Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Far-right"

I have reverted James J. Lambden's removal of the phrase "far-right" from the lede of this biography. A wide array of high-quality reliable sources describe him as coming from the far-right of the political spectrum, including The New York Times (The ascent of Mr. Miller from far-right gadfly with little policy experience to the president’s senior policy adviser came as a shock to many of the staff members who knew him from his seven years in the Senate), Bloomberg News (Miller was well known for publicly advocating far-right policies on immigration), etc. There is no BLP issue here, given the quality of the sources, so it's rather a matter of deciding whether the qualifier belongs there; given the sources, I think it does. But I'm open to discovering that there's consensus otherwise, and if that consensus is that it should be removed, we should remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there is universal agreement among sources that he is far-right (if he isn't, then who is?). Notably, he was described specifically as a far-right figure by Michael Wolff in the book on the Trump White House; Wolff writes: Miller, a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body. Except, other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller’s views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone. Miller's views differ very strongly from what is traditionally considered conservatism in the United States and the western world—for example in his hatred of NATO (a position traditionally mainly found on the hard left in the US, quite unsurprisingly since it primarily serves Russia's interests, although in recent years some extreme-right elements have embraced what used to be considered pro-communist/pro-Soviet/pro-Russian views)—so there is clearly a need to distinguish him from traditional conservatives who support western values and who oppose communism/the Soviet Union/Putin's Russia. --Tataral (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Putin is no left-wing communist, but a right-wing, autocratic, kleptocratic nationalist, which explains why the far right love him.[1] -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putin, the former KGB agent who regards the downfall of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy in modern history, is essentially both pro-Soviet and far-right at the same time, and deeply anti-western and anti-American. He has certainly abandoned many aspects of communism as it was traditionally understood, but his political worldview is still fundamentally based on being pro-Soviet, and he presides over a regime that engages in extensive pro-Soviet historical revisionism and that hero worships Stalin to an even greater extent than the Soviet Union did itself after around 1960. In any event, the views held by Putin are incompatible with what is regarded as conservatism in the western world, and people who work on behalf of Putin primarily work against the western world, and they also work against everything the Republican Party proclaimed to stand for and identified as its core values, at least prior to Trump. --Tataral (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stop. These are value labels that are not encyclopedic nor universal. That the discussion has devolved to making claims that Putin is right wing, its clear the decision for the label is not about accuracy but association. "Far-right" offers no insight at all over "right" and serves to inject an opinion that his views are on the edge. That's always a matter of perspective that varies from source to source, country to country. It's very easy and a rather intellectually shallow exercise to portray mainstream elected and appointed officials as "far-X". Save the extreme labels for members of extreme organizations, not simply just in the party that has an opposition party. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" "Far-right" offers no insight at all over "right"" - that's a obviously ridiculous assertion. I myself, and many others, as well as multiple sources, do apparently find it "insightful" to distinguish between "far right" and "right". It's just as insightful as including the fact that a dog is a Canis and not just a mammal. Indeed, if it wasn't insightful, you wouldn't be here objecting to it so strenuously. And while your opinion of who is and who is not "mainstream" is noted, we actually rely on reliable sources for our articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the mainstream reliable sources cited. You seem to be objecting to the way reliable sources depict Miller; we can't fix that problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream reliable" ACCORDING TO YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.237.195 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The "mainstream" sources listed are all left wing associated and have an overall political agenda of labeling certain right wing parties as being on the fringe or extreme and thus using the term "far-right" but there is no indication of actual far-right ideology with regards to Stephen Miller except the aforementioned name calling. "Take it up with mainstream...we can't fix that problem" yes we actually can fix it by being more selective in what is cited. Why cite something that is proven to be heavily liberal and not anything on the other side. The responsible thing to do is to use facts and not subjective opinions. Distinguishing should be made when there is actual evidence to support such claims but I do not see it here. "Far-right activist" needs to go. (Dgarza42 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Doesn't matter if you agree with a 1-line screaming text from an IP user or not, the Wikipedia has policies on sourcing, verification, and reliability of the sourcing. The citations noted for Miller's far-right beliefs are more than sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, take a seat...they are no way sufficient or an end to the debate--Mapsfly (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat something I noted elsewhere. The term "far right" is a common term of art for what is mostly described in the literature as the populist radical right. It differs from right-wing and conservative in its emphasis on authoritarianism, nativism and anti-immigration policies. I dug up a couple of examples several days ago to illustrate the point:

