Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 2

2807:. ... Many of the right’s most abrasive immigration hawks come from the Golden State: …, Stephen Miller, … are all Californians … Sessions’s former aides Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn helped shape the policies and personnel of the Trump White House: the blitzkrieg of executive orders that lit up the presidency’s early days came at Sessions’s recommendation. … Sessions has come the closest of any member of the administration to enact the policies of the alt-right, starting to roll back the Justice Department’s oversight of police departments that routinely violate the civil rights of their black constituents, refusing to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws, threatening to deport undocumented immigrants brought here as children, expressing no interest in “prosecuting federal diversity and fair housing” (as an approving Richard Spencer put it), pledging to punish sanctuary cities, and denigrating judges who rule against the racialist policies he supports. 3000:"Many of the right’s most abrasive immigration hawks come from the Golden State: …, Stephen Miller, … are all Californians … Sessions’s former aides Stephen Miller and Rick Dearborn helped shape the policies and personnel of the Trump White House: the blitzkrieg of executive orders that lit up the presidency’s early days came at Sessions’s recommendation. … Sessions has come the closest of any member of the administration to enact the policies of the alt-right, starting to roll back the Justice Department’s oversight of police departments that routinely violate the civil rights of their black constituents, refusing to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws, threatening to deport undocumented immigrants brought here as children, expressing no interest in “prosecuting federal diversity and fair housing” (as an approving Richard Spencer put it), pledging to punish sanctuary cities, and denigrating judges who rule against the racialist policies he supports." 4747:

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.

1021:. If reliable sources refer to Miller as an aide, then it's pretty obviously not "wholly inaccurate" to do so, as you're repeatedly suggesting in this talk page section. You refer to the term "aide" as a demotion, when I'm trying to point out that you're simply wrong about the use of the word. Similar to the term secretary, aide is not a demotion to another title like senior policy advisor, aide is simply a more generic and broader term. You may personally view the term "aide" as a demotion (and that's fine!), but that doesn't change how reliable sources and the rest of the English-speaking world view the term. :-) -- 537:"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." A non-exhaustive sample of some of the things reputable journalists have said about Wolff: "dubiously sourced » "getting eviscerated over its accuracy « »reporting methods that have come under scrutiny « » riddled with errors and rumors" "suggests a reportorial sloppiness that cannot be wished away or ignored" "Wolff is not merely out of his depth— 3234:, your link is to an op-ed, and there is nothing that describes Miller as far-right. Regardless, we don't hang contentious labels on BLPs in the lede, especially when citing to op-eds. We do consider the qualifications of op-ed authors, and in this case we have an academic whose research agenda is focused on liberal democracies defending against political challenges which basically equates into a POV that considers conservatism a challenge. Context matters. If we include their opinions/academic research, we do so in the body with in-text attribution to that author/academic. 4276: 2032:

personally, there's no way to demonstrate opposition to the "far right" label. It is not appropriate for us editors to presume the lack of any opinion counter to the "far right" label means that the label is uncontested and thus can be treated as fact. (It's the same argument used elsewhere here "Oh, no one within our RSes disputes this, so therefore it must be true") We can certainly say that "some/many/most" consider the label appropriate, and that's a factual statement particularly if that's coming from NYTimes and other high-quality RSes. --

2764:. The term is not pejorative, it's descriptive. Definitions of far right: Merriam Webster – the group of people whose political views are the most conservative. Oxford Dictionaries – The extreme right wing of a political party or group. Miller's positions on DACA, immigration, racism, nationalism etc. are not just on the far right of the overall political spectrum, but also on the far right of the conservative spectrum. Here’s a list of quotes from reliable sources (duplicating some RS that have already been mentioned by other editors): 344:"in liberal intellectual and media circles it is widely believed that has lost its way.... Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told POLITICO. “... They’ve become — and I think this is sad — they’ve definitely become like a joke, which is terrible for people who care about these progressive institutions.” “Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore,” wrote Laura Miller, one of Salon’s founding editors who left the site for Slate last fall. “The name is still being used, but the real Salon is gone.” 2986:"In recent years, Americans have been closely split between holding steady (38 percent as of June 2017) and decreasing (35 percent). The remainder, around 1 in 4, want to increase legal immigration … Politico/Morning Consult poll asked it a different way, asking how they’d feel about halving the number of legal immigrants over the next 10 years. ... Nearly half, 48 percent, strongly or somewhat supported cutting legal immigration in this way; 39 percent opposed it.” 31: 3600:- you're getting the same song second verse of the argument that has been used on more than a few conservative articles to justify noncompliance with NPOV - except the "small group" mentioned is much larger than "small", and the consensus they've been accused of not accepting has typically been "no consensus". If you get a chance, take a look at the exorbitant number of Trump articles, or I should say Coatracks, such as the 4365:

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.

3037:

variable may be engagement with 'the extreme per se' rather than with 'extreme qualities of ideology'. "Further complicated by the way we label ... etc." (Who are "we"?) From the introduction to a collection of essays on violence and terrorism. Another excerpt from your source (pg. 3, second paragraph to last): "Furthermore, it is unclear where distinctions should be drawn between extreme,

4228: 1203:". In the article text, it reads "White House aide Stephen Miller, in a combative television appearance, ". Your continued assertions, without any citations or evidence, that the use of the term aide is inaccurate are pretty clearly baseless. I think any reader who stumbles across this discussion can see that reliable sources and common 21st-century English usage support my position. -- 4397:

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 Knowledge (XXG). It's not the first time, and sadly, will not be the last. Thank you for keeping Knowledge (XXG) articles "objective" and "neutral."

3657: 3651: 3615: 1663:"Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."" If we wouldn't call someone a sexist in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice based on Betty Friedan, we shouldn't be calling someone far-right in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice based on Salon. In any case I'd question the 4860:- 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. 2254:(Coming from RS/N). "Far right" is a subjective term/label and regardless of how many RSes use it, it still is a subjective term. The only aspect that should come from so many RSes calling him far right is that per WEIGHT, we need to describe that he is seen as far right by some/many journalists and any controversies related to that, as outlined per 3551:

ulimited abortion is akin to a Nazi Stormtrooper on a rampage through Eastern Europe. Exceptionally funny to watch the American circus from the outside and the display of unrestrained narcisstic personality disorders put before us, but I'm not sure we should be putting this kind of stuff in an encyclopedia as serious content.

3612:. Better yet, just click on the "nav box" at any Trump article and start reading the articles. This BLP is just another in a long line of conservative Coatracks where WP sometimes exercises a double standard when it comes to NPOV...depending on which group of editors dominate the respective article and its RfCs. 4483:

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.

3360:"Within the White House, the far right has been practically decimated. With Steve Bannon’s departure, and recent excommunication, the Breitbart faction has become marginalized.(...) The only one to (so far) survive the president’s ire, despite being close to both Bannon and Sessions, has been Stephen Miller" 2442:- it is noncompliant with NPOV and RECENTISM. If in doubt of how to apply NPOV in the lede of a conservative politician, refer to the BLP of a liberal politician and you can't go wrong. We do not type-cast/label BLPs in the lede based on the opinions of opponents. If you need guidance, look at the BLPs of 4017:

for you. To show how much I care, I have a suggestion that may help avoid carpal tunnel syndrome caused by striking the same keys repetitively each time you respond to editors with valid concerns over NPOV and Coatracks (funny how those concerns always land on Trump-related articles, isn't it?): make

3689:

in liberal intellectual and media circles it is widely believed that has lost its way.... Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told POLITICO. “... They’ve become — and I think this is sad — they’ve definitely become like a joke, which is terrible for people who care about

3130:

If we had an RS saying "Jeremy Corbyn is left wing. He is obsessed with nationalising public companies, an area where he has combatively advocated hard-line positions," would the Knowledge (XXG) community would be OK with rounding that up to "Jeremy Corbyn is the far-left leader of the Labour Party"?

3013:

George Will’s op-ed containing his negative opinion of Miller may be notable but Will’s opinion is not universal among conservatives - see the defenses of Miller in op-eds cited elsewhere in this thread written by conservatives and appearing in nonpartisan RSs like the NYT or Politico. Or compare the

2466:- oh, and take a look at Farrakhan's BLP and compare his extremist views to the ledes of conservative politicians. The systemic bias in our political articles is pretty obvious, especially if we're debating a contentious label for a conservative that we would not even think of including in the BLP of 1430:

I added the first edit after NZ Footballs Conscience wrote "if others disagree with it then you write that also." The second was from RedState quoting journalists criticising Miller paragraph. It was removed because RedState is "not RS". (But Salon is?) The third edit was from Weekly Standard and EW.

566:

Ok, ignoring the fact that you can take out the claim of far-right, why did you take out his paragraph as well? It is public information that should be mention on the article, if others disagree with it then you write that also. Not remove everything because some others say it is questionable. Others

4859:

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

4816:

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".

3713:

pigeonhole people on the right. Yes, the NY Times bandies this descriptor about, and the NY Times is a Reliable Source. Wouldn't an accurate and neutral way to describe Miller's leanings be something like: "Miller is a self described nationalist, who has also been described by some as far-right"?

3712:

This discussion about the best descriptor for Miller's political leanings has caused me to realize that I can think of no examples where a person on the right has described his or her self as a "far-right" person. This description seems to me to be a descriptor used by folks on the left who wish to

1972:

Well now you seem to be conceding that there's some sample that is sufficient and that there's some sample size that's redundant. Once we stipulate that, it implies that an overwhelming sample is sufficient simply to state it in WP's voice, just as we state hundreds of other attributes in WP's voice

1087:

Why? 1- The actual job title isn't necessary, something more accurate is; 2- People would probably like to choose the right Stephen Miller at the disambiguation page; 3- It's easier to do that if the title is accurate; 4- The goal is to create an encyclopedia that contains accurate facts. Here's a

695:

Hi. I changed the page title from "Stephen Miller (political operative)" to "Stephen Miller (aide)" as I didn't really find the term political operative fitting or appropriate. Using "aide" seems marginally better, though it's certainly possible there's even better parenthetical we could use. I also

482:

That's right. I have seen Wolff criticized for exaggeration by alleged embellishment of dialogue or juxtaposition of unrelated incidents. But the far-right label on Miller is well established and it's not an original conclusion of Wolff's. Miller has apparently been viewed that way since his college

4396:

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

4326:

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

3568:

It may appear that way, but actually these long lists of citations usually come about for the opposite reason. In this case, the obvious and uncontroversial tag is disputed for whatever reason by a small group of editors who won't accept consensus. So the NPOV text ends up with excessive numbers of

3378:

I do not see how the WaPo article 'debunked' anything. It gives an example of him supporting a deal from the Dreamers but he is also accused, by his own party no less, of scuttling the deal although two WH aides say it was Trump's idea. That single issue/instance does not really do much to 'debunk'

2377:

is one), I believe it is totally reasonable to include some type of statement that Miller is viewed as a "far-right" political figure—just not in the lead. Beyond the four current sources, a cursory Google search will result in several more reliable sources referring to Miller as "far-right." Seems

2267:

sources call him far-right, then we might be able to say that in WP's voice then. I would also caution about limited only to what RSes call a person rather than using all sources. RSes are only required for factual claims; statement of opinion (of which labeling someone far-right falls into) can be

2165:

it or otherwise reject it, we might have to be more cautious (or at least note his objection, if it's well-sourced), and if it were only used by a few sources with a clear point-of-view I could understand attributing it and keeping it out of the lead; but it's used as a neutral descriptor by a huge

1043:

I am well aware that Knowledge (XXG) is not to be used as a source. I directed you there so you can see that, in fact, the position Miller holds is not an aide position, by any stretch of the imagination. What reliable sources refer to Miller, in his current position, as an aide as his actual job

4844:

I think several of the sources do a fantastic job fleshing out how exactly he is a hardliner on immigration. This Knowledge (XXG) 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,

4364:

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

3894:

Atsme, it's possible there is no person on Earth who agrees with you or believes you should be pounding the table with this stuff. There's nothing controversial or extraordinary about identifying Miller as 👉🏻far-right, 👉🏻right-wing, extreme-👉🏻right, 👉🏻right-right, or any other 👉🏻-right.

