Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Anchor babies

Would it right to point out that MM is herself an anchor baby as her parents were non US citizens when she was born? -- Phildav76 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above? She objected to Hamdi because "Hamdi was raised in the Saudi kingdom. He spoke their language, not ours. He went to their schools, not ours. He embraced their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Not ours." Malkin speaks English, lives in the US, grew up in the US, went to US schools, and accepts US culture. She clearly does not qualify as one of the group she complained about. Ken Arromdee 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But that appears to be a spurious argument as Hamdi's parents don't appear to have used his US citizenship by birth for their own benefit as explained in anchor baby. Her use of him as an example of an anchor baby is therefore spurious as well. It all depends on whether or not you could describe her as being an anchor baby, which itself is not defined. Also as the US doesn't have a state religion, MM claiming Hamdi embraced "their religion" implies he should somehow become a Christian if he had stayed in the US! Surely he was a Muslim in the first three years of his life he spent in the US and would have stayed one had he remained.
In her article she promotes the abolition of automatic citizenship, but this law is what made her a US citizen in the first place. If it had not been in place when she was born she would have to been naturalised after her birth at some point. -- Phildav76 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "anchor baby" is used by Malkin only way down near the bottom of the source, and she claims that granting citizenship to people like Hamdi *and* anchor babies is a problem. So what's wrong is not Malkin for using the term (since she doesn't use it), but Wikipedia for not summarizing Malkin properly.
And while Hamdi would have still been a Muslim if raised in the US, does "their religion" mean "Islam" or "radical Islam"? If it means the latter, Malkin has a point; even moderate Saudi Arabians are radical compared to American Muslims. At any rate, whether Malkin is wrong is separate from whether she meets her own standard; she's not a Muslim, let alone a radical one, so no matter how you interpret that statement, she does meet her own standard. Ken Arromdee 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You could also argue the US has many more radical Christians compared to any other country. I agree that the Malkin article needs some rewording around the anchor babies part as it is somewhat misleading. -- Phildav76 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia has an article about anchor babies. Read that article and it is clear that Malkin fits the wikipedia definition of an anchor baby. Since Malkin has A) spoken about abuse of immigration in general, and B) anchor babies in particular, then it is very relevant to point out that Malkin is an anchor baby. It is POV to say that a description of Malkin as anchor babies must be removed.

If you don't want to include this information, my suggestion is that you nominate the anchor baby article for deletion. 71.39.78.68 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject may, in our opinion, fit into any number of categories. But our opinions don't matter. If some notable person has said that Malkin is an "anchor baby" then it'd be appropriate to report that. Otherwise we should leave it out. -Will Beback · † · 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Our opinion doesn't matter? who you kidding willis? Our opinions as editors is what determines what is valuable in wikipedia entry. It is not our opinion that Malkin's birth fits the definition of the wikipedia entry for anchor baby, that is an NPOV fact. It is NPOV fact that Malkin fits the definition of anchor baby. The question is, is that relevant to her biography. Given how Malkin has written and spoken about immigration issues many times, going so far as to writing a book about internment of immigrants, it is very relevant to readers trying to understand who this person Malkin is.

Again: Malkin is an Anchor Baby: Fact and NPOV. Malkin is writes about immigrants: Fact and NPOV. Malkin writes against anchor babies: Fact and NPOV. Mentioning that Malkin fits the definition of an anchor baby herself: Fact, NPOV, interesting, and relevant. Refusing to mention that Malkin fits the definition of an anchor baby? A POV act of editing. Will Beback, it is your POV opinion that this should not be mentioned. And it is a whitewash of NPOV fact. 130.76.64.15 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it isn't clear if she's actually calling Hamdi an anchor baby.
But even if she is, it isn't NPOV because it's a blatant attempt to accuse Malkin of hypocrisy for not liking anchor babies yet being one herself. First of all, that conclusion is a POV, and second, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition--for her to be a hypocrite, she has to fit *her own* definition, not Wikipedia's.
And she doesn't fit her own definition (again, granting that she's talking about anchor babies at all). To her, an anchor baby is someone who is "American in name only"--who has citizenship by being born to foreigners on American soil, but who doesn't accept American culture. Since Malkin accepts American culture, that definition doesn't apply to herself. Ken Arromdee 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As I read the definition, Anchor babies are born of illegal immigrants OR legal immigrants when "the child's birth is specifically intended to obtain citizenship under US law". Since we probably agree that Malkin's parents were in the US legally, 130.76.64.15 needs to provide some proof that Malkin was born specifically to obtain citizenship. Otherwise, she is not an anchor baby. Zubdub 08:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The definition is: "Anchor baby is term used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens." While her parents were not illegal aliens, they were non-citizens, here on a temporary work visa. Others (you can google it yourself) show that she was born "shortly" after her parents came to America, and certainly within the same year that they came to America. Her parents remained in America. The conclusion from that is either a) her parents knew they were pregnant prior to entry, or b) she was conceived within two-three months of their arrival. Seems like an anchor/jackpot to me. I am not an encyclopedician but looking for "intent" does not seem useful. How is an encyclopedia article to judge intent from any source other than the parents themselves? And how many parents have told the INS (or anchor baby critics) "Yes, we had a baby so we could stay here." If you insist on intent, there will be no one that admits to being an anchor baby or having had one. The definition has to be something that can me measured by an outside user impartially to be useful as a term. 71.39.78.68 11:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, Malkin doesn't think being born to foreigners alone is reason to criticize Hamdi. It's the combination of being born to foreigners and not accepting American culture. Malkin accepts American culture, and thus doesn't fall under her own criticism.
Whether *Wikipedia's definition* of anchor babies applies to her is completely irrelevant. Ken Arromdee 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You are taking that sentence out of context. "Anchor baby is term used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens." Later in the paragraph it further specifies the definition of anchor babies when born to legal immigrants as being those born when "specifically intended to obtain citizenship". If the sentence you quoted intended to include children born to ALL legal immigrants, the additional qualifier (ie. intent) would be completely superfluous. Zubdub 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How is an encyclopedia article to judge intent ... We aren't. Strict Wikipedia policy requires us to report other people's judgments, not to make our own. (Of course, the judgements we report must be verifiable, from reliable sources, not defamatory, etc.) In fact, we are not even allowed to arrange statements in a suggestive way. Lots of people expect Wikipedia to report "the truth", but they're wrong: Wikipedia just reports verifiable facts. So this discussion of anchor babies is off-topic. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this fits in to the argument, but Malkin's parents probably were born when the Philippines was still a United States commonwealth. This article even states that Malkin's grandfather served under MacArthur in WWII. I think a lot of people forget that the U.S. used to "own" the Philippines.--Wambeter 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Google Campaign

I added the following: to date there is no evidence of any campaign. This keeps getting edited out. In fact, though, I will say it again, in FACT, in NPOV FACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CAMPAIGN. It is notable that a journalist like Malkin would make unsubstantiated claims. It is also notable that searching on the net reveals no campaign. There are no press releases from Google or YouTube or anyone else that there is such a campaign. It is Malkin's statement that is not supportable. It is NPOV to state that as of 2/1/2007 there is no substantiation for this claim. If you google "malkin google campaign" the only cites you find are from conservative bloggers repeating Malkin's allegations. AGAIN: THE ONLY CITATIONS ARE FROM BLOGS. You people keep telling me we cannot cite blogs, but the only evidence on the net of any campaign is from conservative bloggers, and they provide no evidence at all. No memos, no emails, no press releases. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MALKIN's CLAIM.

I am going to add back in the statement that there is no evidence for Malkin's claim. If you find that there is evidence for Malkin's unsubstantiated claim, please post it. 130.76.64.15 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamil Hussein and the AP's 'Bogus Source'

How is this section title POV? "Bogus Source" is a direct quote from Malkin, and as she admitted, he really did exist? Please explain how this is a POV section title -- if there is no explanation, I plan on adding it back in 71.39.78.68 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This text was removed. The text seems explicitly NPOV and was sourced direct from Malkin. Why was this text removed? The text is relevant to understand Malkin's participation in another event (that merits a Wikipedia article.)

On November 26th, 2006, Malkin joined into what the conservative blogosphere dubbed "Jamilgate", an accusation that the Associated Press was using a non-existent, bogus source, to report false news items out of Iraq. Malkin explicity referred to Jamil Hussein as a "bogus source." [1].