  • Cas Mudd, ed. (2017). "Introduction to the populist radical right". The Populist Radical Right: A reader. Routledge. ISBN 9781315514574. (The populist radical right shares a core ideology that combines (at least) three features: nativism, authoritarianism, and populism (Mudde 2007)... In Europe the nativism of the populist radical right has mainly targeted 'immigrants')
  • Mudde, Cas. "The Study of Populist Radical Right Parties:Towards a Fourth Wave" (PDF). C-REX Working Paper Series,. 2016 (1): 1. Retrieved 2024-06-28. (Since the start of the third wave of populist radical right politics in postwar Europe in the early 1980s, more articles and books have been written on far right parties than on all other party families combined.){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

These happen to be by the same author but there are lots of examples out there of the terms being effectively synonymous per the usage in the second quote. The point being that the term far right does not mean 'more right' or 'more conservative' it is used, specifically, to denote views and parties which are anti-immigrant, populist and authoritarian. A far right party may or may not stress religion, 'family values' to the extent of the traditional American right and it certainly does not encompass the free trade policies of conservatives. It is a distinct area of the ideological spectrum, the populist radical right, and labeling a person with far right views as simply right-wing or conservative is simply incorrect and inaccurate on its face.

It is not a derogatory term. It is a simple adjective describing a common, distinct, set of policies and values. Others may see the label as derogatory because they see the values of the far right repugnant but, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it is no different from saying someone is a Family Values Christian. Their views are undoubtedly repugnant to a large group of people but it is not controversial to say someone holds those values nor do the people so labeled typically object to being called such. Just as Miller has not, to my knowledge, objected to being called far right. His views are what they are and the proper term for them is far right. Jbh Talk 15:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, Bernie Sanders or El Chapo Traphouse should be described as 'far-left', since that would be an accurate description of their activities. However, if you check word frequency, you will notice that both 'far-left' and 'far-right' are political slurs only used by people with certain political views. For comparison, 'neoliberal' is not used by free market liberals, 'progressive' is used by few except center-left and left-wing liberals, 'pro-life' is only used by anti-abortion activists and 'pro-choice' by pro-abortion activists, etc. 'Right-wing' or 'nationalist' would be a more appropriate descriptor. Cas Mudde, by the way, is a scholar activist who is very vocal about his views, not even trying to resemble a neutral observer who abstains from using slurs. Humanophage (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting your breath. These people have an agenda and they want it accomplished no matter what. Jarwulf (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The defense of the phrase far-right by claiming it is supported by myriad sources is not legitimate. Firstly, the definition of far-right should be considered. Far-right is used to describe Fascistic, Nazist, or Extreme-Nationalist politics.