3887:

Not true...there are plenty. The main difference is the simple fact that editors of those articles adhere to NPOV and don't cherrypick those RS because it doesn't fit their narrative. Hmmmmm...which goes back to what I said originally, but I'm not going to be baited by logical fallacies. I've said

1745:

by opponents, and not as a factual representation. Miller has not self-stated he is "far-right", nor does it seem that he is described as such by most sources. Some of the sources presented above also do not make the assertion (e.g. being liked by the "far right" does necessarily not make one "far

1711:: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." 1511:

Thank you for the reminder, NeilN. It's good to know an admin is keeping an eye out as a preventative measure. Debates can/should be conducted in a civil fashion (collegially but not like the Berkley debates. ) Frustrations over noncompliance with NPOV can escalate, especially when it involves the

134:

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

4821:

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 Knowledge (XXG) is declaring him to be a hard-liner. There really needs to be verified

4482:

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

4151:

to consider - if only a few borderline sources cover something, the wikipedia article isn't supposed to include it. And while it is true that Spencer makes these claims, he could be lying - in fact other reliable sources seem reluctant to pick up this story, suggesting skepticism. Knowledge (XXG)

4131:

So, Mother Jones/Duke Chronicle are not enough to show ties between Miller and Richard Spencer because, among other reasons, Mother Jones is considered by some an unreliable liberal tabloid. But Spencer himself (who is... not liberal, to say the least) saying "Yes, it's true, I really told Mother

4047:

I'm not really sure what "Reality is who the US has in the WH and Congress" was supposed to mean, the majority party does not dictate the truth. The Knowledge (XXG) follows the cited reliable sources, and if many call Miller a far-right activist, then the article should as well. If we take one of

2192:

as progressive and neither the SPLC or any RS has ever pushed back and indicated it's "controversial or disputed". But on that talk page you take the position that we shouldn’t call the SPLC progressive. (In Miller’s case, there’re the RSs listed at bottom who call Miller conservative. They could

2160:

Widely used by numerous reputable sources, and I don't feel there's actually anything contradicting it or indicating that it's controversial. To me, the argument that it's inherently a pejorative label doesn't hold water - it's a term used by academics to describe political positions. If Miller

2129:

That is more than sufficient reliable sources to use that descriptor, and I'm always of the opinion that a politician's ideology should be right up front in an article as long as there's no dispute among the sources and the ideology can be summed up in a word or two. Essentialy this boils down to

1670:

Michael Wolff: "other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew

627:

Unless you can find something that says what he said about Stephen Miller is wrong, then it should stay. Many reviewers have agreed that he paints a picture of what was going on in the White House, so here he is painting a picture of Miller. In fact what he has said seems to be his own picture of

4077:

in this project, while many right-leaning ones are not. Sources aren't rejected on the basis of perceived ideological leanings, but rather they are rejected when they are deemed to be unreliable and untruthful, and their claims unable to be verified. It isn't the Knowledge (XXG)'s fault that the

3036:

Re 1: I don't recall any of the RS equating "extreme right wing" with "far right". Also the quote is taken out of the context of an academic "if ... then" argument (if there are commonalities in personality and cognitive qualities between extreme right and left-wing activists then the critical

590:

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

3545:

line of citations is quite ridiculous. It just looks like a bitter Hillary Clinton aficionado has Googled "Stephen Miller", "far-right" and then spammed the intro with as many off-the-cuff passing mentions of the term in news articles. The problem is, if we as an encyclopedia are now describing

445:

Give us some time, people have a life outside of Knowledge (XXG). As for Wolff, I'm happy for him not to be used as a reference in the far-right comment however I do believe he should still be in the article as what he has said has gain significant coverage. Instead as what he has said has been

4746:

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

4380:

That's nice, but Knowledge (XXG) 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

3550:

Sorry to say, but it doesn't look like it is meant to be informative to the reader.... when you read it, the image you internalise is the wounded grimace of a really upset American liberal. It is a bit like the SPLC now claiming anybody who doesn't praise homosexuality sufficiently and support

2031:

The fact that no sources exist does not mean that there is no entity that disagrees with the "far right" label; they may simply have decided not to talk about it or address it (a "don't feed the trolls" type approach). If this were the case, then unless I ask all 7 billion people on the planet

2054:

be able to get away with saying that in WP's voice, with all other factors the same, though I would still think we would prefer to make sure some type of attribution is used. Even when we are talking something positive about a person, we'd still be careful to not state that as a fact, but use

1596:

mandates that no undue weight should be given to a subset of views (even if reliably sourced), and the opening sentence requires the highest level of consensus (short of the title). Hence, when sources coming from a particular seem biased toward a certain view, it is necessary to analyze the

3758:

Disagree with the assertion that describing someone as far-right (when well-sourced) is automatically polarizing or controversial. If you want to argue that it's controversial to call Miller far-right (given that numerous high-quality mainstream sources have done so), you would have to show

1173:

edit and changed the page title to Stephen Miller (political advisor). I see it as the best description for those looking at the disambig list of Stephen Miller articles, it is accurate - whereas "aide" was not - and it takes the suggestions of others commenting here into consideration. --

3125:

to outright neo-Nazis is suitable for calling Miller "far-right" in wikipedia's voice. I brought up National Review (who absolutely are a POV source) because you cited George Will's op-ed to suggest "look, the mainstream conservative movement rejects Miller, which shows he's far-right".

4430:

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.

4021: 4100:"Sources aren't rejected on the basis of perceived ideological leanings" - Oh, please. This is gaslighting and you know it. It is entirely ideology that determines whether some heavily slanted and politicized op-ed is a "reliable source" or not, and it's been that way for a while. 2416:

Seems that it is mainly left-leaning media and individuals that label him this. Seems derogatory. Has he ever referred to himself as far right? Has right leaning news ever referred to him as far right? Do we have examples of people being labelled as "far left"? Just a few thoughts.

3240:

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

2559:

Like I said, I’m fine with whatever sourcing standard gets set for these kind of labels, but it should be done consistently across articles. In any case why are the sources calling Miller ‘far-right’ to be given greater weight than the sources describing him as 'conservative’?

972:

from the press regularly refer to him as such. Often in a headline, which I would consider comparable to an article title. To me, your argument that "aide" is not enough ("a mere aide") sounds similar to the argument that a man can't just be a secretary. And yet we have the

3506:

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

2827: 4166:

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

930:

Nothing wrong with it. But... is a senior advisor to the most powerful individual in the world really just a political advisor (since it's not politics he's only advising on)? He's actually a policy advisor, not a political advisor. I vote for presidential advisor. --

3116:

I didn't say we can't use NYMag - I've used them as a source previously, but attributed it as "According to X..." for contentious stuff. I would question whether their headline writer's use of "far-right" for a collection of 28 different articles discussing everyone from

150:

In any case, look at the sourcing given for Miller as "far right". Salon(!); Michael Wolff the muckraking journalist (how is he an RS for placing people on the political spectrum anyway?) whose book has been generally panned for retailing dubious gossip - see the article

2297:

in its emphasis on authoritarianism, nativism and anti-immigration policies. The term itself is only pejorative insomuch as the positions it espouses are antithetical to liberal Western democratic values. In other words it is no more pejorative than saying someone is

2262:

a problem, reflecting the bias of the "now" and using the court of public opinion rather than academic, rather than how should be writing in the long-term. If, 5, 10, 20 years from now, Miller is still the subject of analysis, more distant and academic in nature, and

2914:"increasingly dominated by people who explicitly repudiate America’s premises. The faux nationalists of the "alt-right" and their fellow travelers such as Stephen K. Bannon have imported the blood-and-soil ethno-tribalism that stains the continental European right" 200:

by reliable sources to describe the subject" Three sources calling Miller far right is enough to say that this label is "widely used", but far, far more for the figures I linked is somehow not enough? This is a matter of consistency and neutrality across articles.

4666:

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.

4132:

Jones that" is also unreliable, so we don't put anything? We have X telling "I heard this from Y" and Y saying "Yes, I told X this" and it's not valid... why? Because reliable media like the New York Times weren't there to hear the conversation? I don't get it.

4460:, 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. 715:

It did need to be changed, however, the man is the Senior Policy Advisor to the President of the United States. "Aide" is a demotion and wholly inaccurate in relation to his position. "Senior Advisor" is what the article title should contain, not "Aide". --

3873:, well that's because reliable sources do not place contentious labels on those people, as they do not tend to do or say contentious things. Fringe sources who think Pelosi, Perez, et al are contentious figures don't get an equal voice in the conversation. 4681:(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. 4202:

I was going to say I was surprised The News & Observer didn't come up in my search but I see it was just published today. News & Observer is a credible outlet, I have no objections to including the now-well-sourced content. Thanks for finding it.

4412:

The purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 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.

517:

while it maybe could be agreed to take it out as a source for far-right, the fact that it agrees with other sources means it doesn't need to be. As said above, you shouldn't take out the paragraph but instead expand on it with your sources disputing it.

756:

refers to Clinton's campaign communications directory as a "top aide." Given the evidence, I'm not sure why you think it's wholly inaccurate. That said, I'm not opposed to an article move, though I'm not sure "(senior advisor)" would be an improvement.

499:

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

2588:

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

2372:

for example. He is arguably one of the most left-wing figures in America, yet he isn't referred to as such in the lead. The rest of his article, though, is replete with "far-left/left-wing" descriptors. Based off that example, and there are more

295:

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

1052:

is your mantra of the week. How about some of those reliable sources to prove your case, relevant to his current position and job description? Providing that would go a bit further toward convincing me you're acting in good faith here. --

2991:

And even if the polls were far lower - a few years ago gay marriage was far less popular in the U.S. and almost no elected officials supported it, but wikipedia rightly didn't (on that basis) call gay marriage or its proponents "far-left".