I believe the removal of this text was a POV edit. 71.39.78.68 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are all the references in this section (and the majority of the references for the entire article) references to Malkin's columns and blogs? How can that be NPOV? nut-meg 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Malkin's columns and blogs may be used as sources of information about herself. Ken Arromdee 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, maybe I wasn't specific enough. In this story especially there are a lot of issues that could easily be disputed. For example, "Malkin later visited Baghdad herself, and verified that the mosques are still standing and there were no independent reports of the burnings." The citation for this is to her blog, and there is no independent verification that her findings were accurate. There are a lot of mosques in Iraq. She says the mosques in question were not damaged, but she is the only one saying this (to my knowledge). I left the line in there because I don't have enough information about the topic to make that kind of call, but it definitely needs another source, or at the very least more detail. I am reading this as someone who knows little about the controversy, butalso as someone who knows Malkin has credibility problems. If this is the only source regarding the contition of the mosques in question, that part needs to be reworded to indicate that Malkin is the sole source, and that she has a conflict of interest. ------ In general it concerns me when I see articles that refer heavily to the subject's own website, no matter who that might be. nut-meg 04:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Since there is a direct reference to one of Malkin's articles, it is appropriate to relate the facts presented within the article more precisely as they relate to the context of this section, which was her challenging the AP story. To leave it simply as "mosques still standing" is very misleading in the context. The user -Chris Chittleborough- might care to explain why he removed the clarification of the substance of her article. Nina137.111.47.182 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm trying to trim irrelevant details from the article. We want a useful encyclopedia article about MM, not a list of controversies MM has been involved in (which would be a looooong list ...), so I'm trying to keep stuff that does not tell readers something useful about MM out of the article.
AP told the world that ""militiamen burned and blew up four mosques". Not "attacked four mosques", not "damaged four mosques", not "set fire to four mosques" but "burned and blew up". "Blew up" always means "destroyed using explosives". "Burned" in a news story means "burned down"; otherwise journos use "set fire to" or similar. The AP report clearly conveyed, and clearly was meant to convey, that four mosques were destroyed. How many were actually destroyed? Zero — even the AP says so.
That the mosques were still standing is important. Whether they had lesser damage is irrelevant, but lots of people prefer to focus on that irrelevancy to avoid admitting that (1) the AP reported lies and (2) Malkin and friends have proven the AP reported lies.
In fact, the focus on the mosques is itself a distraction from the main point of the APs story: "that six Sunni civilians had been burned to death with kerosene" by terrorists/insurgents/freedom-fighters. How many were actually burned to death? Zero — even a New York Times reporter says so.
It's clear to any unbiased observer that the AP reported anti-Coalition propaganda as fact. Malkin and others have debunked these lies. AP corporate HQ then came up with a rather transparent cover-up; the reason it has not been shredded (yet?) is the most fascinating aspect of this whole sorry saga.
Long story short: What I removed was murkification, not clarification.
But thanks for provoking me to find more Reliable Sources that show the AP to be liars. Cheers, CWC 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What you have done to this section is not appropriate. If you can't be specific in your posts, then you should not be making these changes. You said that "AP told the world..." as if it was the AP's opinion, whereas the article specifically said that it was the police who asserted that the mosques were burned and blown up. The very next paragraph quotes the US military as saying that those assertions were not supported by fact. The context of Malkin's article, and this wikipedia section is the consideration of the AP as a source, and Malkin's criticism of it. You really need to read the original AP article again. In the spirit of brevity I have removed sources from partisan websites that provided no new evidence or insight into the value of AP as a reliable news source, which is the subject of this section as it relates to Michelle Malkin. Nina137.111.47.182 06:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this section constantly being reverted to a position that supports Malkin and criticises the associated press? Wikipedia is not a platform for individuals to voice their beliefs. Paul202.43.226.11 15:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a platform to report important things about people who are subjects of articles, including their beliefs.
To the limited extent Wikipedia tries to present a rounded view of Jamil "Hussein" controversy, it does so in the Jamil Hussein controversy article. This article is about Malkin, her writings, her videos and things she's done. Cheers, CWC 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously using it as a platform to further your beliefs, rather than reporting the facts of Malkin's beliefs. Why else would you remove parts of the AP's original report that lends no support to Malkin's claim that the AP is not a reputable source? The original AP article stated that they tried to confirm the Police's story and could not, so why is the AP still under fire here? The point of the section is that Malkin challenged the AP, and ended up apologising for it. Nina 137.111.47.182 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no.
I'm going to make several points here, all of them important.
(1) "Why else would [I] remove parts of the AP's original report". Uh, I think I've answered that already, and more than once: to keep this article from growing like Audrey Jr.. Malkin is a very vigorous controversialist (as I'm about to demonstrate!) so this article often needs pruning. That's a reason for removing text; whether any particular removal is correct should be discussed on this talk page.
(2) My beliefs about the AP differ greatly from Malkin's, both in general (I find KC Johnson's praise for AP at http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ persuasive) and about this particular incident.
(3) I want this article to summarize Malkin's beliefs and actions, which means it has to be judged against everything she's written about this. Here's a partial list of relevant posts from MichelleMalkin.com: "The media fog of war" (cited in our article),   "Burning Six update: The AP responds (to USA Today); Update: and now, a new AP account",   "Fake news vs. real news from Iraq",   "Burning Sunnis, burning mosques, burning questions",   "Rumors and reporting in Iraq",   "The alleged war atrocity that the NYTimes can't substantiate",   "Questioning a NYTimes reporter; challenging CBS News & ASNE",   "Free Jamil Hussein",   "AP: Still not off the hook. Plus: The Question",   "Eric Boehlert: Clown of the day",   "Eason Jordan is back",   "Looking for Jamil Hussein: Accepting Eason Jordan's invitation",   "What's so funny about going to Iraq? Plus: More questions for AP",   "Tracing 'Jamil Hussein's' footsteps and ignoring anti-blog hatred",   "The AP (non-)responds and another search comes up empty",   "Going to Iraq",   "Jamil Hussein development: 'Faces arrest?'",   "Corrections" (currently cited),   "Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name?",   "Jamil, We Hardly Knew Ye",   "Fact-checking the AP and Jamil Hussein",   and "The AP's non-correction correction". There are other relevant posts I didn't track down. I think the article currently conveys Malkin's anti-AP position clearly yet concisely. (Though I can see a case for adding "The AP's non-correction correction" as a cite.)
(4) Malkin's slam at the AP in the N Y Post came well after her (non-)apology, so it's not true that she "ended up" apologizing.
(5) Journalists are (or at least should be) taught how to shape the reaction to a story by structuring it, particularly by what they put in the lede paragraph. AP's 24-Nov story was guaranteed to produce stuff like this and this. Malkin, a former reporter, knows this; hence her strong reaction. Suppose the AP's coverage of the six-burned-alive lie had been "One Sunni source claims that six Sunni were burned alive, but military sources have not confirmed this." Then the false story would have gotten much less prominence. Journalists and their editors do not make those sort of choices by random chance, as every consumer of journalism needs to know.
(6) I've tried hard to keep my POV out of this article. I think I've succeeded; at least no-one has guessed it yet. Cheers, CWC 09:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Allied bloggers

People keep removing the following paragraph or variants thereof:

Conservatives working with Malkin have since quoted sources in Iraq as saying that Jamil Gholaiem Hussein denies being the AP's source, that the Iraqi official quoted by the AP denies saying Hussein existed, and that there is still no evidence of six people being burned alive.{ref} "The latest on Jamil Hussein", Curt, 'Flopping Aces' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref} "J-DAMN", Bob Owens, 'Confederate Yankee' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref} "The Jamil Hussein Name Game — Iraqi General Weighs In", Bob Owens, Pajamas Media, 15 February 2007{/ref}

This text is deliberately terse, so I understand that people may not realize why it is important. You will have to read the MichelleMalkin.com archives for Jan & Feb 2007 to see its relevance. If pushed, I will expand it to show why it is relevant, but doing so would require multiple additional refs to MichelleMalkin.com and no-one wants that (... do they?). WP:NPOV requires us to give Malkin's side of the story at least in this article, and this stuff is important to it. Note also that these blogs are completely acceptable as Reliable Sources for the claims made here. Please do not remove this material again without first getting consensus here.

By the way, the Jamil Hussein controversy article needs lots of work. Many of the sourced statements are contradicted by their sources! It's on the "daunting" section of my "to-do" list, so I'd be very happy to see someone else start fixing it. (Please, please, oh please ...) CWC 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Intent

Person X says, "I did Y because of Z". Should the wikipedia article say, "Y was done because of Z", when there is no proof of Z? Or should the wikipedia article say, "Person X says Y was done because of Z?". For a wikipedia article to say that Y was done because of Z, the wiki needs to show proof of Z and that Z is a logical reason for action Y, AND THAT FOLLOWING OCCAM'S RAZOR, there is no other simpler reason for Y." There are many equally probable reasons that Malkin disabled comments, and no proof that she suffered a torrent of obscene comments. It is POV to change the sentence, "Malkin stated that comments were disabled because of ..." to read "Malkin disabled comments because of...." Unless there is a suitable defense, I plan on changing this back.

Please remember this is an article, not a hagiography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC). 71.39.78.68 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You do *not* have to show proof of Z; consider a hypothetical where someone says "I wrote that book because I needed money". Would you have to prove their financial situation was bad before you could make that statement?
Also, Occam's Razor doesn't do what you think it does here. The *simplest* explanation is that Malkin is telling the truth; other explanations would require you to assume that she is lying. Ken Arromdee 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Malkin stated" is a verifiable and provable fact. It does not presume she is lying. Wiki is adamant that things are sourced and/or attributed. If you don't like that, start a blog. nut-meg 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, there is no proof she suffered a torrent of obscene comments, but lots of third hand evidence she suffered a torrent of comments that disagree with her and comments that provide verifiable rebuttals to her positions. The simplest explanation is in fact that she is lying, but I don't know if she was lying or not, so I would not presume to say that. I also would not presume to say she is believable. Have you read the rest of the article? She is notorious for making erroneous statements. As far as wiki policy goes, that she stated she suffered a torrent of obscene comments IS verifiable. That she suffered that torrent is not verifiable. So yeah, to your hypothetical, in lieu of any other information, the correct way to phrase the sentence is "Ken stated he wrote the book because he needed the money." 71.39.78.68 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't necessarily need proof. The burden of prof is not on wikipeians but attribution and citations are, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. nut-meg 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While I do think you have a valid point, I also think the replacement text was biased in the other direction, alluding to a presumption that Malkin is lying about the reasons. I've rewritten the sentence to what I feel is a neutral means of stating her reasoning. By the way. You obviously have plenty of time to make posts on this talk page and edits to the article page. Please take 30 seconds to create a user account. There is a certain irony in reading insistence on verifiable proof of everything from someone posting as an anonymous user. Zubdub 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It presumes no such thing. If you already think she is a liar, you'll make that conclusion regardless. If you have no opinion, it is simply an attribution of a statement. nut-meg 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, oh. Time for a rethink? Some #(^#$ idiot used the wrong URL as the source for why she disabled comments: he used http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000342.htm, but he should have used http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001417.htm. I am sure that he is very sorry for this stuff-up, and I should know.

I've fixed the link. Please read that post. It has a bunch of comments (from Kevin Drum's blog, not Malkin's). They are ... "enlightening".

Thanks, Zubdub, for the neutral wording. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AP Rebuttal

Removing the AP's rebuttal to Malkin's attack on their credibility leaves this article unbalanced. I believe it is proper to include it, at the end of the Jamil section. Abe Froman 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

This picture of her is awful. If I knew how to change it, I would. Can someone please get a new one up? President David Palmer 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We struggled even to get that one. If you'd like a better one then you can help best by A) taking a better picture and donating it, B) asking the subject to donate a picture. We've already tried searching the Internet for a public domain picture, but there's always a chance one will appear. -Will Beback · † · 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a travesty

Troll warning This section of the discussion page contains trolling and untrustworthy statements. Before you post a reply, consider the effect your comments may have. When you do respond, remember that a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

What a joke. How many links are to her site? Is her husband editing this article? /TheDeciderDecides 07:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The links to her site are called references to back up items in the article, and are quite normal. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After checking from RfC, I'm inclined to consider User:TheDeciderDecides to be trolling. The reference links are certainly reasonable in explaining her views. As far as overall tone, I get the sense that it's slightly sympathetic in tone, but overall it's a fair article, IMO. Sxeptomaniac 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It could definitely use a criticism section though, to balance things up a bit. Gatoclass 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The size of the article exceeds the notability of the subject. There is clearly a use of Wikipedia for promotion here. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Malkin is one of the most notable, controversial and successful bloggers around. As an example of her acumen, Hot Air became a fixture in the conservative side of the political blogosphere in less than a year.
There is no "use of Wikipedia for promotion here". There are lots of Malkin-haters out there, and some of them vandalize the article or use it to attack her. She also has lots of fans, and they come here to defend her. All these incidents pile up, and the article keeps growing. (We should prune away some of the older stuff.)
Also, the article does contain criticism of Malkin (eg., "habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking") but it's spread out. Per user:Gatoclass, we could move it into a new section. I can see arguments both for and against that. What do other editors think?
Here's another question: Why is Malkin so unpopular on the left? Some conservative blogs display a banner saying "I support Michelle Malkin even though she is, in fact, a woman and a minority", which is an expression of the theory that many lefty bloggers can't stand seeing someone violating their ideas of group identity. That's only one theory, of course. I wonder if any Reliable Source has written about this hostility to Malkin? If so, we should definitely mention it in the article. Cheers, CWC 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Her kooky extreme far right stances like internment, her bombastic (Coulter want-to-be) style, her exaggerations and outright lies, her pandering to the Bush administration, the UCSC suicide, the allegations that her husband writes her blog under her pen name at times. Should I go on? TheDeciderDecides 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're lost. Democrat Underground is over here. Jinxmchue 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Malkin is fiercely hated by people from the left, the racist right and jihadists. (It was Michael Crook who spread Malkin's home address, phone numbers, etc during the SAW controversy. The "moonbat" left did a great job of protecting her privacy, with only a few exceptions.) I wonder which of them is using this page to spread silly lies about her? CWC 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Malkin herself printed the names and private info of some protestors she opposed on her blog. She is 'fiercely hated' by almost everyone except her fringe dwelling supporters. TheDeciderDecides 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin is a Wiki-user also