[1] [2] The New York Times source was an editorial, and therefore the opinion of the author, but by no means a confirmation of the reality. Further, the Bloomberg article defines specific policies of Mr. Miller's as far-right, but that does not necessarily mean that he is far-right as a whole. Further, [User_talk:Jbhunley| Talk]] cited the same author twice and made an unsupported claim that there are many other articles that back up the single author he cited, however, he did not cite any of those authors. Further, the articles he provided did not use the word far-right, they discussed Populist Radical Right Parties, which [User_talk:Jbhunley| Talk]] claimed was the definition of far-right, without any sources backing it up. Moreover, the article did not mention Mr. Miller, so per Wikipedia Guidelines it is not relevant to and discussion over this article. Additionally, talk is right that it is important to distinguish between conservative and far-right, but it must be done properly, consistently, and by definition. So while we would like to distinguish Mr. Miller in order to provide more insight into his exact political leanings, when the nature of those leanings as far-right is ambiguous, it is imperative to describe his stated views instead of provide speculation over the nature of those views on the political spectrum.Canijustedit (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are engaging in original research. We don't do that. We use reliable resources. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Canijustedit: Hi. I took a quick look at your edit history. How come you're trying to remove mentions of Miller being "far-right" while working hard to include mentions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as being "far-left"? Your logic re: Miller contradicts your logic re: Ocasio-Cortez. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: My edit history has no effect on what is right for this page. Further, I did that in order to try and create consistency across pages. Considering that the phrase far-left is not being used on her page, I came to this page. It does not make sense why far-right is used on one but far-left not on the others. I am trying to provide consistency. Further, sources that were in favor of Ms. Cortes referred to her endearingly as far-left. The sources used here are from Mr. Miller's adversaries. In the future, you may want to engage with what I write on this talk page in order to advise your opinion about this page instead of any other page, which are by Wikipedia guidelines irrelevant to this one. Canijustedit (talk) 02:32, July 3, 2018‎ (UTC)
@Canijustedit: Since Wikipedia is a community-based project built on consensus, editor behavior is absolutely relevant. You're making a false equivalence between this page and that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu:You made the equivalence between this page and the other. You said that because I supported a specific term, that is distinct from the term being used here, on that page, that I can not support a different term on this page. You made a false equivalency. I did not equate the two pages. And if you are to equate them, then you should immediately go and either add far-left to that page or remove far-right from this page. However, I have stopped my campaign on that page, as it was brought to my attention of the lack of precision in either of those terms. For Wikipedia to remain neutral it is pertinent we do not have either far-left on that page or far-right on this page. Please engage with what I said here about why we should remove far-right and not with an irrelevant article. Canijustedit (talk) 02:48, July 3, 2018‎ (UTC)
We base content on RS, not on consistency between articles. There is no policy for that. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Immigration hardliner" is sourced

Winkelvi, who is systemically going through my edits, followed me here and removed the term "immigration hardliner" from the lede.[2] 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"[3], 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Accepted. :-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
Add this into ctrl+F without quotation marks: "hard-" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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): [4][5][6][7][8]
# Synonyms (architect of a hard-line approach, immigration hawk): [9][10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extraneous content