1989:

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

3546:

bourgeois Jewish conservatives as far-right as a means of group therapy to heal the bad-feels of I'm With Her-ers, then what are we now calling neo-Nazis, KKK, fascists and the like on Knowledge (XXG)? The really, really, far-right?

2976:

That being so, if we’re going to use a term often considered pejorative in the lead sentence about a BLP, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to verify that RSs are widely and explicitly calling Miller „far-right” (and rule out

1795:

a member of the far-right in that same op-ed and that's not something that quality US newspapers do when writing about Sessions (maybe they should, but they don't). So I think it's if anything an "According to Cas Mudde..." source.

3690:

these progressive institutions.” “Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore,” wrote Laura Miller, one of Salon’s founding editors who left the site for Slate last fall. “The name is still being used, but the real Salon is gone.

609:"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." 374:

We're talking about "far-right" as you know perfectly well. If Miller is widely described as far-right by reliable sources used for making statements in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice then there's no need for Salon and Michael Wolff.

2258:. This assumes that Miller has not himself called himself far-right. When WP presumes the ideological stance by the media of a figure in the current limelight, even if that assessment in the media is near universal, that's 3041:

manifestations of the far-right and more moderate political platforms that sometimes espouse similar rhetoric." Seems to be an argument for there being both extreme, violent and moderate, non-violent manifestations of the

2617:

Ummmm, what? „Far-right”: NYT (1 article), BI, Bloomberg, Cas Mudde op-ed (plus Salon and Michael Wolff if you drop your standards). „Conservative”: NYT (2 other articles), Politico (2 articles), CNN, WashPo (2 articles),

2555:"It's how he's described in multiple reliable sources, end of story »? That was true of RSs calling the SPLC liberal (less contentious label, better sourced), which you wrote was a "POV attempt at poisoning the well. » 3438: 3521: 3316: 4811:

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

3442: 675:

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

3406:

to side step the labeling issue but whatever the solution it needs to be made clear in the lead that he holds extremist views. That is pretty much a defining element of Miller and it needs to be right up front.

2485:. How other articles are written is irrelevant. (and oh, Louis Farrakhan's article describes him as "antisemitic and a proponent of an anti-white theology", so your claim is not just irrelevant but also false). 219:

says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

3826:. You won't see any contentious labels in the ledes of those articles, (probably few in the body but if there are, they must be included with in-text attribution to a RS) and the same should apply WP-wide. 996:

What the hell else do you need other than being pointed to the article on Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and seeing that his current position title does NOT include the word aide? --

4505:

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.

2049:

I would add one thing to the above, in that we are talking a contentious label in general ("far right"). If we were talking something far less contentious, say "conservative" or "right-leaning", then one

467:

Mr. Wolff being criticized for accuracy in one area does not automatically invalidate a reliable source that quotes him in another. That's about as classic a logical fallacy as one can find around here.

3844:) and false (for example Louis Farrakhan article's lede does in fact use several contentious labels). I'm going to AGF here and assume you didn't see my comment before repeating your false claims again. 4845:

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.

1115:

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

787:. Please note that nowhere in the article does it state the Senior Advisor to the POTUS is an aide position. My suggestion is that the parenthetical title be changed to (Presidential advisor). -- 177:

and based each article on its own merits, then secondly you can argue a couple of the sources aren't reliable but NY Times, MSNBC and Business Insider are all sources as saying Miller is far-right.

4710:

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?

3210:

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

2950:

The label „far-right” is generally used in a way that goes beyond merely saying that someone is more right-wing than most other people in their community, as is recognised by political scientists:

1746:

right"). If you Fox referring to someone as far-right, or conversely Salon referring to someone as "far left" (and not the other way around) - then you know that the label is universally accepted.

2470:, or extreme left wing radical politician. We can certainly include such labels in the BLPs of political extremists provided we do so in the body, and use in-line text attribution per our PAGs. 1973:

when they are obvious, uncontroversial, and widely documented. Do you have any sources that state Miller is not "far right"/"right wing"/"alt-right" and take issue with such a characterization?

4626:. 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. 3059: 2055:

attribution for it, that it is a fact many source think this positive term applies. But with something that is contentious, we better be extremely careful to avoid saying that in WP's voice. --

1716: 196:

says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are

2015:"proving a negative" it makes it look like you can't follow through to substantiate your position. I'm asking you not to "prove" anything, just to provide a single instance of what you claim. 4520:

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.

4107: 3045:

Re 2: Quoting the source of the source: "On immigration, as on any other issue, it can seem that there's a poll result that supports just about any position." "Question wording matters".

1766:) identify him as far-right. Cas Mudde, who is a leading expert on far-right populism, identifies Stephen Miller as "far-right". I don't have access to Mudde's recent book for Routledge, 2919: 4777:

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:

3781:

Any disputed label is contentious. If we were to describe Miller as Christian when he insists he's not, that would make "Christian" a contentious label. Doubly so when the label puts

3273:

being synonymous regardless of the plain usage of an expert in the field. Possibly you could argue that the authors of the various popular press pieces that simply refer to him as a

783:

an aide. He's a senior advisor to the president. That's a hefty position, much more so than an aide ever would be. There's even an article on the position. You can see it here:

3399:

is a massive NPOV violation unless American conservatism has gone so far off the rails that this guy's views are mainstream. I would even go so far as to say he could be described

2752: 2704:

Nonsense. NPOV means following sources and that's how sources describe him. WP:RECENTISM... not clear on how that's suppose to apply. He's been far-right since, what, high school?

1671:

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."

3446: 2101: 784: 3162:. Cas Mudde is a leading expert on far-right populism, and is therefore an extremely valuable source for the designation. Someone should try to access his 2017 Routledge book 2695: 2268:

taken from non-RSes though the expertise of the author should be considered ("Random Joe's Blog" may not be, but a Republic congressperson opining in Breitbart might be). --

2830:

policy adviser … his economic nationalism and hard-line positions on immigration … bound by a belief in an America-first economic policy that has suddenly moved from the

4349:

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.

2204: 3104:. The point the source was making (in passing) was that "far-right" is a descriptive term that often has pejorative connotations. This doesn't mean that Knowledge (XXG) 76: 71: 59: 2952:"However, this is further complicated by the way we label someone as 'extreme right wing' which tends to be not just a description of political perspective, but also a 1715:

So there are two RSs - NYT, BI - that have described Miller as far-right. OTOH there are lots of RSs that don't apply any such label at all e.g. this profile in WashPo

4063:

Oh, no - you mean conservative sources? Can't have that - they're biased, unlike biased left leaning sources or sources that are in a flat-out war with Trump. *sigh*

3062:

article you cited as supporting "conservative" rather than "far right" (it also calls Breitbart conservative, the publication Bannon, in his own words, turned into a "

2395:, clearly well supported and also entirely consistent with the normal meaning of the term - he's a white nationalist and not even slightly concerned about showing it. 2876:

line on immigration. …"His view of immigration has never been in the mainstream of the Senate," Graham said, describing Miller as an advocate of reduced overall U.S.

2603:

Ummm, actually if you read the discussion below, it does show that the sources which refer to him as "far-right" are much better than the generic "conservative" ones.

3356:"As for the Mudde reference, you need to read the quote again...there is no mention or Miller being far-right...use of that term is absent as it relates to Miller." 3325:

As for the Mudde reference, you need to read the quote again...there is no mention or Miller being far-right...use of that term is absent as it relates to Miller.

3051:

Research Center which doesn't track the Weekly Standard) as "biased statements of opinion" and then called National Review and Weekly Standard mainstream. They're

2130:

Jbhunley, i.e. call a spade a spade. The contention that such descriptors require in-text attribution is directly contrary to our neutrality policy (specifically,

192:

Salon is not RS for calling someone far right. I wouldn't use Michael Wolff for making claims in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. That leaves three sources -nyt, msn, BI.

3294:

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

3131:

There are a vast number of newspaper articles about Miller out there, if RSs are really "widely" calling him "far/extreme-right" there's no need for this sort of

1617:

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

4323:"Miller accused Acosta of having a "cosmopolitan bias" after Acosta suggested that English-speaking immigrants come primarily from English-speaking countries." 582: 1921:

Like "A, B, C....W, X, Y and Z state that Stephen Miller is a Conservative"? - that would make for some pretty awkward text. And of course we could never list

1717:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-miller-immigration-agitator-and-white-house-survivor/2018/01/21/7a1f7778-fcae-11e7-b832-8c26844b74fb_story.html

1232:(4) Please move on and away from this -- you're serving no purpose here other than to disrupt and sow dissention over a discussion that was done 11 months ago. 2229: 1512:

application of contentious labels in WikiVoice for political opinions about a BLP - worse yet when the sources do not support the material, as in this case.

1297:

is? How is 3 well known mainstream journalists *criticising this precise passage* coatrack? "Wolff's description of Miller was described by Eliana Johnson of

657: 1315:

noted that he was "no Miller fan" but that the passage revealed "why you can't trust Wolff's assertions, which often demonstrate his own blithe ignorance.""

238:

wrong as calling someone far-right isn't the same as calling them racist or a terrorist. And if you do want to compare to other article, just have a look at

3048: 625:"Reviewers generally accepted Wolff's portrait of a dysfunctional Trump administration, but were sceptical of many of the book's most controversial claims." 2556: 2459: 1941:

It is not necessary to attribute to EVERY source that uses a political label, however a representative sample can be selected and they can be attributed.

1606: 144: 2853:

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

3608:

which includes unverified allegations that are now under congressional investigation and may result in yet another special counsel and possibly even the

3265:

as having a prima facie negative bias which somehow invalidates their views requires some evidence to be convincing. I suppose that you could dispute

2166:

number of mainstream publications, with no indication that it is controversial or disputed. Therefore, we have to reflect that characterization here. --

1650: 389:

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

2984:

Senator Graham and you may consider that Miller’s positions - he even wants to cut overall U.S. immigration! - make Miller „out of the mainstream” but

2872:

President Donald Trump’s senior-most aides have played an unusually prominent role in the U.S. government shutdown drama, ensuring their boss struck a

4457:

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"

3082:

That does not sound like center or center-right to me, unless you are arguing that today's conservatism is "obsessed", "hard-line", and "combative".

1860:

This is utterly uncontroversial, widely used in diverse RS, and can only be denied apparently by elaborate equivocation, obfuscation, and deflection.

4283: 3047:

Re 3 + 4: You disqualified New York magazine (with 4 times the circulation and 10 times the online traffic of the National Review, according to the

658:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Salon and Michael Wolff reliable sources for calling someone "far-right" in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice?

446:

disputed, what should happen is his comments should stay along with other references as above saying that others believe his comments aren't valid.