Malkin resides in Maryland and some of the IP numbers represent Bel-Air, MD. She is a resident from the Washington D.C. area. She is a frequent contributer to HotAir, her personal website, YouTube, Myspace, and Wikipedia. LILVOKA 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Bel-Air isn't Michelle Malkin. I think. Never been there myself, so I may be wrong. Hornplease 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course everyone from Bel-Air is Malkin! ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I suspect MM would have neither the time nor the inclination to edit here but her husband would... CWC 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
She actually strikes me as just the type of person who would concentrate on her own Wikipedia article. I'd be on the lookout for her editing as well.--76.182.88.254 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bel Air is twenty or so miles northeast of Baltimore, which in turn is about 30 miles northeast of Malkin's home in Bethesda so it's unlikely that Bel Air IPs are Malkin's. SHJohnson 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pruned and reorganized

I said above that "We should prune away some of the older stuff." Well, now I've gone and done it. In this edit, I took out lots of stuff that seems to me to be largely of historic interest only:

  1. Removed Malkin's reaction to Jessica Cutler ("How can anybody live on $25K/year?? ...").
  2. Trimmed paragraph about In Defense of Internment.
  3. Removed paragraph about "the spy Leandro Aragoncillo".
  4. Removed paragraph about "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome" because all sensible lots of people condemn the MSM for this.
  5. Removed paragraph about [Joshua Belile]] and "Hadji Girl".
  6. Removed paragraph about blog-feud with Andrew Sullivan because blog-feuds with Sullivan are now ubiquitous, if not universal ;-).
  7. Removed paragraph about Paul Mirecki.

I considered removing the paragraph about "Passenger Bill of Rights", but decided the bit about "quoting from a liberal blog that suggested her critics were quote mining" made it notable enough.

I also changed the formatting of the <ref>s to make them easier to edit.

Then I reorganized the article to avoid one-paragraph sections. I think it now "flows" better and is more readable. It's certainly shorter: 20,766 bytes of wikitext, 7 sections and 42 references compared to 24,603 bytes, 11 sections and 52 references in this version. (Also, I feel a little tired just now.)

Now lets discuss the mistakes I made during these edits. (I'm sure there is at least one.) What do people want to put back? Are there other parts that should be removed? Cheers, CWC 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 'negative reaction' should be changed to criticism and greatly expanded. Malkin's credbility was severly damaged over her Jamilgate, and Mosque claims, and there's nary a mention of it. Is this a Malkin fan page, or article? http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/michellemalkin http://mediamatters.org/columns/200701090003 TheDeciderDecides 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huuuuuh. The AP said that "Shi'ite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post". Malkin and others proved that in fact zero (0) people were burned alive, and also debunked other details of that AP report, notably that the info came from "police Capt. Jamil Hussein". Even the AP now admits that they do not have a source named Jamil Hussein. And Soros's people want us to believe that Malkin's credibility is "severly (sic) damaged"?
The really sad thing is that so many people who generally don't trust enormous multi-national profit-making corporations or their messages will decide to trust one in this case because they like what it tells them. CWC 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jamil Hussein exists (much more than the WMD's) much to the embarassment of Malkin and the other increasingly irrelevant warbloggers "In the end, the Jamil Hussein fiasco simply highlights the dramatic fall from grace warbloggers have suffered over the last 24 months. Following Memogate in late 2004, when warbloggers helped drive CBS' Dan Rather off the air for botching a report on Bush and his days with the Texas Air National Guard, warbloggers, basking in the glow of mainstream media acclaim, had a real chance to grow the right-wing blogosphere into something influential and politically important. Instead, today it's an outpost of misplaced arrogance." TheDeciderDecides 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible source for recent revision by 69.113.141.210

Revision from 19:17, May 22, 2007. I think someone might be an Andrew Sullivan fan: Malkin And 9/11 Theories. Jinxmchue 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin was a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' regarding Flight 93. (I never knew this) This must be included in all relevant articles. TheDeciderDecides 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. You obviously have not read her actual article and are simply going by what Andrew Sullivan claims the article says. Jinxmchue 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I read the article. It's right here Just Wondering I never knew Malkin was part of the 9/11 moonbat brigade until now! This fact will not be suppressed. TheDeciderDecides 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

She's now counter-attacked (decisively, IMO).
(She quotes several paragraphs from this guy. I think he nailed it in a single sentence she didn't quote: "Not one of her best columns, but at the time one could be forgiven for not believing every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Norm Mineta, and calling for a more complete release of information ...") Cheers, CWC 16:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for clean-up

The main problems are that it's not a NPOV encyclopedic article about her, but written by supporters to present a highly skewed pro Malkin view, and as a vehicle to propogate Malkin's stances and POV on a wide range of issues in a non encyclopedic manner.

Here are the problems as I go through the article.

  1. 'Top 5 conservative blog' not supported in refs provided
  2. Notable investigation into Air Americas financial irregularities? What would make it notable is if RSes outside the right wing blogosphere and right wing press sourced her. Prove this and this unsupported claim might meet WP.
  3. The claim that the objections to 'In defense of internment' came only from Asian Americans is so far from the truth that it displays just how far the Malkin supporters here have gone to skew this article by discounting the wide ranging criticism to Malkin and her stances. Over the next few days I'll write a new paragraph on this book for review. In the meantime, I'll attempt to clean up the many WP violations from the MM supporters here. TheDeciderDecides 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


People reading only left-wing blogs (or racist-right websites) may have a very negative impression of Malkin, but those blogs are not allowed to be used as sources in this article. (We are allowed to use Malkin's blog as a source in this article. We can also use supportive blogs as sources but only for what those bloggers wrote or did.)
Responding to the three points:
  1. The first two "refs provided" rank MichelleMalkin.com as the #1 conservative blog in the world. (Alexa rankings are not authoritative.) Perhaps we should cite just http://truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php instead?
  2. We currently say that Malkin "highlights investigative reports from other sites, most notably an investigation into [Air America]". (That's not quite right: she was one of the investigators into that scandal, along with Brian Maloney.) Her work on "Air Enron" is notable amongst the investigations she has highlighted on her blog. (BTW, the scandal got MSM coverage after Malkin and Maloney published on it: [2], [3] . That makes it Notable.)
    OTOH, I think the next sentence needs lots of improvement: "She is frequently used as an example of the blurred line between bloggers and reporters, given such investigations and her widely distributed columns and appearances on multiple media outlets."
  3. We do not claim that "objections to 'In defense of internment' came only from Asian Americans" (they came from lots of people, even the racist right). We do link to a detailed critique by Eric Muller and Greg Robinson and the "Historians' Committee for Fairness".
Also, the article has already passed one review: see here and above. I see that TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs) did not wait for a response before requesting another review.
Furthermore, I am not a "Malkin supporter". My POV about Malkin is not at all encyclopedic, and AFAIK I've kept it out of Wikipedia. Cheers, CWC 15:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your claim "[left wing] blogs are not allowed to be used as sources in this article. (We are allowed to use Malkin's blog as a source in this article. We can also use supportive blogs as sources but only for what those bloggers wrote or did.)" If right wing blogs can be use for support of her, so can left wing blogs be used for criticism. There is much too much use of Malkins blog for 'argument' too. The purpose and goal of the article is to describe her stances and positions, not re-argue them here with extensive quotes and links to her original content thus presenting her side of any argument disproportionately. This article fails it purpose, and Wikipedia and its millions of readers, and fails them miserably. It is little more than a highly POV fawning fan page. Please give me some links to the 'racist right' crticism of Malkin you keep mentioning. TheDeciderDecides 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. Malkin's blog can be used, because the article is about her. (The subject of an article counts as a Reliable Source for that article, unless claiming to have invented the internet or similar.) Other blogs can be cited "only for what those bloggers said or did", which means neither support nor criticism. AFAICT, at present, the only cite from a blog other than Malkin's which expresses an opinion of her is Greg Sargent's post debunking the Cheney/Rumsfeld privacy scare,[4] which accuses her and others of "vitriol and bloodthirsty howling".
More important: the purpose of the article is to "[present] her side ... disproportionately" — that's a loose and overly-simplified but useful summary of one of Wikipedia's most important policies, WP:BLP. TheDeciderDecides, you need to study that policy very carefully. Cheers, CWC 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While BLP is obviously very important in this case and in general blogs are not reliable sources, this doesn't mean we should be disproportionate. BLP and NPOV work together. That said, claims from random blogs are not acceptable sources. This doesn't seem like a hard case. JoshuaZ 02:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ is right. I was overstating things in an attempt to communicate to User:TheDeciderDecides, who has since been blocked indefinitely. CWC 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Exactly how does one person's personal quibble with the page justify the tag? Can I go and put that tag up on pages I personally disagree with, too? Jinxmchue 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, especially when the quibbling editor appears mostly perturbed because he or she is being prevented from slanting this article in a way in violation of Biographies of Living Persons. Thanatosimii 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've removed the tag. Note that TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to being a sock account. CWC 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dropped by The Virginian-Pilot

In my big trim edit (see above), I cut out the background to Bronwyn Lance Chester's "Asian Ann Coulter" quote. (BTW: I wrongly called her a former columnist because I didn't read her 'Fond Farewell' column properly. She left the Virginian-Pilot to become a syndicated columnist.) Here's what I was thinking:

  1. The validity of BLC's quote is not affected by the circumstances that inspired it.
  2. Regional papers frequently pick up and drop syndicated columns; this event was not notable except for E&P using it to attack Malkin.
  3. The cite for the comment carries the title "Virginia Paper Drops Columnist Malkin", so we're not hiding the fact that MM was dropped.
  4. Readers can always read the E&P story.
  5. There is absolutely no need to give any details about the Virginian-Pilot in this article.

I've removed the stuff I think is clearly irrelevant to this article. It now starts

A columnist at The Virginian-Pilot, Bronwyn Lance Chester, stated when the newspaper dropped Malkin's column that Malkin "habitually ..." ...

I'd like to change that paragraph to:

Columnist Bronwyn Lance Chester has stated that Malkin "habitually ..." ...

What do other editors think?