This article is padded full of extraneous content which does not help the reader better understand the article subject. I have removed the following [11] as extraneous. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Winkelvi's edit. We should not be attempting to do a hatchet job on the subject of the article. Everything the subject of the biography may say may not be brilliant but it does not warrant inclusion simply because it was said. Some things said may be hyperbole or better regarded as unimportant filler. "The president is a political genius... who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex" is hyperbole and it makes the subject of the article sound stupid—but it lacks substance. Our guiding principle is to compile information that matters rather than extraneous utterances that play to one side of a story or another. This interview has been described by commentators as Stephen Miller going "off the rails".[3][4][5][6] I think there is a limit to how much of this warrants inclusion in our article. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS, your statement, "is hyperbole and it makes the subject of the article sound stupid" is your personal opinion and it's not up to WP editors to change the tone or substance of what the cited RS reports. It is what the RS reported -- in fact rather widely reported in numerous RS -- period. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree mostly with what Bus Stop has said here. Especially regarding unimportant filler and lack of substance. The article is filled with WP:FART moments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Specifico—just because a reliable source could support the inclusion of material is not sufficient in all circumstances for the inclusion of that material. For instance some longwinded blather contains nothing of substance. Why do you feel this particular material warrants inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carlisle, Rodney P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Thousand Oaks, California, United States; London, England; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005) p. 693.
  2. ^ https://www.bundestag.de/blob/189776/01b7ea57531a60126da86e2d5c5dbb78/parties_weimar_republic-data.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-miller-jake-tapper-transcript-cnn-2018-1
  4. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-miller-escorted-off-cnn-2018-1
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5247681/What-Jake-Tapper-told-Stephen-Miller-confrontation.html
  6. ^ https://nypost.com/2018/01/07/jake-tapper-cuts-off-contentious-interview-with-stephen-miller/
  • As self-predicted this [12] is now happening. Discussion stalled/non-existent. No further cogent or meaningful discussion = an 'ok' to remove the content in question. Anyone who has already commented have a reasonable argument against it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On first blush I find the removed content helpful in that it illustrates the ... intensity... of Miller's feelings on the issue thereby providing the reader, using Miller's own words, insight that aids in contextualizing his views of and actions on behalf of Trump. Jbh Talk 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So...WP:SYNTH? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think SYNTH applies. Just quoting WP:STUFF does not adequately express your particular concern. Jbh Talk 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I admit my comment was poorly framed, , more than a little AGF could have been applied by you in regard to it, Jbhunley. I was attempting to ask if what you proposed could be perceived as synth, possibly causing a problem. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how what I describe could be SYNTH as it is not drawing any conclusions – I was expressing why I thought the removed material might not be 'extraneous', not suggesting additional material. Do you believe the removed material has a SYNTH issue? Was it brought up elsewhere on the talk page? I did not see the matter raised in this thread and therefore still do not see why you raise SYNTH as a potential issue. Jbh Talk 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply trying to avoid any issues that could be brought up by others. As I'm sure you are aware, at AP2/politically-related articles, DS makes for a very difficult editing environment. One mistake or misinterpreted insertion of content can lock up productive editing for days, weeks, months. I'm just trying to avoid the possibility of someone seeing it as synth. Hence, my question to you whether or not you, in your opinion, think it might be seen as such. I'm asking for your opinion, touching base, checking in. See where I'm coming from now? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time I do not see a SYNTH issue do you? Jbh Talk 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. No, I don't, but like I already said, I was merely asking for another viewpoint. Really, no need for you to be so impatient (or at least seem like you're impatient). Methinks if you had exercised AGF rather than ABF in the first place, we wouldn't still be doing this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately we can simply assume that my mind reading skills are sub-par and "WP:SYNTH?" is essentially meaningless without some additional contextual cue and that asking for clarification of a question is not an assumption of bad faith. Regardless, I'll take you up on the beer![13] Jbh Talk 21:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winikelvi, do not repeat your removal of this text. It is the complete account of the events that made this incident noteworthy, that led to its coverage in hundreds of RS reports, and that explains the situation to our readers. BS, stop personalizing your remarks and address the crux of the issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"do not repeat your removal of this text...BS, stop personalizing...address the crux..." Sounds like you're giving me an order. And making personal attacks. Not exactly in the spirit of collegial editing, civil discussion, and creating consensus, is it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Immigration hardliner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am hardly satisfied by the reasoning indulged in by the opposes. One needs to read WP:VAGUEWAVE and another's argument is of dubious factual accuracy and interpretations. Overall, there is a strong weighed consensus for checkY inclusion of the concerned phrase.∯WBGconverse 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lede contain the bold text:

  • "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."