3157: 2877: 2207:) I’m fine with whatever bar the community decides on for these sort of labels, but can we talk about whether it’s being implemented consistently? 1764: 1623: 358:

I'm not endorsing Salon. I think "right-wing" or "far-right" are pretty much all over the place. Such as would be found in a search engine result.

1478: 47: 17: 3609: 3524:

doesn't confirm it, either. It's all about cherrypicking and being noncompliant with NPOV, which is typical for edits in conservative articles.

1200: 4796: 1446:

It is essentially the same content, just reworded and with different sources. You're still using Miller's article to criticize Wolff. Note that

3895:

Maybe you could look up how he identifies his own views. 👉🏻"Very-right" for starters -- according to the persona he adopts on TV interviews.

2899:"The kid was alt-right."... "By the time Miller enrolled at Duke University in 2003, his right-wing politics had hardened, as did his writing." 414: 3860:

I don't make false claims. Please provide one...just one contentious label in WIKIVOICE in the lede of the Farrakhan article, VM...just one.

2988: 1955:

And ideally using the "highest quality" sources as the representative. The NYTimes applying a label has much more weight than, say, SFPost. --

1152:

I think there's a strong argument for changing that and making this Stephen Miller the main guy, the 19th century governor is pretty obscure.

4260: 2713: 1044:

title, pray tell? Please provide them here. Also, use of the article as an example of how aide no longer applies was a plea for you to use

4785: 753: 119:- multiple decades of pro-USSR activism, today she and her faction of the Australian Greens are regularly described by RSs as far/hard left 824: 340:

Would we use a conservative outlet widely considered an embarrassment by conservatives to label someone as "far left" in wikipedia's voice?

1903:- whether Right or Left, political labels should ALWAYS be attributed to those who apply them, and not stated in Knowledge (XXG)’s voice. 1073:

Why do you think "actual job title" is relevant? I think you're confused about how disambiguation works on the English Knowledge (XXG). --

744:, albeit out of South Korea, that uses the term "former senior aide." Aide is also apparently used with this subject as well, for example 4548:

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

741: 408: 2198: 2512:

I'm not aware of sources claiming Miller supports those ideologies. To imply he does, without impeccable sourcing, is a BLP violation.

2205:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/03/stephen-miller-a-thinking-persons-donald-trump/?utm_term=.417691999cf2

852:

Commonly used, sure. Aide, though, in regard to Miller is wholly inaccurate at this point. He's gone far beyond being a mere aide. --

4238: 4048:

your examples, Valerie Jarrett, and look for criticism, one finds the "sources" are to sites like worldnetdaily, daily caller, etc...

1684: 974: 4783: 3449:"White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a pugnacious conservative who has a keen focus on restrictive immigration policy." 3063: 2777: 4334: 4168: 4111: 3458: 2969: 2244: 636: 578: 526: 454: 250: 185: 2467: 968:. You've now repeatedly called the term "aide" wholly inaccurate, but without any evidence or substantiation. Meanwhile, as noted, 4450:

Winkelvi, who is systemically going through my edits, followed me here and removed the term "immigration hardliner" from the lede.

2918:"Bannon’s White House residue" and "one of the people with sinister agendas and anti-constitutional impulses" lurking "within the 1224:(2) You're going on about this after nearly a year since the last discussion on his title took place? That's... incredibly weird. 3763:- people who feel that a well-sourced aspect of the source is controversial simply because they, personally, disagree with it. -- 3742:, then Knowledge (XXG) should just call him X too to remain neutral. This is the standard held for all Knowledge (XXG) articles. 3450: 3087: 2936: 2928: 1720: 820: 3058:. As one of the libguides says, "The information may be biased so readers should approach them with caution." A quote from the 4282:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

3925:

Reality is who the US has in the WH and Congress, and when it comes to NPOV, it's better to get the article right than wrong.

2801: 745: 697: 242:

article and click on people in the infobox and see how many of the former and current politicians are labelled far-right also.

2785:

for years. Miller has so far made a name for himself first as a controversial provocateur and now as a right-wing policy wonk.

2011:

Masem, this is the second time you've raised that straw man. Asking you to provide a single source stating Miller is not X is

402: 4873: 4835: 4760: 4723: 4694: 4653: 4611: 4533: 4496: 3277:

are more familiar with political taxonomy than an acknowledged expert, not just in political science but in the study of the

2666: 2232:

I've made my position quite clear. Though there is only five sources attached currently in this article, there are many more

1247: 1185: 1099: 1064: 1008: 978: 942: 863: 798: 727: 261:

Words to watch: ... extremist 3) LABEL applies not just to stuff like "neo-Nazi", but to calling, say, the ACLU progressive.

4631: 4584: 4574: 1695:

far-right (and incompetent) anywhere in the article at all given Wolff's multi-decade reputation for shoddy journalism. See

4781: 3759:

similarly high-quality mainstream sources objecting to the term. Otherwise, it feels like a lot of the complaints here are

3195: 1624:"How a 32-year-old far-right darling became the man who writes Trump's biggest speeches — including the State of the Union" 1550:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

628:

what he saw rather than anything overally controversial. Instead of taking it out add something that says others disagree.

4787: 3672:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2894: 2356: 1637: 239: 1834:. Numerous RS label him as such. Whether he is or not is irrelevant. We document what RS say and attribute the label. -- 1588:(with minor alterations) "First off, the following principles are supported by broad community consensus: we should seek 1169:

After getting nowhere with MzMcBride over the course of a few days in resolving this amicably and productively, I made a

4794: 3601: 2238: 1585: 630: 574: 520: 448: 244: 179: 156: 3470: 405: 3083: 2932: 2924: 2189: 140: 3556: 2334:"Far-right" is the mainstream, sourced terminology used to describe people like Miller. The citations bear this out. 3466: 3160: 2854: 1771: 1227:(3) The Denver Post referred to him this morning as an "adviser" and "President Donald Trump’s top policy adviser". 4850: 4802: 4737: 4672: 4561:

don't understand the care that is required to sourcing then please don't edit BLP related articles. Accusations of

4511: 4465: 4208: 3793: 3453:"Stephen Miller, the conservative White House adviser who has been spearheading the West Wing's immigration push," 3171: 2517: 1778: 1673: 1228: 38: 4234: 1589: 3849: 3367: 2709: 2608: 2579: 2542: 2490: 4627: 4595: 4580: 4570: 3605: 3003: 1708: 623:

So that doesn't mean it needs to be taken out completely, I see you have been on the Fire and Fury page as well

534: 4877: 4854: 4839: 4806: 4764: 4741: 4727: 4698: 4676: 4657: 4635: 4615: 4588: 4537: 4515: 4500: 4469: 4440: 4424: 4406: 4390: 4374: 4358: 4342: 4313: 4298: 4268: 4264: 4212: 4196: 4176: 4161: 4141: 4115: 4087: 4064: 4057: 4025: 4008: 3997:

Atsme, you would do better to start a blog and maybe become a cable pundit. Knowledge (XXG) is not a good fit.

3968: 3940: 3926: 3920: 3906: 3889: 3882: 3861: 3853: 3827: 3797: 3772: 3751: 3724: 3660: 3642: 3618: 3580: 3560: 3525: 3516: 3501: 3481: 3415: 3371: 3326: 3289: 3235: 3226: 3175: 3144: 3091: 3031: 2940: 2734: 2670: 2633: 2612: 2598: 2583: 2569: 2546: 2521: 2505: 2494: 2471: 2434: 2408: 2387: 2360: 2352: 2343: 2318: 2280: 2246: 2216: 2175: 2083: 2067: 2044: 2026: 2006: 1984: 1967: 1950: 1936: 1912: 1895: 1871: 1852: 1826: 1805: 1782: 1755: 1732: 1564: 1537: 1513: 1503: 1459: 1440: 1413: 1396: 1380: 1362: 1339: 1324: 1280: 1251: 1212: 1189: 1161: 1147: 1124: 1103: 1082: 1068: 1030: 1012: 990: 946: 901: 867: 831: 802: 766: 731: 709: 685: 668: 638: 618: 600: 550: 528: 509: 494: 477: 456: 440: 425: 384: 369: 353: 332: 305: 270: 252: 229: 210: 187: 167: 4789: 4458: 3760: 3654:, I don't rail...I reel 🎥🎬🎞...but mostly about fishes, and occasionally about things that smell like them. 3462: 3437:

I'd point out that many RSs call him "conservative": "As a young conservative in liberal Santa Monica, Calif"

1045: 4014: 2201: 4192: 4137: 3936: 3720: 2730: 415:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-wolffs-book-should-be-met-with-skepticism-riddled-with-errors-and-rumors/

4338: 4330: 4103: 4024:

ogg file. Then all you have to do is add the file inline instead of typing the same thing over and over.

3841: 3692: 3388: 3156:

There are more RS that identify Miller as far-right than NYT and BI. See for example this Bloomberg article

2989:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/how-trumps-immigration-proposal-could-be-trouble-for-dems.html

2978: 2482: 2481:(for your continued and disruptive rants about "liberal bias" in reliable sources and Knowledge (XXG)) and 827:

would be fine with me. (I don't object to either "aide" or "adviser" either—both are commonly used terms).

570: 411: 341: 3597: 3552: 3215: 2151: 2072:

It's not "contentious" if only a handful of Knowledge (XXG) editors (and no published source) dispute it.

1839: 1817:

per numerous sources that describe the subject as such, as provided above and in the previous discussion.

1349: 4562: 4185: 3454: 2683: 2478: 749: 105:

in other biographies of contentious figures. Just compare the lead sentences and leads of the following:

4846: 4798: 4733: 4668: 4552: 4507: 4461: 4436: 4386: 4354: 4204: 4172: 4083: 3878: 3789: 3465:"Mr. Trump's statement was a victory for conservatives in his administration, including Stephen Miller" 3182: 3167: 2513: 2339: 1774: 301: 4813: 3787:"The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." 1294: 127: 4304:

That the question comes from an individual identified only as an IP address is chillingly recursive.

3249:

is used to describe a particular cluster of views which are not adequately or accurately described as

2748: 2691: 2097: 409:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/07/michael-wolffs-fire-and-fury-some-of-the-facts-just-dont-stack-up.html

4381:

articles once a month or so, complain "it is biased!", and move on. This is not terribly productive.

4309: 3845: 3363: 2705: 2620: 2604: 2575: 2538: 2486: 2383: 2199:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/02/immigration-stephen-miller-jim-acosta-trump-215451

1120: 4432: 4419: 4370: 4053: 4003: 3964: 3931:

No idea what the WH and Congress has to do with this. It’s better to follow guidelines and use RS.

3916: 3901: 3768: 3747: 3637: 3575: 3496: 3122: 2368:

However, I don't believe the lead sentence is the most appropriate place for the designation. Take

2285:

The term "far right" is a common term of art for what is mostly described in the literature as the

2171: 2078: 2021: 1979: 1931: 1866: 1822: 1529:

Closing. There is clear consensus for calling Stephen Miller far-right in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice.