Cheers, CWC 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not ask the reader to find and check the cite to understand the context of a quote about her. There is also no reason to drop the date of this event. regards, --guyzero | talk 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the source states that Chester is an editorial writer, not a columnist. --guyzero | talk 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)I'm not sure why you insist on changing her job title?
Ah, there is a reason to drop the date: trying to keep the article from growing too big. Malkin is a vigorous controversialist, and an account of the disputes she's been involved in would (so to speak) fill an encyclopedia, so I say we should keep unnecessary details out of the article body in addition to skipping the less important incidents.
As I see it, that quote stands independently of the date or the circumstances that prompted it. No big deal, though.
Also, I thought "editorial writer", "op-ed writer" and "columnist" were synonyms. (Are you saying BLC was a Leader writer at the Pilot, Guyzero?) Again, no big deal: it's only a few words. (OTOH, to paraphrase John Paul Getty and Prince William Henry, a few words here, a few words there ... before you know it, you're talking another damned thick book, eh?.) Cheers, CWC 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks for the reply. With regards to Chester's title, I don't know if columnist is a synonym or not tbh. Since BLP also applies to Chester, I feel it is safest to use the same title ("editorial writer") that is used in the source. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

contrast treatment of Malkin's contention w/ that of her critcs

Compare:

After Malkin's post, the three SAW contacts received abusive emails and phone calls, including death threats.[20]

to:

Malkin has stated that this forced her to remove one of her children from school and move her family.[23]

Do you see the bias? Compare this article's treatment of Malkin's critics' claim (by three unnamed "contacts" from a campus radical group), to the treatment of Malkin's claim. Malkin's critics' claim is taken at face value and reported as simple fact, but Malkin's claim is prefaced by "Malkin has stated that," which suggests that there is doubt about whether it is factual. Can we all agree that either "Malkin has stated that" should be deleted from the article, or else "SAW has stated that" should preface their allegation? NCdave 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that whole paragraph could be rewritten better--I think it's funny that politely asked is in quotes--and some of the citations are a bit dodgy. Might be better for some of the citations to be replaced with the Sentinel article. As for bias, well anyone who has a strong opinion about MM's views either way should probably avoid editing her article (but we know that won't happen). I personally have no opinion on MM's views, or her critics' etc. Anyway, to avoid the perceived bias you mentioned, NCdave, consider rewriting the sentence to: In an e-mail to the Santa Cruz Sentinel [about the controversy], Malkin wrote: "I am now forced to remove one of my children from school and move my family." No bias, just quoting the third-party article precisely. (Note: I have no idea what kind of publication the Santa Cruz Sentinel is... an online newspaper or student newspaper?) And the same works for SAW's allegations as well. JordanSealy 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It was I who put "politely asked" in quotes. (I wanted to indicate that those were SAW's words, from here.) I'm sure we can find a better wording.
NCdave is right: we should be more even-handed.
JordanSealy's suggested rewrite is excellent. (The only reason I haven't put it in the article already is that I'm hoping for more great suggestions ...)
The Santa Cruz Sentinel is an old-fashioned newspaper (1856!) now owned by a new-fangled newspaper chain.
I think that big Malkin/SAW paragraph is overdue for some clean-up, but I don't want to tackle it myself. You two would do a great job. So, please, go for it!. Cheers, CWC 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, CWC, I wasn't making fun of "politely asked" but just thought it was funny. Having [now] read all of the source citations and more, I sceptical about anyone on either side of this controversy being particularly polite. Thus, funny to me. As for reworking this paragraph, I'll think of something. My gut feeling is that it could be easily summarized into three, maybe four sentences and doesn't need lengthy quotes about who said what. Just simple facts. Perhaps interestingly, it appears that one website other than MM's still has the full press release with the students' contact info up. It appears to be a progressive/alternative/arnarchy-type blog, but I'm assuming that based only on its blurb and the links to the right of the page. I really don't know anything about it. I don't know if they are MM friend or foe or impartial. But it does seem as if the contact info was definitely in the original press release.
So, in fairness, it appears that the simplest facts are: SAW held a demonstration and subsequently wrote a press release. MM posted their contact info from the press release. SAW received nasty e-mails, phone calls, threats, etc., and supporters retaliated by posting MM's contact info, home address, maps, et al. MM also receives nasty comments and threats. All out blog war ensues, readers and supporters on both sides acting very poorly. Sentinel article written with MM's e-mail comment about moving. That sound right? JordanSealy 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize. You're right, the irony is striking.
Your summary is right on, except for one rather small point, which probably doesn't matter. SAW made a tiny and natural mistake when putting a copy of their press release on their website: they forgot to take out the contact details (phone numbers, email addresses) for their 'press team'. A whole bunch of left-wing/Indymedia websites posted the whole press release too. Malkin got the info from SAW's website, IIRC, and posted it on her blog. Then things got ugly.
There's more details in Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 2, including me making myself look very, very stupid. Cheers, CWC 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at this entire article for a few hours now, not just the above-mentioned paragraph. I think what I'm about to suggest may initially anger many of you that have been tirelessly updating this wiki, and I apologize in advance. Before I say it, a little about my background in the hopes that you'll understand where I'm coming from. I used to be an editor for a fiction magazine--this doesn't make me any more or less qualified to edit wikis than anyone else, it just means I'm used to looking at things in a critical, unbiased fashion. Anyway, I'll just come out and say it:
I think most of the Controversies section could be cut or at least summarized without excessive detail (i.e., mention and cite the incidents that happened, but don't give a blow-by-blow account of each - if the readers want to know more detail, let them follow the citations). Most of the stuff listed isn't all that controversial. Some of it is just pointing out her mistakes in reporting, or what have you. For what's worth, before anything is edited or changed below are my exact thoughts on each paragraph in Controversies, and just give it some consideration. I also just want to say that this article could be vastly impoved if its layout conformed to the WikiProject Biography template. I don't think the article is helped by having a separate "controversies" heading. So, my thoughts as follows, and it's only opinion, so feel free to disagree, folks:
The first paragraph about the Virginian-Pilot is not controversial, doesn't really add much, and should be cut. The "Asian Ann Coulter" bit is interesting, however, and could be used elsewhere as a note about her style and presentation. For example, loosely, "MM has been called an Asian Ann Coulter by..."
The second paragraph about SAW and MM is controversial (i.e. reposting contact info, threats, etc., rinse and repeat) and should be summarized elsewhere as an notable event.
The third paragraph isn't controversial and should be cut. It's MM's opinion most likely based on what happened to her in April with SAW. If anything, it's her viewpoint about liberals' actions.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs with YouTube... okay, these have value, but they both seem to be missing anything particularly controversial. Forming a conservative YouTube isn't controversial. Complaining about YouTube's policies of deletion isn't controversial. These are just incidents that happened... and there will probably be more. These two sections could be worthy of expanded treatment as a viewpoint about fairness or something else. My own quick research shows MM has made a couple of videos complaining about YouTube, and being banned, and so on. (And damn, she's cute in some of those vids, too. Sorry.)
The sixth paragraph about Shabazz dances around a controversial subject, but in itself isn't anything more than two people throwing barbs at each other. I think it should be cut or summarized to a one-sentence blurb with citation, perhaps relating to her guest hosting the O'Reilly show.
The final paragraph. Well. Is posting hate mail received controversial? Lots of people do that. My suggestions is to tie in that bit with her web site stuff.
That's it really. No doubt that MM is a controversial figure for those who don't agree with her views or her books, or even maybe for those who do agree with her, but I don't think a whole section devoted to controversy benefits the article. I didn't know anything about her until I came here via the Random Article function, but I live in London and I don't think many know about her here... yet. Or maybe they do and I'm just not paying attention. JordanSealy 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not angry. Quite the contrary. I think JordanSealy is showing better judgment than I have. (A former editor? Welcome, welcome, welcome to Wikipedia!)
The argument for keeping the third paragraph is that the incident got lots of attention on US political blogs. Is that a good argument? I'm not sure.
I'd like to delete the "Controversies" section and cover that stuff in with the relevant reporting. I think articles work better with controversies mixed in with other stuff, not split off into their own section.
Similarily, having a "Viewpoints" section implies a comprehensive list of her views, which we're never going to have. Maybe we should have a section on Malkin and Immigration and put that anchor baby stuff there? Cheers, CWC 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, CWC. I was a fiction editor, not a biographical editor or a journo. Slightly different worlds; not sure if my experience counts for much. So, speaking of biographical ... have a look at Template:Biography. Can this article be "tweaked" to correspond with that template? I think so, and most of the hard work regarding sources has already been done. Some of the headings aren't applicable, but most are--and it's flexible too with the "expanded description" bits. I could be wrong, but if the article is written in a format such as bio template, it will be slightly less prone to vandalism and political/idealogical edits, etc. Also, if there's anything particularly controversial, making a new article to describe the controversy could be the way forward. You know, like the Jamil/AP/MM one. Let's give it a few days to simmer and consider. Perhaps we should make a new heading and discuss the possibility of changing the layout so that it's not lost in this long thread. JordanSealy 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the current organization is less than ideal. However, I haven't come up with any great ideas a better one yet. Best, CWC 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

September 11th conspiray theorist?

According to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims that Flight 93 was shot down "Some conspiracy theorists (including notable right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin[118]) who question the common account of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, have speculated that it was shot down by US fighter jets". Shouldn't that be in this article too? Nil Einne 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be adequately covered and cited in the article you linked to, Nil Einne. Why duplicate it here? In my opinion, we should strive to avoid duplication and redundancy, so in that regard, the section about Jamil Hussein could be reduced to one or two sentences and provide the link to the main article. JordanSealy 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Shouldn't that be in this article too?" No, because it is false.

Zubdub 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scarf

A "keffiyeh" with a checked pattern is Palestinian. Other groups of Arabs use other patterns. This needs to be clarified in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.29.148 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Malkin article currently has an accurate summary description of the "keffiyeh". It states that the keffiyeh is "a traditional Arab male headdress made of heavy cloth woven with a checked pattern, and which has come to represent the Palestinian uprising or intifada."
The headcovering dates back hundreds if not thousands of years, and Arab males from various "groups" other than the Palestinian "group" have worn and do wear the checked pattern. Please see the article on keffiyehs. If you want to discuss how "other groups of Arabs" wear other patterns too, this is probably best done in the keffiyeh article. I don't think it would add to or clarify the Malkin article because the basic issue was, was Rachel Ray wearing a keffiyeh or not?

69.218.27.146 (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that only the black and white checked keffiyeh is representative of the Palestinian struggle and what they call their "flag". The other colors represent other areas, to claim any keffiyeh is worn in support of Palestine is in error. They are used to shield the face from dust and wind.

Should Hot Air Have Its Own Entry?

