Talk:Stephen Miller/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

ElijahPepe, here's the part where I need you to read the article closely top to bottom. I've made many tiny changes. Thank you. Does it look all right? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. No guarantees on a response tonight but definitely by tomorrow night. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll check back in a couple days. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the edits look fine. My only complaint is the lede, which is much more abstract than it probably should be, and I also believe that the only section that should have been split off was the University one. Other than that, no issues here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Removed the new §Family. In 2025-present, I left the sections because the new §Wider influence is needed and is well-sourced. Is that all right? I asked a talk page visitor for help with the lead. Would you be willing to assist? I like the way it closes with criticism and opens neutrally. (Not easy to do.) When the lead is stable, I can pass the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I think some of these changes are meant to try to portray Miller as an influential figure. It is one thing to follow what reliable sources say, because some of the writing does veer into that sort of language, but this is a biography. Just as an example, Niccolò Machiavelli has a focus on his life and work while covering his influence, which is what my intention was with writing this. In order to write the sort of abstract article about someone's influence, you need at least the baselines of their life and career and—ideally—a volume of literature, which takes time. There's a reason for the dry writing, because it is important that the facts are known before there can be an assessment on how influential someone was or is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The Machiavelli example is lost on me, but I take away that a reputation takes a long time to assess and Miller is only 40. You wrote less than 10% of the article. My contributions are so tiny they don't even tally.

I removed one superlative ("highly") and added two words ("and controversial") to the lead. If you agree, I can see removing the string of name-calling ("far-right...") and leaving only the SPLC assessment (both were here before I came). Would you please edit the lead if you want it changed? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record, that is by added text. Authorship is the statistics as the article stands; 81.6% of the article currently is from one or more of my edits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Heavens, that's a big difference. Can you please give me a link to where I can find the 81.6%? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The XTools page has the "Authorship" section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with those descriptors and even the assessment myself, since I can't see where they particularly fit into the article, but apparently there is consensus to keep them. Specifically, what I'm talking about in terms of the abstract language is the first paragraph. It is important that the reader knows what positions Miller specifically served in. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As I imagine you know, they all fit with the first paragraph under §Views, (sourced to books I can't obtain). I added Miller is an unelected advisor and his jobs do not require Senate confirmation. because nobody else did. Perhaps this is a battle of résumé style: I wrote functional and you like chronological. I'll give you a couple more days and hope you will make your changes. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

No, seems fine enough to me. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, you did make a change. I disagree with this being said twice in the lead: a senior advisor to the president and the White House director of speechwriting from 2017 to 2021. Please fix that. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

But, no, it wasn't done. I removed one of three instances of "director of speechwriting" in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

YIt is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

YI am copyediting like crazy. For example the word "behest" is now used once not twice in close proximity. This flag will remain here until my review and copyediting are over.-SGL

YCouldn't you use normal English in something like this? Rex Tillerson had disputed with Miller over immigration While maybe technically correct I don't think I have ever read the word "dispute" used as an active verb. -SGL Same here: He had previously conflicted with Kelly. What form of English are you using there? -SGL

Changed, though dispute can be an active verb and I have read it as such. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Using "sparred" twice, three sentences apart, isn't ideal. Not a GA requirement to fix. -SGL

YIs this a topic sentence or the beginning of a non sequitur? In Kelly's White House Office, Miller was largely successful in influencing Trump. -SGL

I don't see the issue here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

ElijahPepe, you seem to have lost interest. What is your agenda? Why do you have twenty GA nominations pending? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I need time to look over this. I don't have an agenda. My only goal is improving Wikipedia's coverage of Trump-related figures, because much of it is paltry and defined by driveby editing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

YThis sentence has been rewritten. The word "enjoin" can mean to impose or to prohibit depending on context. It's gone now. Miller supported a choice model for the family separation policy in which families would be forced to decide whether they would willingly separate their children or waive their child's humanitarian protections, enjoining them in detention.^[1] -SGL

YIt is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Earwig finds possible copyright problems with Ms. Guerrero's book (69.9%). Because it is one of two Stephen Miller biographies that I know of in existence, this might go away. -SGL

Most of the phrases in Earwig are proper nouns and specific events that would be difficult to reword. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you know of any Miller biographies other than Guerrero and the "Trump's Inner Circle" one?

I'll be away for a day or two. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the latter biography. The only one I am aware of is Guerrero's book. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Just as well. Guerrero was a TV reporter here. Won an Emmy. She's excellent. I got my hands on a copy of Jones. Found a mistake in about the first five pages. He, apparently as do many others, takes for granted that California is liberal. Guerrero is aware that Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are recent governors. He might be OK to quote for generalities but I prefer Guerrero. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Beginning spot-check of sources. This is a creation of the article's author, not reflected in the source: His influence in writing speeches amplified after Trump was convinced by Bannon to read from speeches written by him and Miller.^[2] Besides being horrendous English. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Not a fabrication. "Bannon has convinced Trump to stick to scripted speeches written by him and policy aide Stephen Miller, which people in Bannon's orbits see as a critical development", but perhaps that could have been misread. I made it more clear. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Another unsupported sentence: In contrast to the internal faction of Trump advisors revolving around Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff who previously served as the chair of the Republican National Committee,^{[3][failed verification]} Miller was affiliated with Bannon.^[4]. I have to join the Atlantic to read the second citation. But I object to the first one. Not supported by the source given. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Uuntangled this using the Atlantic source. It wasn't that complicated. I am struggling against tangents and digressions. This article would have benefited from a peer review or copyedit before jumping to GAN. -SGL

YThree "failed verification" and one "clarification needed" tags are waiting for the nominator. -SGL

Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a "page needed" flag as well. -SGL

Done. Seems like someone added that randomly. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

YIt is broad in its coverage.

Yes, seems to cover the subject. -SGL

My problem with tangents is part of this bullet. the article should avoid undue emphasis on tangents, such as coatracks, and trivia. The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. For example, this list was indefensible:

In November 2023, The New York Times reported that Miller was leading an initiative to appoint several lawyers to Trump's second term, including Chad Mizelle—who served as the acting general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, Jonathan F. Mitchell—the former solicitor general of Texas, Aaron Reitz—the chief of staff for Texas senator Ted Cruz, and Brent Webster—the first assistant attorney general of Texas.^[5]

It's gone now. -SGL

YIt follows the neutral point of view policy.

Article generally uses neutral language. -SGL

YIt is stable.

Other than disruption I caused by this review, the article is stable. -SGL

YIt is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Images are appropriate, and mainly public domain from the White House. With thanks to Gage Skidmore for a couple portraits. -SGL

Overall:

Comment. I don't want to blame the nominator who is not a primary author of this article. But I do think the nominator could and should have done most of the work I've done this week before nominating this article at GAN. Don't know his agenda but he must have one. He's working on a new GAN nomination while I clean up the mess here. As mentioned above, a contentious article like this should go through peer review and copyediting before GAN unless the nominator is willing to put in prep time. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction, by Authorship (not by Text added) nominator is the primary author. His nomination of more than twenty articles at GA at once is overly demanding of Wikipedia's resources. Perhaps he will see fit to help in the future with the backlog of nominations. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Holy smokes, you aren't kidding – you put in work on this article. Thanks, Susan, for going above and beyond. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne, for noticing. We've got our work cut out for us. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Pass. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)