1455: 1391: 1335: 1276: 1208: 1143: 1078: 1026: 986: 762: 705: 596: 489: 473: 364: 327: 4148: 3731: 3245:

is somehow a contentious please read the diff I linked and its follow-on for my response to that.

2534: 2255: 2194: 2131: 1664: 1660: 321:

I am surprised to see that anybody would consider it controversial to label Miller "far-right".

4870: 4832: 4757: 4720: 4705: 4691: 4650: 4608: 4530: 4493: 4477: 4188: 4157: 4133: 3932: 3716: 3512: 3477: 3413: 3322:

the Wolff book is simply not a RS, and certainly not one to hang a contentious label on anyone...

3287: 3224: 3140: 3027: 2726: 2663: 2629: 2594: 2565: 2316: 2212: 2141: 1946: 1908: 1893: 1801: 1728: 1560: 1555:

Should Miller be called far-right in Knowledge (XXG)’s voice, in the lead sentence or otherwise?

1534: 1436: 1409: 1376: 1330:

You are using this article to attack Wolff, and have been reverted twice. Kinda textboox, there.

1320: 1244: 1182: 1157: 1096: 1061: 1005: 939: 860: 795: 724: 681: 665: 614: 546: 505: 436: 421: 380: 349: 266: 225: 206: 163: 4259:

Why does this site not give the names of the editors/contributors. Reads like propaganda to me.

3542: 3132: 3109: 1884: 1742: 1610: 1570: 1368: 258: 235: 193: 98: 3911:

I'd tend to doubt that there's any, much less plenty. Reality has a liberal bias, as they say.

2966: 2147: 1835: 1751: 1721:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/government-shutdown-immigration-graham-miller-354747

1681: 1345: 4769:"Photo captions in RS =/= RS" is a new one. But like I said, this language is supported both 2993: 2679: 1593: 1170: 1049: 969: 102: 4382: 4350: 4079: 3874: 2960: 2335: 1401: 1307:

wrote that "some people seem to believe that must be dumb since he works for Trump", while

1304: 897: 297: 4566: 2912:

op-ed by George F. Will, who has impeccably conservative bona fides: The administration is

1692: 606: 533:"the fact that it agrees with other sources means it doesn't need to be."?!?!? Please read 403:

http://www.businessinsider.com/accuracy-of-michael-wolffs-new-trump-book-in-question-2018-1

216: 174: 4402: 4305: 4078:

Breitbarts and the World Net Dailys of the world tend to be deceptive in their reporting.

3823: 3807: 3019: 3015: 3007: 3006:

source for stuff like this. They publish lots of controversial writing - from people like

2744: 2687: 2463: 2443: 2420: 2379: 2307: 2276: 2093: 2063: 2040: 2002: 1963: 1651:"Lindsey Graham slams Stephen Miller, says "White House staff has been pretty unreliable"" 1131: 1116: 828: 4454: 4074: 3806:

Disagree with inclusion of any contentious labels in the lede. For examples of NPOV, see

3739: 3735: 3214:

This is in line with what I mentioned about the general usage of the term, citing Mudde,

3055: 2530: 2233: 1880: 1018: 112:

who has said his "most significant" intellectual influences are "Marx, Lenin and Trotsky"

4594:

I think you're implying I'm working against BLP policy, and that's simply not the case,

3457:"Miller, a White House aide, is well known for his conservative views on immigration. " 130:

actually *is* called “left-wing” in lead sentence (but even he doesn't rate "far left".)

4414: 4366: 4049: 3998: 3960: 3912: 3896: 3764: 3743: 3632: 3570: 3491: 2529:- it's how he's described in multiple reliable sources, end of story. Anything else is 2185: 2167: 2137: 2073: 2016: 1974: 1926: 1861: 1818: 1451: 1427: 1386: 1331: 1308: 1290: 1272: 1204: 1139: 1135: 1074: 1048:. Continuing to try to make the man something he isn't is starting make you look like 1022: 982: 758: 701: 592: 484: 469: 359: 322: 109: 4863: 4825: 4750: 4713: 4684: 4643: 4601: 4557: 4523: 4486: 4153: 3819: 3593: 3508: 3473: 3408: 3282: 3231: 3219: 3136: 3052: 3023: 2656: 2625: 2590: 2561: 2455: 2403: 2397: 2374: 2311: 2208: 1942: 1904: 1888: 1797: 1792: 1724: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1581: 1556: 1530: 1450:

is your 4th attempt in a day, which seems to be over the limits set on this article.

1432: 1405: 1372: 1316: 1268: 1260: 1237: 1196: 1176: 1153: 1090: 1055: 999: 965: 933: 854: 789: 718: 677: 661: 653: 610: 542: 514: 501: 432: 417: 376: 345: 262: 221: 202: 159: 157:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nikki-haley-trump-rumors/552080/

152: 122: 3656: 1791:

Yes, Mudde is a notable academic. I would note that he also calls Attorney General

406:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/michael-wolff-fire-fury-credibility-325399

3815: 3650: 2743:

But it's been demonstrated above that more sources describe him as conservative. --

2451: 2369: 1747: 116: 4579:

Strike through part of my own comment after reading the edit conflicting comment.

3281:. However you would need to present a very convincing argument to be persuasive. 1494:

Editors need to review the editing restrictions listed at the top of this page. --

1479:"What Caused Michael Wolff's Strange and Provably False Attack on Stephen Miller?" 3614: 3469:"from his days as a young conservative to his current role in the White House. " 3441:"But some White House officials, including conservative adviser Stephen Miller," 1613:: contentious labels should not be used unless "widely used by reliable sources". 1385:

Forum-shopping is kind of not good form here. It's kind of a problem. Let it go.

4018:

a voice recording of your canned talking points, and upload the recording as an

3118: 2197:

too? And RSs have published op-eds by well known conservatives defending Miller

1667:

that we should assign a source that is no longer well-regarded even on the left.

893: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3541:

whatever the end result, the way the introduction looks at the moment with the

3461:" Miller, seen as one of the last remaining conservatives in the White House," 3379:

the history of his views/actions/statements. I suppose that if you don't like

1648:

Salon: "Miller's far-right views, specifically on immigration, are well-known"

139:

Even an anodyne label like “left-leaning” or "progressive” is not used for the

4398: 4290: 4184:

Is The News & Observer considered reliable? Now it's mentioned there too:

2981:

by investigating whether other labels like „conservative” are better sourced).

2303: 2269: 2056: 2033: 1995: 1956: 1495: 1264: 1221:(1) He's still an advisor, regardless of what label a few media outlets claim. 3108:

call someone "far-right", but that it has to take certain care doing so, per

2653:- strong "No" - per all the 'no' !votes above, especially Masem's rationale. 2188:, but many RSs (NYT, Washington Post, The Guardian, etc), have described the 1199:. I was reminded of this conversation again today when reading the headline " 700:

to assess the state of the Stephen Millers on the English Knowledge (XXG). --

3811: 3307:

the Salon article fails as being Miller's widespread view because it states

2447: 1088:"Why?" question for you: Why are you insisting on making this so hard? -- 3628: 3627:

Atsme, you're needed at Jimbo talk to rail against the leftist conspiracy

3445:"Miller's youth as a conservative contrarian at Santa Monica High School" 3014:

positive coverage Miller receives in mainstream conservative outlets like

2202:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/opinion/immigration-stephen-miller.html

1017:

Knowledge (XXG) is a tertiary source that relies on primary and secondary

4822:

qualification. This is a BLP - BLPs have to be treated very carefully.

2299: 1621:

Business Insider: "he has been a rising star on the far right for years"

1344:

Exactly. Righting great wrongs isn't your job here. Take it off-wiki. --

1299: 539:

he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology—

257:

1) You're seriously arguing "far right" is not a "contentious label"? 2)

2193:

have called him far-right but chose not to. Don’t these sources deserve

1659:

Salon is not suitable for making statements in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice.

605:"It is public information that should be mention on the article." Sigh. 412:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/michael-wolffs-alternative-facts

342:

https://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551

3888:

what needed to be said and provided supporting sources for all of it.

3362:. You know we can read, right? We know how to click on hyperlinks too! 4186:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article130428894.html

3871:

You won't see any contentious labels in the ledes of those articles...

3786: 2092:

sources describe Miller as "conservative" rather than "far-right". --

483:

days, and there are plenty of other sources for the far-right tag.

1773:. Michael Wolff and Salon should not be used to source this claim. 1770:, but this op-ed for The Guardian, he describes Miller as far-right 4793:# Synonyms (architect of a hard-line approach, immigration hawk): 4780:# Verbatim (hardliner, hard-liner, holder of hardline positions): 3404:(but he holds other far right views so that is a bit problematic) 3196:"The American far right is crashing after its Trump victory high" 2510:"often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism." 97:

of this article goes against Knowledge (XXG)'s implementation of

3010:

or Jesse Singal - containing bold claims which need attribution.

2557:

Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence

1638:"Stephen Miller Is a 'True Believer' Behind Core Trump Policies" 1607:

Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence

145:

Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence

4622: 3840:

that your claims about other articles are both irrelevant (per

2088:

Actually, it's been demonstrated elsewhere in the article that

740:

I think you may be overstating the meaning of the word "aide."

4222: 4073:

Those so-called "biased left leaning sources" are accepted as

4020: 2236:

that state Miller is far-right and has been since University.

1404:

has also said that Wolff shouldn't be in the article, period.

25: 4817:

Because... where is the qualification from sources that show

2800:

Beyond alt. The extremely reactionary, burn-it-down-radical,

2574:

Because there are more of them and they're of higher quality.

4286:

if appropriate. Contributors to this article can be viewed

3401:

a conservative known for his far right views on immigration

1522:

RfC about calling Stephen Miller far-right in lead sentence

3708:

WP and the use of unintended polarizing political language

2351:- Widely used by reliable sources as a statement of fact. 1201:

Trump aide, CIA head defend president’s fitness for office

3783:

a member of the administration in the same group as Nazis

4620:

Apologies. I have stricken out my comment regarding you

2826:

gadfly with little policy experience to the president’s

1636:

Thrush, Glenn; Steinhauer, Jennifer (11 February 2017).

4451: 4287: 3837: 2725:- We just follow the RS, as that's what NPOV requires. 1447: 431:

Is anyone going to defend having Wolff in the article?

4732:

Add this into ctrl+F without quotation marks: "hard-"

4152:

doesn't indiscriminately include every dubious claim.

1634:

NYT: "the ascent of Mr. Miller from far-right gadfly"

4453:

It was removed under the rationale that the term was

3734:

words like "who has also been described by some". If

2959:

Taylor, Max; Currie, P. M.; Holbrook, Donald (2013).