The two editors at Hot Air have views that are significantly different from Malkin's, and the traffic there is significant. Clearly, that traffic comes from center-right readers, rather than the more dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who frequent Malkin's site. I believe it would be justifiable for HA to have its own article in Wikipedia.Scooge (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Did her parents come to the US legally? Isn't she also a Philippine Citizen? 125.25.39.140 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) 125.25.39.140 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they came here legally. She may have claim to Philippine citizenship per Philippine_nationality_law#Citizenship_by_birth. thanks, --guyzero | talk 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several sources that state that Malkin's parents came here legally on visas, the same year she was born. Her mother had a student visa, and her father had a work-related visa because he was finishing up his training as a doctor. She is probably also a dual national, but I doubt that it is of any relevance because she has said that she identifies herself as American, not Asian, and her husband is a Jewish American. W E Hill (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, am I incorrect that she has criticized Mexican mothers for coming to the U.S. to have their babies but her parents did the same thing? I couldn't find the link but know I've heard it from her before. Something about "anchor babies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.83.97 (talk • contribs)
It wasn't the same thing. Both of her parents had Visas, and they didn't circumvent immigration law by having a child on US soil and never applying for citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.245.244 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The View?

Why does what Whoopi Goldberg did on the view with the cue card matter? It seems stupid and irrelevent to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.15.74 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I did remove the category of "American Reactionary" Michelle had been placed in; it seemed to be a bit much. I used the categories that had been applied to Ann Coulter as a rough guide; she and Michelle are not hugely far apart on an ideological basis. Perhaps I was hasty; thoughts? ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 06:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Two Blogs Are Distinct, and Dissimilar

Somehow in the last round of editing the Michelle Malkin blog has been inadvertantly conflated with Hot Air, which actualy is a completely separate website. Malkin owns it, but exerts little apparent editorial control (e.g., one of her bloggers is an outspoken athiest), Also, her personal blog and Hot Air were founded at different points in time, so internet history is becoming less distinct.

I can see placing Hot Air and MichelleMalkin.com in the same section if conciseness is desired, but the sites are quite dissimilar, and that section is less accurate now than it has been in the past.Scooge (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think my phrasing was imprecise: it isn't that the section is inaccurate--it's just that it allows the reader to draw conclusions about the two websites that are not quite correct. My apologies, but obviously, I think the distinction between the two sites is significant.Scooge (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Knoxville Murder section

We are having an edit war about a section dealing with comments Malkin made about a series of gruesome murders in Knoxville, Tennessee, which some people claimed were racially motivated. She evidently did make some divisive comments about the murders. The cite was from a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group whose viewpoint is opposite to Malkin's but which is not in the habit of disseminating false facts or of misquoting people. Are those who are taking this section out taking it out because they think Malkin was misquoted, or for some other reason? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group though--right? Surely there's a better source, if these remarks got any coverage?Scooge (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I'd characterize it as an edit war; I removed the material once, because the source did not support the material as it was written in this article; in fact, it didn't even come close. The source made an extremely brief reference to her, about half a sentence in passing, with no details at all. WP:BLP requires 100% accuracy and reliability in sourcing.Doc Tropics 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: after rereading carefully, I did find that the article cited contains 2 - 3 sentences about Malkin, rather than just the single sentence I had found earlier. However, that same review showed that the cite is an editorial from an advocacy group. This is definitely not an acceptable source for "factual" information, only for opinions or essays about their own advocacy positions. I am going to remove the section again; please don't replace it without proper sourcing. Remember, BLPs are required to meet the very highest standards, and every single sentence, every single tidbit of info, must be properly sourced. Doc Tropics 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Health insurance

This is a new process for me so please give these old bones some grace.

I can't help wondering why someone isn't insisting on getting quotes from insurance companies based on pooling all the federal employees with the 15-20 million qualified uninsured. This should provide a good base for coverage at a very reasonable price overall.

I have never seen an accounting of the total number of federal employees, their wages,and perks, especially in this case, the cost of their health care.

Lets see an accounting of the total health care costs for those retired politicians and the totals of their retirement costs to the tax payer.

Why can politicians federal and state reserve parking places on public land? They should have to walk in bad weather like the rest of us; after all, we all own the land. Maybe it would be subtle way of pulling the red carpet out from under them. I know they are not all bad and this broad broom may sweep up the good with the bad but I think its worth considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.192.123 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in wikipedia, but unlike a forum or discussion group, our article's talkpages are to be used only for comments that will help improve the article. If you have any specific suggestions related to improving the Michelle Malkin article we'd be happy to hear them, but questions and comments like the ones above can't really be addressed here; sorry. Doc Tropics 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


NPOV

This subject may well not escape the driving desire by some to paint her in an unfavorable light. But while we await higher level action to preserve a vestige of objectivity ... can we not remember the original NPOV spirit of Wikipedia? ChulaOne (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent two edits here and here remove the adjective "conservative" from several places. Calling her a conservative is not a WP:NPOV violation, calling Regnery a conservative publisher is not a WP:NPOV violation, and saying that she is aligned the GOP is not a WP:NPOV violation, any more than it would be to call President Obama a liberal. NPOV does not mean that we purge pages of all "points of view", but that we report on topics (including political alignment, the opinions of groups, criticisms, controversies, etc...) from a neutral point of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see above, Michael ... ChulaOne (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to assume that when I post a reply to a comment, I have read the comment to which I have replied. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can tell that this article has been heavily edited by her detractors and critics. Neutral tone is almost nowhere to be found. 98.247.32.199 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Fixing it. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

her early-history section

The section reads: "Malkin was born in Philadelphia to Rafaela, a schoolteacher, and Apolo, an aspiring doctor,[3] both Philippine citizens who had arrived in the U.S. earlier that year. At the time, her father was a physician-in-training with an employer-sponsored visa.[3][4] She grew up in the small southern New Jersey town of Absecon, where she was raised in the Catholic faith.[3] Malkin cited a formative event when she was in kindergarten: One day, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that, "everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[5] Malkin attended Holy Spirit Roman Catholic High School, where she edited the school newspaper and planned to become a concert pianist.[3] In 1988, Malkin enrolled at Oberlin College. She later described her alma mater as a "radically left-wing, liberal arts college".[3][6] While at Oberlin, she changed her major from music to English and began writing for an independent newspaper, the editor of which was her future husband, Jesse Malkin. In her first article for the paper, she attacked Oberlin's affirmative-action program and received a "hugely negative response" from her fellow students.[3]"

None of this history gives even the remotest clue as to why Michelle Malkin was either historically, or became, so profoundly right-wing. Taken together, these pieces of history fully seem to suggest that she would have actually become left-wing.

I want to know if perhaps her mother Rafaela and father Apolo might have come from the Philippines fleeing the armed communist group there, or something similar. But that is the only thing I could think of that would have lead Malkin to have the views she has — and even that is a long reach, considering that if she'd been right-wing from a very young age due to her parents, the last place she would have wanted to go is Oberlin College. Basically, her history does not correlate with her views as each is presented here. The early history really needs to be fleshed out properly so that it connects. Does anyone have sources for that kind of bridging that they can dig up? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to do a bit of original research, there. Is it possible that Ms. Malkin thinks for herself, rather than buying her ideas "off the shelf"? Scooge (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Kikodawgzzz is talking about. The early life history actually supports the opposite of what Kikodawgzzz said. I also agree with Scooge. 71.255.92.103 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In this edit, I've made some changes and additions intended to point up her development as a conservative a bit, using sources already cited. Feel free to improve or revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin and Fox News

Despite Michelle Malkin's beef with Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly's show The Factor for having him weekly as a guest and the way the show handled the fallout of Geraldo's comments, Michelle still is a regular on the Fox Network. She didn't leave it like this article makes it out to seem. She has gone on The Glenn Beck Show, Hannity and other programs including Fox and Friends, which oddly enough also has Geraldo on weekly. It is also to be noted that she was guest hosting some of Bill's show around the time she quit. After her departure from the show, Laura Ingraham has been filling in more for Bill O'Reilly. John Kasich, a former host on Fox News and a ex-congressman, also left O'Reilly's show where he used to guest host. Brettfan (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Siblings?

Very little is found about her personal life. But is it known if Malkin had any siblings? I am assuming she is an only child. This would be great to add to the article. ★Dasani★ 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin has a brother. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmem (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Scarf Controversy

Removed the entire section. Whomever added this write up was completely off base and 100% factually incorrect as to what Malkin said. She actually said:

"....at this point, I’m going to give the management the benefit of the doubt. They have braved boycott threats and attacks over their lonely, principled stance against illegal immigration. Given their pro-rule of law, America first position, I highly doubt the executive offices are filled with moonbats who endorse Ray’s keffiyeh chic."

She did not say it was on purpose. Once. Ever. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There were several sources in the material you removed.[5] The quotes and summaries seem accurate, except for this clause: "... implying that Ray and Dunkin' Donuts were promoting Islamic extremism." With that removed, would the rest of the material be accurate?   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I restored some other sourced material that you deleted. If there's a detail that's wrong, or you question the reliability of a source, then it's better to fix those issues rather than delete the entire passage.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't delete the Rumsfeld paragraph, but it shouldn't be there to begin with. It was a minor issue. If Wikipedia were to state that any discrepancy or error ever made by a blogger on the left or right be noteworthy of inclusion in a controversy section, then they would have to double their server farm. The SAW and Jamil Hussein are very noteworthy because of outside press coverage, but little else is.
The Historian's Committee on Fairness is a left wing group of professors at a left wing University. A simple Google search and you'll see that. It's an opinion piece, put out by a selective group of professors that have done nothing else.
This entire article is very NPOV; almost every section is negative of/toward Malkin or over-reactionary. There's no positive counter balance - of her visiting the troops, or the long history of the vile and scathing racism and sexism in hate mail from 'tolerant' democrats; which I am going to add. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there more than one user editing from that IP? Someone using it deleted the Rumsfeld paragraph.[6] The American Prospect report mentions Malkin specifically. However I agree that this is a relatively minor issue compared to the others. Rather than deleting it outright it might be better to condense it to a line or two.
The HCF letter was reported in the mainstream press as part of the controversy. If you have a source that describes the group further then we can add that too.
Please add information about Malkin's troop visits and other positive information that's been reported about her. That's the way to create a balanced picture, not by deleting sourced material.
Getting back to the Ray paragraph - do you have any other problems with it?   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Husband and where she lives

I removed a dead link and used "ce" as an edit summary, sorry. Did the whole family move and does she/they have multiple residences?I removed some trivia and redundant material about the husband as well. --Tom (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide citation of her being a pro-life activist

Just because a person is pro-life and may have offered her opinion about a topic does not make her an activist. MM has not campaigned or attended pro-life functions as a speaker. You can call here pro-life, but not an activist of pro-life issues. Any way if someone has a citation of her being a pro-life activist then it would be proper to list her in that category. Activist: an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Michelle Malkin has written numerous columns regarding the life issue and is a member of Feminists for Life. Furthermore she has received awards from the organization. Advocacy does not require protests. Some websites: http://www.prolife.com/celeb.htm, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0019.html
Boromir123 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I was not aware of any of her PL activities except for writing a few columns. Reverted page to original Kilowattradio (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Parents' Immigration to the U.S.A.

