anne, for noticing. We’ve got our work cut out for us. –SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. –SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a violation of WP:NPOV in the use of “gaslighting” in the sentence:

“David Horowitz—conservative writer and architect of the new Republican party’s gaslighting strategy”

Unless Horowitz or the GOP have labelled it that way, this is opinion, editorializing. This opinion may be accurate but probably doesn’t belong in this article. At best, it should be in quotation marks. The term does not appear anywhere in the David Horowitz article. Mr. Miller is a controversial person and so makes WP:NPOV particularly important for its reputation.

I came to this article to find out where he went to school because his declaration that everything has been built by [white] Americans reflects badly on his education. Having been a professor, I realize that students don’t alway absorb what is taught.

I’m glad to see both his high school and college info here, but am astounded by the level of detail in this article. It’s really interesting and while part of me is loathe to fail to inform future readers that “He dressed up like the movies for trips to Las Vegas and was a skilled craps player”, I don’t think it belongs here.

This and many other details here say so much about his character. However, anyone seeking insight into what has made him a singularly, IMHO, odious individual should pick up a biography. Simply put the article should be trimmed in accordance with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ileanadu (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Ileanadu. The gaslighting part of the sentence is gone.
  • Picking up a biography is not simple unless one exists. Only two books have been written on this subject. One is an Amazon special self-published essay in 22 point type. The first is written by an Emmy-winning journalist (not a Pulitzer) who did the hard work of interviewing Miller’s friends and associates. She has a POV title, Hatemonger that I tried to level out because this is a Wikipedia BLP. I’ve tried to stick to the facts and tried not to use non-neutral language. For an example, we do not quote Duke University’s senior VP. It can only go so far, but one’s youth is the best place to include detail and insight into a person when we have it. We rarely do.
  • Would you be willing to help rewrite the lead? –SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why these references appeared below my comment; I didn’t do it:
No worries. They are just citations from above on this talk page. Up to individual editors to manage them with {{sources-talk}} or {{talk-reflist}}. –SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ileanadu, I made a radical cut of detail. Miller’s father Michael and the family had several sentences that we can omit. The lead’s been rewritten, too. Thanks. –SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.^Shear, Kanno-Youngs & Haberman 2019.
2.^ eeenedetti 2016
3. Baker & Glasser 2022, p. 46-47
4. ^ Dawsey, Johnson & Karni 2017.
5.^Swan, Savage & Haberman 2023.

“As architect of immigration policies, he created family separation.” Family separations happened previous to Trump’s first term. While the rate certainly increased under Trump due to the ‘zero tolerance’ approach President Trump took, family separation was not “created” by Stephen Miller. The phrasing should be more accurate if it is mentioned in the lead in at all. ~2025-32487-42 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a policy of separating families before the first Trump administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed created to “advocated”. Thanks for the comment. –SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured article.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robertclarke32, apparently you missed the discussion of Mr. Miller’s portrait last month. It is unfortunate he has no official photo which would be preferable to any one editor’s choice. I like this one at DHS (to be cropped at hip height), where he’s speaking and acting in one of his official roles. You like this one at CPAC but I think he looks like a jack’o’lantern. Please work with other editors to find the best solution. As it stands we’re both outnumbered as we have two !votes for the previous selection. –SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish DHS would publish a proper, front-facing portrait like all agencies do. Due to his position, I guess they just haven’t explored the option. The DHS picture does seem to be taken when he wasn’t prepped for a portrait though, which is against BLP protocols. The CPAC one is the only half-decent option, unfortunately. But it’s certainly an improvement from the prior two where he was caught entirely off guard. Robertclarke32 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We agree DHS should step up. We disagree however on the present CPAC image. He was no more ready to be photographed in the middle of that speech than he was in any other speech. He looks buffoon-like. I’ll assemble the alternatives and we can have a second survey since you have strong feelings. –SusanLesch (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emiya1980, User:Anne drew, User:StefenTower, User:ElijahPepe, User:Robertclarke32, sorry we have another survey, and I ask for your participation. –SusanLesch (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The White House and DHS have not issued an official portrait. Which image below (or add one) is your preference for the infobox?

E (as long as it’s cropped above his front pocket, however)
If not, keep F Robertclarke32 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to crop out his gesture? Then it becomes just another pedestrian live capture head. –SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m willing for it to be whatever as long as it isn’t A or C, they look absolutely atrocious and aren’t fitting for a BLP Robertclarke32 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A — G and H are unusable. The lighting on B is off. D has a facial expression, which is best avoided. Others have mentioned the strange portrayal in F. C has a person in the background. E also has a facial expression. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. I don’t see the problem with this photo. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Emiya1980 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax the verb “finding” is used. This indicates that the belief has been factually or legally established. A judge can “find” someone guilty of murder. A chemist can “find” chemical composition. But Stephen Miller did not “find” that the players were victims because they were white males. I’m not saying that it’s *impossible* for Miller to find this. But it’s extremely unlikely. He had access to confessions? He had access to all the relevant evidence in the case? He had reliable proof of his statement? I propose that a more moderate verb be used, like “asserted”, “argued”, or the like. VoidSeraph (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Oreocooke (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version