1597:

reliable sources on level ... in order to describe

1592:

rather than trying to impose one's subjective truth,

3315:

that have been far-right, which was debunked by the

2956:(in much the same way left-wing extremist is used).” 785:

Senior Advisor to the President of the United States

3738:call him X and the X label isn't disputed by other 2962:

Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism

3257:. Dismissing the views of academics who study the 1271:. One of the replies somewhat chided the usage. -- 567:don't think it is and it is valid to be included. 3072:is immigration, an area where he has long pushed 2134:- do not present verifiable facts as opinions). 1586:Talk:Fidel_Castro/Archive_17#Request_for_Comment 1138:is already in use for a different individual. -- 4013:😂 Good one! I was actually going to recommend 3490:Actually, the NYTimes article says far-right. 1691:It's completely undue to have Wolff calling a 1609:which was closed using similar arguments, and 401:We shouldn't use him anywhere in the article. 1741:. "far right" is mostly used as a pejorative 1303:as "patently false/absurd", Nick Riccardi of 8: 3604:. The same applies to the RECENTISM of the 3387:. I have no qualms whatsoever with labeling 3166:to see how Miller is described in the book. 4219:Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018 2508:. Our description of "far right" says it's 1678:Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House 4328: 4101: 4019: 3975:The following discussion has been closed. 3955: 568: 3080:conservative activist at Duke University. 1723:where he is "a pugnacious conservative". 892:What's wrong with "Political advisor?" -- 3569:cites in order to quell that criticism. 3385:'right-wing, anti-immigration extremest' 2678:Per Masem and Atsme. Clear violation of 1605:across ... reliable sources." Note also 1601:, we would need this descriptor applied 656:has opened a thread about this issue at 3682: 1470: 18:Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor) 3870: 3101: 2999: 2985: 2951: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1705:Fire_and_Fury#Nikki_Haley_controversy 7: 4108:2601:600:A280:4A6:50FB:2A8:9905:B506 3100:Well, you said that "far-right" was 1546:The following discussion is closed. 825:Stephen Miller (White House staffer) 89:Describing Miller as "far right" in 155:, which doesn't even mention this: 4446:"Immigration hardliner" is sourced 4239:Stephen Miller (political advisor) 975:United States Secretary of Defense 24: 2228:- As per my discussion above and 4274: 4226: 3668:The discussion above is closed. 3655: 3649: 3613: 2954:pejorative and condemnatory term 2922:of vast, brutish carelessness." 1680:. Henry Holt and Co. pp. 64–65. 821:Ben Rhodes (White House staffer) 29: 3187:Mudde clearly labels Miller as 752:, both from February 12, 2017. 698:Stephen Miller (disambiguation) 198:best avoided unless widely used 3785:according to Knowledge (XXG): 2931:) 13:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2822:The ascent of Mr. Miller from 979:United States Secretary of War 1: 4577:) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 3773:19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 3752:18:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 3725:16:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 3194:Cas Mudde (17 January 2018). 3176:12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 3102:"descriptive, not pejorative" 2965:. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. 2504:- This seems like a bit of a 2281:23:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 2247:19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 2176:19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1951:23:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1937:18:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1913:17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1896:17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1872:16:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1853:16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1827:12:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1783:12:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1756:08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1733:07:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1565:07:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1441:22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1431:These aren't the same edits. 1414:16:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1397:16:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1381:16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1363:16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1340:16:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1325:15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC) 1190:03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC) 1162:04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC) 1148:22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 1125:17:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 1104:12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 1083:04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 1069:22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 1031:22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 1013:22:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 991:22:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 947:15:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 902:12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 868:23:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 832:03:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 803:02:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 767:22:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 732:18:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 710:17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 686:22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 669:21:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 639:20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 619:20:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 601:20:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 551:20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 529:19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 510:15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 495:15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 478:15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 457:15:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 441:14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 426:02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 385:02:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 370:23:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 354:23:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 333:23:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 306:23:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 271:22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 253:22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 240:Radical right (United States) 230:22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 211:22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 188:22:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 168:08:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC) 143:anywhere in the article. See 4213:22:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 4197:19:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 4162:10:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 4142:09:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 4127:About the Spencer connection 3602:Racial views of Donald Trump 3076:going back to his days as a 2849:Within the White House, the 2832:fringes of American politics 4425:23:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 4407:22:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 4391:21:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC) 4375:17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC) 4253:to reactivate your request. 4241:has been answered. Set the 2190:Southern Poverty Law Center 1603:uniformly and unequivocally 1252:17:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) 1213:16:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) 141:Southern Poverty Law Center 4910: 4878:21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4855:21:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4840:21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4807:21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4765:20:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4742:20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4728:20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4699:20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4677:20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4658:20:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4636:20:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4616:20:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4589:20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4538:20:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4516:20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4501:20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4470:20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 4359:21:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 4343:04:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 4116:03:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 4088:03:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 4065:02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 4058:18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 4026:17:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 4009:14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3969:18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3941:16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 3927:14:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3921:12:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3907:22:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3890:21:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3883:21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3862:21:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3854:20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3828:19:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3798:19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 3661:19:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3643:17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3619:15:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3526:16:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3416:21:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3395:but to soft-sell him as a 3372:19:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3327:19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3297:The NYTimes article reads 3290:18:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3236:16:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3227:14:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3145:22:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 3092:14:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 3032:20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2941:13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 2671:01:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 2570:01:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 2547:19:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 2522:19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 2495:19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2472:14:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2144:if you want my attention.) 1806:00:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1538:21:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC) 1514:19:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 819:Ben Rhodes' article is at 4441:20:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC) 4314:16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 4299:04:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 4269:04:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 3581:01:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 3561:00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 3517:04:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 3502:03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 3482:21:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2753:02:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2735:18:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2714:21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 2696:21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 2634:17:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2613:21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 2599:21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 2584:02:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 2462:as having a history with 2435:02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 2409:15:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 2388:21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2361:15:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2344:04:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2325:16:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 2319:15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 2217:01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC) 2102:02:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC) 2084:15:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 2068:15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2045:15:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2027:14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2007:14:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1985:04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1968:01:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1925:the voices to attribute. 