Michelle Malkin's parents were able to immigrate to the U.S.A. as a result of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.[7]. Without the reform, they're being Asian would have for them to immigrate the the U.S.A. The reform was widely opposed by conservatives back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.120.110 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agenda driven nonsense

I removed some poorly sourced nonsense from the article. --Tom (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this material is (per your edit summary) "poorly sourced non notable nonsense introduced by agenda driven bad faith POV editors". While we should not editorialize about the possible hypocrisy of Malkin's views vs. her own origins, it is perfectly appropriate to include a comment of this sort. I understand how you feel — and I've made it pretty clear how I feel — but hopefully we can get some other people to comment and try to reach a consensus. Richwales (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The quote and comments are not POV, but factual. I don't think she is hypocritical. All people have no choice on where they are born and what laws apply to that birth in a country. If MM as a foreigner had a baby that became a USA citizen then she advocated that children born in the US to foreign born parent(s) not become USA citizens that would be hypocritical. I want to use the term ironic, but that is not the appropriate term to use to describe this situation. Kilowattradio (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... this edit removed text asserting that Malkin was "... born in the United States to alien parents who were legally, temporarily in the U.S. at the time" (italics added), citing this source, which says that she was "... born to Filipino immigrants ...". It looks to me as if the cited source does not support the removed assertion. Also, she was born to legal immigrants, and is described as having taken a position opposing citizenship for illegal immigrants. I don't see anything either hypocritical or ironic about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This point may be well taken, depending on exactly what her parents' US immigration status was at the time of her birth. If her parents were lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) when she was born, then the suggestions of her positions being hypocritical may indeed be without merit — though a related suggestion that her immigration-reductionist stance would have prevented her own parents from coming to the US could be in order. If, on the other hand, her parents were in the US in some temporary (albeit still legal) status — such as a student visa or non-immigrant work visa — then Malkin is arguably one of the very group of "children of . . . temporary workers" whose claim to jus soli citizenship she opposes. I haven't been able to find anything definitive yet on her parents' exact status at the time of her birth; perhaps I (or someone else) can find a verifiable statement on this subject, which would be relevant to this article in either case. I will say that I've found one source saying Malkin's parents had immigrated (presumably with "green cards", though this is not explicitly stated) to the US in the wake of liberalized immigration legislation from the mid-1960's, but this particular source appears to be a blog or other self-published source, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use here. Other sources I've read that say her parents were "immigrants" or had "immigrated" didn't seem to be specific enough to be reliable; remember that many writers on "immigration" do not show a clear understanding of the difference between temporary residence in the US, permanent residence (a "green card"), and US citizenship, so you have to be very careful when evaluating material on this subject. Richwales (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we stop using the term hypocritical since no one is arguing that since there isn't any regardless of her parents "status" at the time of her birth. I would call it more of an "oddity" ect. --Tom (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Article seems to have an inordinate amount of her critics statements

I keep noticing that after almost every statement or book that Malkin has written, this article includes heavy criticism of those statements and books. Why can we not just report Malkin's views, and possibly any potential major altercations that Malkin herself has responded to? Her statements should be critiqued by Wiki's readers, not by the inclusion of the rantings of certain individuals that disagree with her every single time. Bladerunner100 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner100 (talk • contribs)

The section on Malkin's books is a complete joke. In describing her book about Japanese internment camps, the author of the entry seems to be writing his own book review by claiming that Malkin is minimizing the internment camp experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Newark murders

I've removed a parenthetical remark reading " (The person since convicted of the murders is an illegal immigrant with a history of violent felonies.)" from the Immigration enforcement section. The person in question, Rodolfo Antonio Godinez Gomez, is the first convicted out of six persons charged in the case and, according to this source, is a Nicaraguan national who was brought to the United States when he was 9 and obtained permanent residency in 2001. I don't know what his status was prior to 2001, and I don't know the status of the other five persons charged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rivera remarks

An editor remover the remarks by Rivera as a BLP issue. I reverted them then had some connectivity issues. As a result, there revert of my revert was undone by me by accident. I have revert this mistake, pending discussion. Rivera said nasty things about Malkin, as is well sourced. For purposes of this discussion, we will avoid his specific words and say he said "Malkin is ZZZ". The article, prior to the claimed BLP removal did not say that Malkin is ZZZ (sourced to a Rivera quote in a reliable source). That would be a BLP issue as Rivera is not a reliable source. Prior to the removal, the article said that Rivera said that Malkin is ZZZ. Actually, it was more careful still, quoting him.

The contentious information here is not whether or not Malkin is ZZZ. The contentious information is whether Rivera said it. It is clearly sourced. The source is reliable. The wording we have used is NPOV (though Rivera's, clearly, was not).

The only remaining issue is weight, not cited as a concern by the removing editor. Normally, A says something about B, it's no big deal. Lots of people say lots of things about other people. However, this is part of a larger story. Malkin had been a regular guest host of The O'Reilly Factor, untill she disliked how Fox News handled a dispute over these comments. Without the quote, the article says Rivera said derogatory things about her and the reader's imagination is asked to fill in the blanks. There is no dispute that I can find about whether or not he said these things or context. He said them. Whether or not Malkin is ZZZ is not the issue. Whether or not Rivera said them is. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to say that Rivera would spit on Malkin, nor do we need a lengthy quote. Maybe something like, "Malkin has been criticized harshly by Rivera due to her stance on immigration, and particularly what he says is her wish that people should report their neighbors".   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the remarks are properly sourced to Rivera there is no BLP issue; it's not a problem to quote a disparaging remark as long as it's done accurately and with proper attribution. For exactly that reason it's better to use the quote itself rather than try to paraphrase it, interpret it, or reword it. Of course we can still ask whether or not the quotation adds useful content, but Rivera's high-profile status as journalist and commentator seems to give it weight. Doc Tropics 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think it's better to quote Rivera rather than to summarize his view? We can source all kinds of things that we don't quote verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh, by the same token, why paraphrase when we can quote the source directly? Expressing the idea that "...Rivera wishes she'd be nicer..." isn't really the same as "I'd spit on her if I saw her!" is it? Doc Tropics 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
By paraphrasing or summarizing we risk creating an actual BLP problem. Any summary you might wish to offer will, in someone's view, exaggerate or understate Rivera's meaning. Overstate it and we've disparaged Rivera. Understate it and we make Malkin look like a crybaby. Quote it and it is what it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've boldly reinserted the quote, but in a footnote rather than in the body of the article. Feel free to change this if some other consensus emerges on what should be done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(←) I'm the person who removed the quote. I say it is a BLP violation, and that the difficulty of summarizing it without violating BLP proves my point. The BLP violation is not quoting the statement but failing to put it into context, thereby violating the "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" part of Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise.
For example: Is Geraldo correct in claiming that Malkin says "that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors"?. If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so. (Also, if Malkin is "the most vile, hateful commentator" he has ever met, then he must have an astoundingly narrow circle of acquaintance. I think the spirit, if not the letter, of BLP requires either noting the hyperbolic nature of such a statement or omitting it entirely.)
My main concern, however, is that this is far from the only deranged statement about Malkin. Lots of WikiNotable people have said or written astonishingly silly things about her, some worse than Geraldo. If we quote him, why not the others? How do we avoid having an enormous article quoting dozens of nasty attacks on Malkin? I strongly suggest a policy of linking to these attacks wherever possible, instead of quoting them.
(BTW, as the archives of this page will show, one of my major concerns with this article is keeping it to a reasonable size. Reporting even a fraction of the incidents involving a controversy-happy pundit like MM would require a long, choppy and rather tedious article. Congratulations to those editors who have kept the article short and tight over the last few years.) Cheers, CWC 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot to comment on here, but I'll try to keep it brief. First, please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and exercise caution in your own remarks about living people here. (You may wish to redact some of the above.)
The point in question hovers around your claim that "If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so." This is simply not true. We are not reporting that Malkin is ZZZ, we are reporting tht River said Malkin is ZZZ. This is not a BLP issue. How do we know what Rivera meant? We don't. If we quote it, we don't need to know what he meant, only what he said. Why include it? Because it is the reason Malkin gives for leaving the show. If we don't include it in some way, we are left with giving Malkin's side of the story without Rivera's or using some overly vague explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As SummerPhD and I have explained, this is not a BLP issue and the concept that "If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so" is a misunderstanding of the policy. As Summer has further explained, this particular quote is important because of the context and the events surrounding it. This was not a random statement by John Doe on the street; Rivera's remark led to Malken making a life-changing decision (to quit her job) and is clearly significant to her biography. We don't need to record every comment that has ever been made about her, but sometimes details matter, and this is one of those cases; the article is stronger and more complete with the quote than without it. Doc Tropics 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in this case. Furthermore, if someone has been described in various negative ways by notable people how does that make it less appropriate to include ANY negative comments people have made about them? I would think a "media-personality" invites such appraisal.Ninahexan (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if River said that, we'd take it seriously, because she's psychic ... </firefly joke>
No one has "explained" why this is not a BLP issue, merely asserted that it is not. But it clearly violates the BLP policy, as I demonstrated above.
Here's a thought experiment: suppose I find a quote in which a notable psychologist says that Mr O— has a pathological fear of women. (This situation is not as hypothetical as Mr O—'s many fans would wish.) Would it be OK to add that quote to our article about Mr O—? Would our BLP rules allow us to include that quote with no qualification whatsoever? Does anyone still want to argue we can quote a incredibly-exaggerated attack without mentioning that it is inaccurate?
Some more points:
  • My words above are carefully chosen, as are the words below. Please read carefully. If you read more into them than they actually say, it's you who has a problem, not me.
  • Malkin did not quit "her job". The incident was not "life-changing", nor "significant" to her biography. She's a very successful writer, blogger and web entrepeneur, who formerly appeared regularly on TV.
  • "If someone has been described in various ways by notable people", we can and should note the frequent criticism (using a RS of course), not privilege the incidents we like the most. That goes double when we are motivated by dislike/fear/hatred of the subject.
  • We can easily report the incident without using the quote.
  • I'm sure the many Malkin-haters out there would want the article to include the quote. They might even claim the it is "stronger and more complete" with the quote. But that's totally irrelevant: Wikipedia's bandwith → Wikipedia's rules → the quote must go. CWC 17:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a "thought experiment": Let's suppose someone claimed a political figure is a space alien, terrorist, not eligible for the office they hold, a traitor, etc. Is reporting that a notable source made this claim a BLP issue? David Icke asserts specific living people are reptilian humanoids who control the world. We would not say any of them are reptilian humanoids without heavy sourcing, but the fact that Icke makes these claims is very well sourced. (If it weren't, saying he made the claim would be a BLP problem.) Numerous notable people have made numerous disparaging claims about Barack Obama. That notable individuals have made these claims is not a BLP concern. We will not, of course, make the disparaging claims about Obama without heavy sourcing. (cf. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CWC, your frequent references to "Malkin haters" in relation to my comments seem largely paranoid and even offensive given the fact that I have no opinion at all about her, neither as a journalist nor as a person. I have no interest in the topics that she writes about (which seem to be mostly U.S. politics and related social issues...not my cup of tea); I've just seen that this article is a frequent target for all kinds of partisan nonsense from both sides, so I tend to watch it closely in an effort to minimize the damage. Your misconceptions regarding our BLP policy have hopefully been cleared up at this point by the several explanations above. Doc Tropics 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Numbered paragraphs for ease of reference)

  1. I do not claim that anyone here is a hater. I was just trying to provoke people to think about Malkin-hatred and how to keep its subtler forms out of the article. (More here.)
  2. Talking about provoking people: take a look at what MM wrote about Geraldo on 2007-07-16 and on 2007-08-17. (The Boston Globe profile was published 2007-09-01.) No wonder he was "bubbling with anger"! And she attacked him on several other occasions as well.
  3. Covering this "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" is going to be harder than I thought. I've started looking for a good secondary source to put the whole Malkin-Rivera feud into context. No luck so far, all help very much appreciated. Cheers, CWC 11:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So your reference to the "many Malkin-haters" out there of course was in no way directed at the contributors to this talk page, or to the article? The fact that you assume that other people base their edits on their personal opinions is telling indeed, but in no way does that accusation help the article.Ninahexan (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Directed at contributors? No. Directed 'at' the article? Yes. Editing articles about Living People who have lots of "unhinged" web-using opponents is always trickier. I think it does help such articles when editors keep that opposition in mind. Best wishes, CWC 05:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So now they are "unhinged web-using opponents"... The best wishes seem a little disingenuous, and your tone really isn't constructive. Your opposition to people editing the article in ways you do not like is noted.Ninahexan (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malkin in the news

I found these articles about her recently here and here. I am not good at writing so maybe somebody can put this information in the article? She is very rarely mentioned on live news; most information streams from her own blog. 75.4.226.247 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle name = Marie or Perez?