Sources for the bold text (all of these sources are in the body of the article).[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

You can remove the labels you feel are inaccarate or not supported by reliable sources, or premept a discussion if you think your changes are going to be controversial.Zubin12 (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh none of them are inaccurate and they're all supported by references, I just don't think another one is necessary as it doesn't impart any new information that isn't already covered in the lead, and in particular, that sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As creative editing. Not too extreme, but still not from following cites or most common usages. (1) Cite Failure This wording is not literally in the cites the RFC listed; (2) WEIGHT Failure MOST sources do not use the phrase in bold text; and (3)NPOV failure. Cite failure comes from looking into the listed cites. (I pulled up the first few links and I see NYT and Politico and Foreign Policy, and I find "anti-immigration" in NYT but no occurrence of "immigration hardliner". I continue and see NYT and NYT (failing NPOV here...) and find "hard-line positions on immigration" sort of close; then go on and find NYT -wot, again?- and NYMag and see "immigration hawk" and "hard-line approach to immigration".) WEIGHT failure I get by looking at Google for him (2.2 million hits); him and "immigration" (454,000 hits = 21%)), him and "immigration hardliner" (13,400 hits =0.6%)) or "hardline" "immigration" (12,800 hits=0.6%) or "anti-immigration" (24,400 hits = 1.1%). The far more common phrases are the more generic ones like "advisor" or "adviser" (409,000 and 352,000). NPOV failure is that when I check at more prominent general sites or sites other than NY ... specifically ABC.go.com, BBC.com, and FoxNews.com ... I come up with zero for 3, for BBC the first few of nine have nothing; and for Fox I see 1 of 490... As a bonus, I'm not seeing it from the article body so it's not WP:LEAD and I also agree with the prior comment of Isaidnoway that there are enough empty labels in the lead. Mentioning involvement with the border separation is informative, adding yet another colorful turn of phrase is not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hardliner", "hard-liner" or holder of "hardline"/"hard-line" positions is verbatim in the first five sources. The other two sources use synonyms (architect of a hard-line approach, "immigration hawk"). Your first pointsis completely inaccurate, and it's extremely hard to understand how you managed to err like that. As for your second point, it's also inaccurate. There are droves of sources that refer to him as an immigration hardliner, but I limited myself to ones that were already in the article, because why add twenty different RS when there were at least EIGHT in the body of the article itself that referred to him like that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD failure is that the creative labeling appears nowhere in the article body - I think because it's just an empty editorializing. The WP:WEIGHT failure is that MOST sources do not use this language -- for example, out of 66 in this article, none did and you could only find 8 (12%) - mostly NYT it seems - that mention anything even similar enough that creative rephrasing could get there. It's not too far astray from what those say, but it is NOT what those say. Again " Miller was a chief architect of Trump's travel ban," is neutral and factual and backed EXACTLY in cites -- the [Miller is] "An immigration hardliner, Miller was a chief architect of ..." is a bit of creative writing. Try "Senior White House advisor, Miller was a" would be easily supportable -- but what is proposed is a stretch and a POV item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both well-cited and one of the main things he's famous for. This clearly paraphrases and summarizes the broad coverage about him. --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose I am missing the wikipedia policy that says, "If sources back it up bold the fuck out of it." I'm not even sure the text should be in the article, per wp:terrorist, but that'sa fight for someone who cares. Bolding the text like so is visually striking, attention grabbing, or what ever you'd wish to call it. It places wieght on the statement. "ZOMG, there are sources." Really? That's great, as anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and all that jazz. However, having sources says nothing about weight. The bolding is a product of undue weight and shouldn't be in the article because some activist editors notice or view him as a racist schmuck working for POTUS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serialjoepsycho: - I'm pretty sure Snooganssnoogans just bolded that text to highlight those particular words they want to add to the lead, it won't be bold when and if it's added to the lead, correct me if I'm wrong @Snooganssnoogans:. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the question then. In either case, I'd review wp:terrorist and come up with more than a simple minded, "it's in the sources so it should be included." In either case the articles not NPOV anyway so have at it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support It's appropriately sourced and a concise summary of the political positions Miller's best known for. I also support putting the sentence before the inauguration speech because, at this point, he's much better known for his immigration activities than for his role in writing the inauguration speech. R2 (bleep) 08:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The description accurately reflects the facts within the cited sources. This seems more than ripe for closing given the clear consensus. Activist (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2018 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)&oldid=873825875

Leave a Reply