1580:I'm going to quote admin 1504:05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1460:12:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 1281:03:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 746:this piece from USA Today 742:Here's an example article 234:I think you are applying 4177:06:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 3978:Please do not modify it. 3670:Please do not modify it. 3164:The Far Right in America 3159:and this Cas Mudde op-ed 1768:The Far Right in America 1763:. NYT, BI, and Bloomberg 1548:Please do not modify it. 4628:Emir of Knowledge (XXG) 4581:Emir of Knowledge (XXG) 4571:Emir of Knowledge (XXG) 4565:should be presented at 3838:just pointed out to you 3693:"The fall of Salon.com" 3311:that it's his views on 1599:in the opening sentence 750:this piece from Reuters 575:NZ Footballs Conscience 4327:of a racist agenda. 3389:the guy described here 3267:radical populist right 3259:radical populist right 3084:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2933:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2925:Space4Time3Continuum2x 2287:populist radical right 3216:in an earlier section 3066:for the alt-right,": 2776:A rising star on the 2458:, the latter of whom 2140:this page, so please 1887:ie he is what he is. 1879:per preponderance of 1701:Fire_and_Fury#Reviews 173:First we don't apply 42:of past discussions. 3730:Disagree with using 3606:Trump–Russia dossier 3304:so that one fails... 2537:(especially weasel). 1367:I'm raising this at 3959:Unhelpful sniping. 3151:Threaded discussion 3123:Claremont Institute 3074:hard-line positions 2916:. He called Miller 2897:on The Who’s song. 2353:NorthBySouthBaranof 2306:or a member of the 2161:seemed to directly 1293:, do you know what 1267:as a press aide in 2834:to the Oval Office 2289:. It differs from 1657:. 21 January 2018. 1642:The New York Times 1549: 215:And as a reminder 175:other stuff exists 128:Jean-Luc Mélenchon 4709: 4591: 4481: 4345: 4333:comment added by 4257: 4256: 4118: 4106:comment added by 4045: 4044: 4015:something similar 3405: 3213: 3070:driving obsession 2407: 2326: 2145: 1994:a fact though. -- 1850: 1547: 1485:. 5 January 2018. 1360: 586: 573:comment added by 91:wikipedia's voice 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4901: 4876: 4866: 4847:Snooganssnoogans 4838: 4828: 4799:Snooganssnoogans 4763: 4753: 4734:Snooganssnoogans 4726: 4716: 4703: 4697: 4687: 4669:Snooganssnoogans 4656: 4646: 4625: 4614: 4604: 4578: 4553:Snooganssnoogans 4536: 4526: 4508:Snooganssnoogans 4499: 4489: 4475: 4462:Snooganssnoogans 4295: 4278: 4277: 4248: 4244: 4230: 4229: 4223: 4205:James J. Lambden 4075:reliable sources 4023: 3980: 3956: 3790:James J. Lambden 3740:reliable sources 3736:reliable sources 3701: 3700: 3687: 3659: 3653: 3617: 3610:firing of McCabe 3411: 3403: 3285: 3222: 3212: 3207: 3206: 3192: 3186: 3183:Snooganssnoogans 3168:Snooganssnoogans 2975: 2947:Some thoughts: 2772:Business Insider 2669: 2659: 2514:James J. Lambden 2506:Motte-and-bailey 2433: 2428: 2423: 2401: 2321: 2314: 2273: 2243: 2241: 2234:reliable sources 2135: 2060: 2037: 1999: 1960: 1891: 1881:reliable sources 1844: 1775:Snooganssnoogans 1690: 1658: 1645: 1631: 1628:Business Insider 1590:WP:verifiability 1500: 1487: 1486: 1475: 1402:User:Ad_Orientem 1354: 1305:Associated Press 1250: 1240: 1188: 1179: 1102: 1093: 1067: 1058: 1019:reliable sources 1011: 1002: 970:reliable sources 945: 936: 866: 857: 801: 792: 730: 721: 635: 633: 525: 523: 453: 451: 249: 247: 184: 182: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4909: 4908: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4869: 4862: 4831: 4824: 4756: 4749: 4719: 4712: 4690: 4683: 4649: 4642: 4621: 4607: 4600: 4529: 4522: 4492: 4485: 4448: 4321: 4293: 4284:reliable source 4275: 4261:125.239.104.142 4246: 4242: 4227: 4221: 4129: 3976: 3846:Volunteer Marek 3824:Louis Farrakhan 3808:Valerie Jarrett 3710: 3705: 3704: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3679: 3674: 3673: 3409: 3383:I could go for 3364:Volunteer Marek 3283: 3220: 3204: 3202: 3193: 3180: 3153: 3020:Weekly Standard 3016:National Review 3008:Andrew Sullivan 3004:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 2972: 2958: 2910:Washington Post 2706:Volunteer Marek 2662: 2655: 2605:Volunteer Marek 2576:Volunteer Marek 2539:Volunteer Marek 2487:Volunteer Marek 2464:Louis Farrakhan 2444:Valerie Jarrett 2430: 2429: 2426: 2421: 2418: 2312: 2308:Christian right 2271: 2239: 2237: 2058: 2035: 1997: 1958: 1889: 1709:WP:QUESTIONABLE 1687: 1672: 1649: 1635: 1622: 1574: 1552: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1524: 1498: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1477: 1476: 1472: 1288: 1259:Interestingly, 1243: 1236: 1181: 1175: 1095: 1089: 1060: 1054: 1004: 998: 938: 932: 859: 853: 794: 788: 723: 717: 693: 631: 629: 535:WP:QUESTIONABLE 521: 519: 449: 447: 245: 243: 180: 178: 87: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4907: 4905: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4791: 4778: 4701: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4640:Accepted. :-) 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4447: 4444: 4428: 4427: 4394: 4393: 4362: 4361: 4320: 4317: 4302: 4301: 4255: 4254: 4231: 4220: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4068: 4067: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 3982: 3981: 3972: 3971: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3909: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3831: 3830: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3776: 3775: 3761:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3755: 3754: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3702: 3697:POLITICO Media 3681: 3680: 3678: 3675: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3646: 3645: 3622: 3621: 3598:Claíomh Solais 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3553:Claíomh Solais 3548: 3547: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3485: 3484: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3386: 3375: 3374: 3358:<--Oh ffs: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3323: 3320: 3305: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3046: 3043: 3035: 3034: 3011: 2997: 2982: 2970: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2818:New York Times 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2766: 2765: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2738: 2737: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2699: 2698: 2673: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2550: 2549: 2524: 2498: 2497: 2475: 2474: 2437: 2425: 2424: 2411: 2390: 2363: 2346: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2249: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2179: 2178: 2155: 2148:Dr. Fleischman 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2047: 1916: 1915: 1898: 1874: 1855: 1829: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1786: 1785: 1758: 1713: 1712: 1686:978-1250158062 1685: 1674:Wolff, Michael 1668: 1646: 1632: 1615: 1614: 1582:User: Cenarium 1573: 1568: 1553: 1544: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1489: 1488: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1428:User:ValarianB 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1309:John Podhoretz 1291:User:ValarianB 1287: 1284: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1233: 1230: 1225: 1222: 1216: 1215: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1136:Stephen Miller 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1085: 1046:WP:COMMONSENSE 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 977:(formerly the 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 772: 771: 770: 769: 735: 734: 692: 689: 673: 672: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 462: 461: 460: 459: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 148: 147: 132: 131: 125: 120: 113: 110:John McDonnell 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4906: 4879: 4875: 4872: 4867: 4865: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4837: 4834: 4829: 4827: 4820: 4815: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4797: 4795: 4792: 4790: 4788: 4786: 4784: 4782: 4779: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4759: 4754: 4752: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4722: 4717: 4715: 4707: 4706:edit conflict 4702: 4700: 4696: 4693: 4688: 4686: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4659: 4655: 4652: 4647: 4645: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4624: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4605: 4603: 4597: 4593: 4592: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4554: 4551: 4547: 4546: 4539: 4535: 4532: 4527: 4525: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4498: 4495: 4490: 4488: 4479: 4478:edit conflict 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4456: 4452: 4445: 4443: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4426: 4423: 4422: 4418: 4417: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4324: 4318: 4316: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4300: 4297: 4296: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4252: 4249:parameter to 4240: 4236: 4232: 4225: 4224: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4189:LahmacunKebab 4187: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4134:LahmacunKebab 4126: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4066: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4027: 4022: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4007: 4006: 4002: 4001: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3979: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3900: 3899: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3863: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3842:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3839: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3820:Keith Ellison 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3757: 3756: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3717:One passer by 3714: 3707: 3698: 3694: 3686: 3683: 3676: 3671: 3662: 3658: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3635: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3620: 3616: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3588: 3587: 3582: 3579: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3544: 3540: 3537: 3536: 3527: 3523: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3500: 3499: 3495: 3494: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3433: 3432: 3417: 3414: 3412: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3384: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3288: 3286: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3233: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3217: 3211: 3201: 3197: 3190: 3184: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3129: 3124: 3120: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3040: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3012: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2990: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2979:WP:CHERRYPICK 2973: 2971:9781441140876 2968: 2964: 2963: 2957: 2955: 2949: 2948: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2923: 2921: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2858: 2856: 2852: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2835: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2819: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2808: 2806: 2803: 2797: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2780: 2773: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2760: 2759: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2720: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2674: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2660: 2658: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2483:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2480: 2477: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456:Keith Ellison 