Michelle Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang. However, this site (and a lot I found on Google) says she was born Michelle Marie Maglalang, but this source (with legal court documents) claims she was born Michelle Perez Maglalang. At first, I thought it was one of the cases where the parent(s) give the child four names (ex. Michelle Perez Marie Malkin), but it appears that all the sources either say Marie or Perez. Anybody know for sure? That would be great for the article. Estheroliver (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but it's worth noting that some people have two first names. Lisa Marie Presley's first name is "Lisa Marie", for example. It's possible that the subject's first name is "Michelle Marie" and that she never used the second half. Perez could be her mother's maiden name. The Philippines uses Spanish style naming conventions which are quite different from Anglo Saxon traditions.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the article, Perez ~IS~ her mother's maiden name. Yes, I have been told it is not uncommon for Filipino people (especially females) to have their mother's maiden names as their middle names. Whether her first name is Michelle or Michelle Marie or not, like you said, I don't know. It's inconclusive. Everybody calls her just Michelle. Estheroliver (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hot Air

Why isn't there a separate wiki page for Hot Air (blog)? I noticed that Huffington Post and Daily Kos have their own wiki pages. Why shouldn't Hot Air? HopeChangeForever (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I mainly ask because I intended to create that page, but then realized I don't know how to do so, especially when there is a redirect, and neither does my girlfriend, who is teaching me wikipedia. HopeChangeForever (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia guide. But MM is no longer owner of or associated with Hot Air. It was sold to a company last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I figure that's more reason to create its own page. HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. There is a separate site for Hot Air the blog, only it's Hot Air (news site). I redirected the redirect from Hot Air (blog) to point to Hot Air (news site) instead of Michelle Malkin's page. Hopefully that makes sense to people? HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A formative event?

I have done some checking and verifying on the first part of this article, and it seems that it contains a bit of WP:OR and a few unsupported statements. Here is a comparison of one of the statements that is now in the text with what it says in the source followed by the change I will be making and the reasoning for it.

What the source said Current version My revision Comments
"She told the audience that once, in kindergarten, she came home crying because she was called a racist name. 'My mom wiped my tears...and told me everyone has prejudice,' she said. 'I am eternally grateful for this [lesson].'" Malkin has spoken of a formative event: while she was in kindergarten, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that "Everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[9] When Malkin was in kindergarten, she was called a racist name, and her mother comforted by telling her that "everyone has prejudice." Malkin has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that lesson.[9] Current version contains WP:OR description and conclusion that the incident was "formative event" and OR assumption that the children were the ones who called her a racist name. Verbose and stilted phrasing: "for that counsel" which also changes the meaning somewhat. It is not actually not clear whether she meant the lesson she learned was from her mother's advice, from being called by an epithet, or from both events - but the Wikipedia text should not just pick one of these three meanings arbitrarily.

Obviously, I won't be doing a table like this for each change I might make, but this statement had several issues, so I decided to present them here in an easy to see format. I will be making a few more changes to a few sentences, and will explain them as best as I can in the edit summaries. --KeptSouth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if everyone put that kind of effort into explaining a revision, there would be a lot fewer edit wars! Your changes represent an increase in accuracy and quality of writing so I support this new version. Thanks for such a singularly comprehensive explanation. Doc Tropics 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the relevance of this story or even the "lesson" of either the incident or her mother's counsel? What's the bottom line: Her mother once told her that everyone has prejudices? And this is somehow significant?173.8.220.209 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Supposedly, it's significant because Malkin is one of the few commentators of Asian descent. Having grown up in predominantly white areas in America, she suffered excessive racism. I figured it was more of a personal story than an early childhood one. Estheroliver (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever removed her from being an anti-illegal immigration activist?

Like being a pro-life activist and even moreso, she has participated in anti-illegal immigration events. She blogs about it frequently. She even wrote a book about it, and contributes to VDARE. If she does not belong in Category:anti-illegal immigration activists, next to no one does. I'm ashamed someone still felt the need to delete her from this category. It's a good thing I caught that and put her back in the category. J390 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Malkin's cousin missing

A new hot topic on the news that overrides all of her political commentary controversy: Michelle Malkin's cousin has gone missing! I've since added the appropriate references to the article. (And I hope they find her soon!) I wasn't sure if that was relevant to Malkin or not, but I figured it was worth a try to add it and see. Estheroliver (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesse's Rhodes scholarship

The article currently says: "At Oberlin, she began writing for an independent newspaper that was being started by Jesse Dylan Malkin, a Rhodes Scholar with established conservative leanings; the two eventually began dating"

This sentence makes it sound like Jesse either attended Oberlin on a Rhodes scholarship, or else, after graduating from Oberlin and completing his Rhodes scholarship, he returned to start a newspaper. At the time that Jesse was starting the newspaper, he was presumably, "a future Rhodes scholar", which still sounds awkward. I'm not sure how to rephrase the sentence to make the correct timeline clear. While the Rhodes scholarship is a significant honor, I'm not sure how relevant this detail of Jesse's biography is in an article on Michelle. I am removing mention of Jesse's Rhodes scholarship.Plantdrew (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It may sound akward, but it passes WP:VER; therefore, the mentioned of Jesse being a Rhodes scholar, should be include somewhere. Removing the reference no longer establishes that Jesse is a student with conservative leanings, this can now be contested by a passing reader. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
But Jesse was indeed a Rhodes Scholar. He just wasn't one when he was in college. Therefore, the question is not that he was or not. It's how to word it. As RCLC said, if we don't put that he is a RS, then the sentence would not make sense. Readding it with new wording. ★Dasani★ 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: BLP Violation

(It's Dasani, I'm too lazy to log in.)

I don't see how my comment is off the track. You originally mentioned that it looks strange to put all of that in the early life. Well, if it's strange, why don't we just remove it or move all of it to the personal life section? I think I'll do that tomorrow. And I don't understand why you would explain that Oberlin is a liberal arts college when anybody can click on the link and see that. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article no longer seems as effective as it used to be. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Dasani, Your discussion here does not seem to be about a BLP violation, so maybe you can point out where you are seeing one.
  • Regarding the rest of your comment here, I don't see where said anything about something looking "strange"—but whatever.
  • I did ask you to please provide edit summaries, explaining your reasoning. Looks like you didn't feel like doing that.
  • I don't know what you mean about the article no longer seeming as "effective as it used to be." It seems to me I removed some POV, some borderline BLP violations, some bad grammar, some poor or unreliable sources, and that I did some small re-writes to make the article text conform better to what the sources say. If you think that makes the article less "effective" then please specify what you mean.--KeptSouth (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth KeptSouth (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I am no longer discussing a BLP violation, but the article itself. I'm mentioning that it looks strange to include so much about Jesse but you seem obsessed with a BLP violation. As for the edit summaries, forgot about that. But some of the stuff you've added has definitely added even more bad grammar. For example, why would we say all this fluff about Malkin dating Jesse again? And why does it matter if they were even dating? It used to read, "At Oberlin, she began dating" but I remember in one edit, you changed it to something like, "She began dating at Oberlin". And the part about them having two kids, I remember writing something like that in one of my college English classes and one of the peer editors said, "Yeah, I think it's wasting space. It's like saying, 'They had an animal that was a dog.' But why can't you just say they had a dog?" Same goes for here. ★Dasani★ 19:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You started a section here called RE: BLP violation, so it is a fair and logical question to ask what BLP violation you meant.
  • I have not added any facts or "fluff" about Jesse. To the contrary, I have removed some unsupported material and rephrased, which generally has shortened the article somewhat. This is easily seen in the article's edit history.
  • I have no idea what you are saying about dogs and kids, and the quotes are not from me.
  • Regarding your changes of "Michelle began dating Jesse Malkin while the two were in college" to "At Oberlin, she began dating Jesse Malkin" diff-it's a little awkward, especially for the beginning of a section, but it's all right with me. As for your other changes - putting the year at the beginning of the sentence, and changing "The couple" to "They" they are insignificant and okay with me too.
  • However, in the same edit, you have re-added unsourced material with an edit summary that appears to do just the opposite.diff Please try to write edit summaries that reflect what you have done, and please stop adding unsourced material. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, there you go. If you don't understand that example, it's not something I could explain. Nowhere in my posting does it say my quotations are attributed to you. I think it's best I just not discuss these article issues with you. ★Dasani★ 03:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It is time to end this discussion --but you have made some remarks in the next section and I will be responding to them. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Michelle and Jesse Malkin moved

(Dasani again.) I noticed in one edit summary you mentioned, "Nowhere in these sources does it say they moved from MD to CO." Well, "Malkin is a graduate of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. She lives with her husband in North Bethesda, MD." in the first article. It was quite a frenzy for some months on her blog that her kids had been followed and exploited in MD private schools and she had to move them to CO. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you possibly could have noticed this because I never wrote such an edit summary. Please stop making things up. This is the at least the third time you have made up quotes from me or said have I done something that I did not do. This is what my edit summary said, and the edit I made. diff and here is another edit summary of mine which completely contradicts the false assertion you are making.[8] -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) KeptSouth (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not making things up. I'm sorry we're in such dispute over something so trivial. Oh, wow - you're pointing out that ONE cite does not say that. Well, I'm sorry, but a lot of lines are supported by more than just ONE citation. Besides that very small and unnecessary point, the fact of the matter remains: Malkin was indeed a resident of Maryland and was forced to remove to Colorado. Read her biographies. Google her. Read her blog. I'm sure it'd be easy to find another source if necessary. ★Dasani★ 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I have never disputed that Malkin once lived in N Bethesda MD and moved to CO Springs nor have I changed that text. diff The Personal life section of the preceding diff shows that I found that 2 of the cites did not support the statement, and I removed them -- but 2 other cites do support the statements and they remain. This should be non controversial. In your latest remarks, you indicate you might like to add new info that Malkin was forced to move to Colorado in Nov 2008 to protect her children. If you have a RS that says this, why not add the statement and the source? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As a final consideration, we might want to remove a tiny bit of info on the kids particularly if they were indeed so continallly harassed that the family had to move 2000 miles away. With that in mind, here is the change I made [9]-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