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2415: 2412: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2399: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2375:Michael Moore 2371: 2367: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2248: 2245: 2242: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2139: 2133: 2128: 2125: 2124: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2053: 2048: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1935: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1894: 1892: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1851: 1849: 1848: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1793:Jeff Sessions 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1697:Michael Wolff 1694: 1688: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1656: 1652: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1584:'s ruling in 1583: 1579: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1569: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1551: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1521: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1484: 1480: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1359: 1358: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1296: 1292: 1285: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261:Susan Glasser 1253: 1249: 1246: 1241: 1239: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1178: 1172: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1092: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1063: 1057: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1001: 995: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 971: 967: 948: 944: 941: 935: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 903: 899: 895: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 869: 865: 862: 856: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 833: 830: 826: 822: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 804: 800: 797: 791: 786: 782: 779:He is simply 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 768: 764: 760: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 736: 733: 729: 726: 720: 714: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 699: 690: 688: 687: 683: 679: 670: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 648: 647: 640: 637: 634: 626: 622: 621: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 527: 524: 516: 513: 512: 511: 507: 503: 498: 497: 496: 493: 492: 488: 487: 481: 480: 479: 475: 471: 466: 465: 464: 463: 458: 455: 452: 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 427: 423: 419: 416: 413: 410: 407: 404: 388: 387: 386: 382: 378: 373: 372: 371: 368: 367: 363: 362: 357: 356: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 331: 330: 326: 325: 307: 303: 299: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 251: 248: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 227: 223: 218: 214: 213: 212: 208: 204: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 186: 183: 176: 172: 171: 170: 169: 165: 161: 158: 154: 153:Fire_and_Fury 146: 142: 138: 137: 136: 129: 126: 124: 123:Jeremy Corbyn 121: 118: 114: 111: 108: 107: 106: 104: 100: 96: 95:lead sentence 92: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4861: 4823: 4818: 4774: 4773:and through 4770: 4748: 4711: 4682: 4641: 4599: 4563:WP:FOLLOWING 4555: 4549: 4521: 4484: 4449: 4429: 4420: 4415: 4395: 4363: 4329:— Preceding 4325: 4322: 4319:Obvious Bias 4303: 4291: 4279: 4258: 4250: 4235:edit request 4183: 4130: 4102:— Preceding 4046: 4004: 3999: 3977: 3902: 3897: 3836:I literally 3816:Nancy Pelosi 3782: 3715: 3711: 3696: 3685: 3669: 3638: 3633: 3589: 3576: 3571: 3549: 3538: 3497: 3492: 3434: 3400: 3397:conservative 3396: 3392: 3380: 3359: 3355: 3317:WaPo article 3312: 3309:specifically 3308: 3299: 3298: 3278: 3275:conservative 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3251:conservative 3250: 3246: 3242: 3209: 3203:. Retrieved 3200:The Guardian 3199: 3188: 3163: 3127: 3113: 3105: 3097: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3067: 3044: 3038: 3002:NYMag is an 2961: 2953: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2898: 2890: 2873: 2871: 2867: 2850: 2848: 2844: 2831: 2823: 2821: 2817: 2804: 2799: 2795: 2782: 2778: 2775: 2771: 2761: 2722: 2684:WP:RECENTISM 2675: 2654: 2650: 2624:, LATimes. 2619: 2526: 2509: 2501: 2479:WP:NOTAFORUM 2468:radical left 2452:Nancy Pelosi 2439: 2419: 2413: 2396: 2392: 2378:fair to me. 2370:Noam Chomsky 2365: 2348: 2331: 2323:Last edited: 2322: 2295:conservative 2294: 2290: 2286: 2264: 2259: 2251: 2225: 2162: 2157: 2126: 2089: 2079: 2074: 2051: 2022: 2017: 2012: 1991: 1980: 1975: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1900: 1876: 1867: 1862: 1857: 1846: 1845: 1843: 1836:BullRangifer 1831: 1814: 1767: 1760: 1738: 1714: 1677: 1654: 1641: 1627: 1616: 1602: 1598: 1577: 1554: 1545: 1496: 1493: 1482: 1473: 1465: 1426: 1392: 1387: 1356: 1355: 1353: 1346:BullRangifer 1312: 1298: 1289: 1263:referred to 1258: 1235: 1168: 1134:. The title 1114: 981:). Shrug. -- 963: 780: 694: 674: 649: 624: 591:actionable. 569:— Preceding 565: 538: 490: 485: 400: 365: 360: 328: 323: 320: 197: 149: 133: 117:Lee Rhiannon 94: 90: 88: 65: 43: 37: 4814:WP:VNOTSUFF 4383:TheValeyard 4351:TheValeyard 4335:24.45.89.91 4169:72.181.99.6 4080:TheValeyard 3875:TheValeyard 3313:immigration 3119:Peter Thiel 2878:immigration 2798:magazine: 2460:Perez cited 2336:TheValeyard 1295:WP:COATRACK 298:TheValeyard 36:This is an 4306:Adambrower 4243:|answered= 3677:References 3255:right-wing 3253:or merely 3205:2024-09-22 3042:far-right. 2874:hard-right 2802:newfangled 2380:Kerdooskis 2304:Monarchist 2291:right-wing 2136:(I am not 1466:References 1313:Commentary 1269:this tweet 1265:Hope Hicks 1132:Synapse001 1117:Synapse001 829:Neutrality 754:This piece 696:looked at 691:Page title 4416:SPECIFICO 4367:S2pid80it 4280:Not done: 4149:WP:WEIGHT 4050:ValarianB 4000:SPECIFICO 3961:ValarianB 3913:ValarianB 3898:SPECIFICO 3812:Tom Perez 3765:Aquillion 3744:Bennv3771 3634:SPECIFICO 3572:SPECIFICO 3543:WP:POINTy 3493:SPECIFICO 3393:far right 3381:far right 3279:far right 3271:far right 3263:far right 3247:Far right 3243:far-right 3189:far right 3078:combative 3068:Miller’s 3056:magazines 2868:Bloomberg 2851:far right 2824:far-right 2805:far right 2745:1990'sguy 2688:1990'sguy 2535:WP:WEASEL 2448:Tom Perez 2256:WP:YESPOV 2195:WP:WEIGHT 2186:Aquillion 2168:Aquillion 2132:WP:YESPOV 2094:1990'sguy 2075:SPECIFICO 2018:SPECIFICO 1976:SPECIFICO 1928:SPECIFICO 1863:SPECIFICO 1819:ValarianB 1665:WP:WEIGHT 1661:WP:BIASED 1452:ValarianB 1448:this edit 1388:SPECIFICO 1332:ValarianB 1286:Coatrack? 1273:MZMcBride 1205:MZMcBride 1140:MZMcBride 1075:MZMcBride 1023:MZMcBride 983:MZMcBride 759:MZMcBride 702:MZMcBride 593:ValarianB 486:SPECIFICO 470:ValarianB 361:SPECIFICO 324:SPECIFICO 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4775:synonyms 4771:verbatim 4623:Winkelvi 4558:Winkelvi 4433:Kodakiam 4331:unsigned 4154:NPalgan2 4147:There's 4104:unsigned 3594:NPalgan2 3509:NPalgan2 3474:NPalgan2 3463:Politico 3459:The Hill 3451:Politico 3435:Comment: 3319:, and... 3261:aka the 3232:Jbhunley 3137:NPalgan2 3133:WP:SYNTH 3110:WP:LABEL 3064:platform 3024:NPalgan2 2891:Newsweek 2845:Guardian 2796:New York 2626:NPalgan2 2621:The Hill 2591:NPalgan2 2562:NPalgan2 2300:Islamist 2209:NPalgan2 2138:watching 1943:Blueboar 1905:Blueboar 1885:WP:SPADE 1798:NPalgan2 1743:WP:LABEL 1725:NPalgan2 1719:or here 1676:(2018). 1611:WP:LABEL 1571:WP:!VOTE 1557:NPalgan2 1531:Bishonen 1483:RedState 1433:NPalgan2 1406:NPalgan2 1373:NPalgan2 1369:WP:BLP/N 1317:NPalgan2 1300:Politico 1197:Winkelvi 1154:NPalgan2 966:Winkelvi 678:NPalgan2 662:Bishonen 654:NPalgan2 611:NPalgan2 583:contribs 571:unsigned 543:NPalgan2 515:NPalgan2 502:NPalgan2 433:NPalgan2 418:NPalgan2 377:NPalgan2 346:NPalgan2 263:NPalgan2 259:WP:LABEL 236:WP:LABEL 222:NPalgan2 203:NPalgan2 194:WP:LABEL 160:NPalgan2 115:Senator 99:WP:LABEL 3590:Comment 3539:Comment 3447:LATimes 3121:to the 3053:opinion 3039:violent 3018:or the 2994:WP:NPOV 2893:with a 2680:WP:NPOV 2163:dispute 2142:ping me 1748:Icewhiz 1594:WP:NPOV 1171:WP:BOLD 1050:WP:IDHT 103:WP:NPOV 93:in the 39:archive 4567:WP:ANI 3732:weasel 3443:WashPo 3439:WashPo 3300:ascent 3191:. See 2855:Miller 2828:senior 2427:deeper 1847:PingMe 1693:WP:BLP 1357:PingMe 894:Crunch 607:WP:BLP 217:WP:OSE 101:& 4864:-- ψλ 4826:-- ψλ 4751:-- ψλ 4714:-- ψλ 4685:-- ψλ 4644:-- ψλ 4602:-- ψλ 4569:. -- 4524:-- ψλ 4487:-- ψλ 4455:WP:OR 4399:Asc85 4247:|ans= 4233:This 3933:O3000 3106:can't 2920:ambit 2783:right 2727:O3000 2657:-- ψλ 2531:WP:OR 2414:Maybe 2404:Help! 2265:those 2260:still 2052:might 1655:Salon 1238:-- ψλ 823:. So 16:< 4851:talk 4803:talk 4738:talk 4673:talk 4632:talk 4596:Emir 4585:talk 4575:talk 4556:and 4512:talk 4466:talk 4437:talk 4421:talk 4403:talk 4387:talk 4371:talk 4355:talk 4339:talk 4310:talk 4292:Neil 4288:here 4265:talk 4209:talk 4193:talk 4173:talk 4158:talk 4138:talk 4112:talk 4084:talk 4054:talk 4005:talk 3965:talk 3937:talk 3917:talk 3903:talk 3879:talk 3850:talk 3822:and 3794:talk 3769:talk 3748:talk 3721:talk 3639:talk 3629:here 3577:talk 3557:talk 3522:WaPo 3513:talk 3498:talk 3478:talk 3368:talk 3269:and 3172:talk 3141:talk 3088:talk 3060:WaPo 3028:talk 2967:ISBN 2937:talk 2929:talk 2895:riff 2749:talk 2731:talk 2710:talk 2692:talk 2686:. -- 2682:and 2630:talk 2609:talk 2595:talk 2580:talk 2566:talk 2543:talk 2533:and 2518:talk 2491:talk 2454:and 2384:talk 2357:talk 2340:talk 2310:. 2293:and 2272:asem 2240:NZFC 2230:here 2213:talk 2184:OK, 2172:talk 2158:Yes. 2152:talk 2127:Yes. 2098:talk 2090:more 2080:talk 2059:asem 2036:asem 2023:talk 1998:asem 1981:talk 1959:asem 1947:talk 1933:talk 1909:talk 1883:and 1868:talk 1840:talk 1823:talk 1802:talk 1779:talk 1752:talk 1729:talk 1703:and 1682:ISBN 1561:talk 1535:talk 1497:Neil 1456:talk 1437:talk 1410:talk 1393:talk 1377:talk 1350:talk 1336:talk 1321:talk 1277:talk 1209:talk 1158:talk 1144:talk 1121:talk 1079:talk 1027:talk 987:talk 898:talk 763:talk 748:and 706:talk 682:talk 666:talk 650:Note 632:NZFC 615:talk 597:talk 579:talk 547:talk 522:NZFC 506:talk 491:talk 474:talk 450:NZFC 437:talk 422:talk 381:talk 366:talk 350:talk 329:talk 302:talk 267:talk 246:NZFC 226:talk 207:talk 181:NZFC 164:talk 85:Lead 4819:how 4550:two 4245:or 4237:to 3471:NYT 3467:NYT 3455:CNN 3410:Jbh 3391:as 3284:Jbh 3221:Jbh 3049:Pew 2870:: 2820:: 2779:far 2774:: 2762:Yes 2723:Yes 2676:No: 2527:Yes 2422:Dig 2398:Guy 2393:Yes 2366:Yes 2349:Yes 2332:Yes 2313:Jbh 2302:or 2226:Yes 2013:not 1923:all 1890:Jbh 1877:Yes 1858:Yes 1832:Yes 1815:Yes 1761:Yes 1311:of 1195:Hi 1130:Hi 964:Hi 781:not 4868:● 4853:) 4830:● 4805:) 4755:● 4740:) 4718:● 4689:● 4675:) 4648:● 4634:) 4606:● 4598:. 4587:) 4528:● 4514:) 4491:● 4468:) 4439:) 4405:) 4389:) 4373:) 4357:) 4341:) 4312:) 4267:) 4251:no 4211:) 4195:) 4175:) 4160:) 4140:) 4114:) 4086:) 4056:) 3967:) 3939:) 3919:) 3881:) 3852:) 3818:, 3814:, 3810:, 3796:) 3771:) 3750:) 3723:) 3695:. 3631:. 3596:, 3592:- 3559:) 3515:) 3480:) 3370:) 3302:of 3218:. 3208:. 3198:. 3174:) 3143:) 3135:. 3128:4) 3114:3) 3112:. 3098:1) 3090:) 3030:) 3022:. 2939:) 2847:: 2751:) 2733:) 2712:) 2694:) 2661:● 2651:No 2632:) 2611:) 2597:) 2582:) 2568:) 2545:) 2520:) 2502:No 2493:) 2450:, 2446:, 2440:NO 2386:) 2359:) 2342:) 2279:) 2252:No 2215:) 2174:) 2146:-- 2100:) 2066:) 2043:) 2005:) 1992:is 1966:) 1949:) 1911:) 1901:No 1842:) 1825:) 1804:) 1781:) 1754:) 1739:No 1731:) 1707:. 1699:, 1653:. 1640:. 1626:. 1578:No 1563:) 1533:| 1481:. 1458:) 1439:) 1412:) 1379:) 1371:. 1352:) 1338:) 1323:) 1279:) 1242:● 1211:) 1180:● 1177:WV 1160:) 1146:) 1123:) 1094:● 1091:WV 1081:) 1059:● 1056:WV 1029:) 1003:● 1000:WV 989:) 937:● 934:WV 900:) 858:● 855:WV 793:● 790:WV 765:) 757:-- 722:● 719:WV 708:) 684:) 664:| 660:. 652:: 617:) 599:) 585:) 581:• 549:) 541:" 508:) 476:) 439:) 424:) 383:) 352:) 304:) 269:) 228:) 209:) 166:) 4874:✓ 4871:✉ 4849:( 4836:✓ 4833:✉ 4801:( 4761:✓ 4758:✉ 4736:( 4724:✓ 4721:✉ 4708:) 4704:( 4695:✓ 4692:✉ 4671:( 4654:✓ 4651:✉ 4630:( 4612:✓ 4609:✉ 4583:( 4573:( 4534:✓ 4531:✉ 4510:( 4497:✓ 4494:✉ 4480:) 4476:( 4464:( 4435:( 4401:( 4385:( 4369:( 4353:( 4337:( 4308:( 4294:N 4263:( 4207:( 4191:( 4171:( 4156:( 4136:( 4110:( 4082:( 4052:( 3963:( 3935:( 3915:( 3877:( 3848:( 3792:( 3767:( 3746:( 3719:( 3699:. 3555:( 3511:( 3476:( 3366:( 3185:: 3181:@ 3170:( 3139:( 3086:( 3026:( 2996:. 2974:. 2935:( 2927:( 2881:. 2857:… 2747:( 2729:( 2708:( 2690:( 2667:✓ 2664:✉ 2628:( 2607:( 2593:( 2578:( 2564:( 2541:( 2516:( 2489:( 2406:) 2402:( 2382:( 2373:( 2355:( 2338:( 2277:t 2275:( 2270:M 2211:( 2170:( 2154:) 2150:( 2096:( 2064:t 2062:( 2057:M 2041:t 2039:( 2034:M 2003:t 2001:( 1996:M 1964:t 1962:( 1957:M 1945:( 1907:( 1838:( 1821:( 1800:( 1777:( 1750:( 1727:( 1689:. 1644:. 1630:. 1559:( 1540:. 1499:N 1454:( 1435:( 1408:( 1375:( 1348:( 1334:( 1319:( 1275:( 1248:✓ 1245:✉ 1207:( 1186:✓ 1183:✉ 1156:( 1142:( 1119:( 1100:✓ 1097:✉ 1077:( 1065:✓ 1062:✉ 1025:( 1009:✓ 1006:✉ 985:( 943:✓ 940:✉ 896:( 864:✓ 861:✉ 799:✓ 796:✉ 761:( 728:✓ 725:✉ 704:( 680:( 671:. 613:( 595:( 577:( 545:( 504:( 472:( 435:( 420:( 379:( 348:( 300:( 265:( 224:( 205:( 162:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index