Name similarity - the supposed name similarity link at the top of the article doesn't match up with other such links on wikipedia. Google the phrase "similar name see" limited to wikipedia.org and you'll see actually similar names (differing in perhaps one vowel). I point this out because the link to a not-similarly-named person here smacks more of a snide joke than a genuine attempt to be helpful and encyclopaedic.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. And state changes in an X to Y format. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disputes over small edits, terms and phrasing and possible BLP violation

This discussion, started by Dasani while he or she was making reversions and changes to the Michelle Malkin article, has been moved from my talk page to here as it concerns article content and improvement only. I will be adding new remarks to the bottom concerning new edits and my attempts to resolve issues raised by Dasani. KeptSouth (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in adding information to the article, but it seems very random and abrupt without much consensus or sense at all. Michelle was indeed baptized Roman Catholic. If we said "Her family was Roman Catholic", it would be awkward for two reasons: 1) It's basically saying the same thing and 2) What family? It says she is married now with two kids, and Jesse is Jewish. In order to be Roman Catholic one must be baptized. It's like saying, "John cannot be considered enrolled at the University of Los Angeles because the source does not say he enrolled." If the source says he graduated, he must of enrolled. Readding to the article. ★ Dasani★ 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say she was baptized a Roman Catholic. The source, while discussing her growing up years says, "Like most Filipinos her family was Roman Catholic, an affiliation Michelle retains to this day." It is as simple as that. It is simply your assumption that she was baptized, and unless you can find a source which mentions that she was baptized Roman Catholic, we should try a work around rather than adding unsourced, WP:OR. Rather than fragment this discussion over the article's talk page my talk page, I believe this content discussion should be done on the article's talk page, and diffs shoud be part of the discussion-to keep it on track.KeptSouth (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, you ignored my explanation. I think it really is just best we say, "Malkin's family was RC" or something along those lines. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I assume from the context, that you are Dasani, and just did not sign in. The dispute was about whether the article should say she was baptized a Roman Catholic, but apparently you now agree that unsourced assumption should not be in the article. That is good.KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, or if it even says he attends/is a student/anything along those lines, he must of enrolled. You cannot just become a student magically. Likewise, one does not become Roman Catholic randomly. It is a very strict religion (too strict for some, but that's besides the point) which involves a baptism as requirement of process. Additionally, many edits were abnormally formal or just unnecessary/useless. Reverting now. ★Dasani★ 04:31, 17 August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. I have never heard of "abnormally formal" as a reason to revert an edit. Again, I believe this discussion should be on the article's talk page, from this point on. I also note that your very first words here -- that you "appreciate [my] interest" in the article seem to indicate that you feel a type of ownership over the article. I hope I am mistaken, and that we can have rational discussion regarding the wordings you prefer. I have no problem with edits made consistent with WP policies - or logic - or the sources - but it does not appear that your objections and reversions of sourced material have much to do with any of the these.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No, nowhere in my words does it say I think I own the article. I said it was good that you had an interest and I'm glad someone wants to help expand Malkin's article. However, if you are really so consistent with WP policies, you wouldn't of made some of the edits (see my other comments). Some of my objections do indeed have to do with MoS. ★Dasani★ 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not expanded the article, I have only made rather small changes, some of which you reverted. One change was where I substituted "raised a Roman Catholic in place of "baptized a Roman Catholic" to conform to what the sources said.[10] You reverted this back to "baptized a Roman Catholic".[11] Rather than engage in an edit war, I added a cite needed tag. Another reversion you made was where I had changed the numeral "2" to the word "Two" [12] and you changed this back to 2.[13], but I am not bothering to object to such an insignificant change. I am glad to hear that you do not feel you own the article; my experience is that when Wikipedia "editors" quibble about very small changes, there is often a feeling of ownership involved.KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Baptized a Roman Catholic

Dasani reverted a change I made removing the term baptized. I do not see where that is sourced, as I discussed above. I am leaving it, but adding a cite needed tag for the time being as a compromise. I have provided an additional source-Michelle's own words-that says she was raised a Catholic, and I believe that the "baptized" part is unnecessary, as well as original research - unless, of course, a source can be found. I would oppose, for now, a removal of the cite needed tag, as the statement is in fact not sourced.KeptSouth (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the change I made. The sentence is now fully sourced, except, of course for the "baptized" part.KeptSouth (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be sufficient to say that the subject of this article was raised, and remains, a Roman Catholic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely and believe the addition of the fact that she remains a Roman Catholic is good because there have been recent unsourced edits to the article claiming she is now an Evangelical Christian. KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

is the husband likewise catholic? malkin is typically a jewish name. just curious. 66.105.218.32 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Awkward and ungrammatical phrasing

Dasani complained of changes I had made, saying they were "abnormally formal or just unnecessary/useless" then introduced a new grammar error and awkward construction into the passage I had changed. I have now corrected the passage, and believe it reads a bit more smoothly again.

The result is that I have changed the passage from this: "In 2006, Malkin gave a lecture at Oberlin College. She explained that she refuted allegations that she had been insensitive to the "plight of minorities" by pointing out that racial epithets had been used against her..." To this: "In 2006, Malkin gave a lecture at Oberlin College refuting allegations that she had been insensitive to the "plight of minorities" by pointing out that racial epithets had been used against her..."

I think this should be okay with everyone, but I am explaining the change I have made here because of the unfounded or mistaken accusations made by Dasani regarding my edits. 09:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't so abnormal/formal, but in most articles, the consensus has been to write "2" and not "Two". They have the sections neatly organized and consistent. ★Dasani★ 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not objecting to your change though I believe the MOS says that numbers under ten are spelled out (e.g. one, two, three).KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Unfavorable implication; possible BLP violation

This change by Dasani [14], made with the edit summary "We have it in the Personal Life for a reason", can easily be read to imply that Michelle got her article in the paper because she started dating Jesse and not because the article was meritorious. I think the word "eventually" is needed here, particularly since allegations were later made that Jesse did some or all of Michelle's writing and research. In my view the current phrasing should be changed to avoid leaving a false impression, however, I will leave it as is, for a short while, pending further discussion. KeptSouth (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This part I'm actually not sure about. I had been wondering the same thing. Maybe it's best we just move the whole part about Jesse to the Personal Life section. Alternatively, this is no Jesse Malkin article anyway. It is an article about his wife, a political commentator called Michelle Malkin. Although he seems very intelligent (both for the Rhodes Scholar prize and having won Michelle over), is it really necessary we continue to blab about his life? In more notable featured and good articles, similar lines had been written up and inserted, but were quickly removed because "This is not their article" or "Nothing to do with the subject matter!" or "Poor sourcing/still irrelevant". ★Dasani★ 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Dasani, your discussion seems off track. I simply believe your change removing the word "eventually" resulted in a possibly unfavorable implication about Michelle. I am re-adding the word eventually since we seem to agree on that. If you want to move material to another section, that is another, separate issue. If you do move or remove material about Jesse, please provide a short summary of your reasoning in the edit summaries. Thank you. KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion section—that I began—because it appears the issues are settled. Some vague unsupported accusations about me remain, but these appear to be just minor personal attacks, that I prefer to let go, and that do not really relate to article content. There is a hint, (directly above this paragraph) that sourced material about Malkin's husband is to be removed, but in my view, these future possible edits should be discussed, if at all, in a new section as this one is getting too lengthy. KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube source

I have reverted the re-addition of source from youtube added here by Medeis. I had originally removed it as YouTube is not a reliable source; please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Youtube again regarding the use of videos from YouTube. It should not have been re-added per WP:BRD, and a discussion should have been started rather than re-adding it.

Additionally the wording did not appear to be neutral, thus not abiding by WP:NEU. Another concern is as this is a biography this article should not become a an attack page, and content should be presented neutrally and in a balanced manner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My only concern is that you called the source unreliable, which it was not. The link you provided above has to do with copyright, not liability, so I have simply removed the live link to youtube. The interview itself still exists. I agree with your attack page concern, indeed the article is horrible in that respect, every little section being a "let's throw mud at her and see what sticks". I will support edits that go toward neutrality and due weight--but that's a separate matter from the technical one of sources. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Love everything you say. The put on your shocked face thing really hit me where I have lived! Wow!

Bob

PS spent 7 years going to school in North Philly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.37.90 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

Just out of curiousity, is she an anchor baby? I don't mean this as a criticism of either anchor babies or of Malkin, just in the interests of meaningless trivia. The article says she was born soon after her parents arrived in the USA, and that her parents weren't US citizens or apparently permanent residents (but they could have possibly attained permanent residency, even without the birth of a child?)- 124.191.144.183 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Michelle's parents did not move to the US solely to have her. It looks like her father chose to move because of his training/job, according to the article. I would say no. 108.93.72.117 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
People who use the derogatory phrase "anchor baby" usually do not draw a distinction over whether the child's parents had him/her in order for them to be able to stay in the US. Judging from the ways various people in Congress and advocacy groups have phrased their proposals to change US birthright citizenship law, they would prefer to change the law in such a way that Malkin would not have acquired US citizenship at birth (because her parents were not US citizens or "green card" holders). So I would conclude that people who choose to refer to US-born children of aliens as "anchor babies" would probably classify Malkin as one. But we (Wikipedia editors) absolutely should not use this expression except in exact quotations from Malkin or others. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This appears to get dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM.
I agree with using the quotes when the term is used, that being said, that discussion should not be on this article, but at a more centralized location. If someone were to call the subject of this BLP we should first consider whether that person's opinion of the Malkin deserves content in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for possibly turning this into a forum. To relate it to the article, perhaps something on how her parents got to stay in the U.S. (maybe it was completely unrelated to her birth, eg. they got Green Cards because of their jobs...?) - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article lead says, "Several months prior to Malkin's birth, her parents had immigrated to the United States on an employer-sponsored visa.", citing this source, which says,

LAMB: So how did they -- what -- what kind of a visa did they get to come here?



MALKIN: My dad came on a -- he was -- like I said, he was a doctor, so he was training here and had an employer sponsor and then -- you know, and then, you know, went on their way, like most people do who have green cards, and then eventual American citizenship.

Do you think more detail is needed? Perhaps there is some more detail in one of her books (???). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is, I haven't found much in reliable sources regarding her birth, or her parents; so no, IMHO, no change needed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly they came to the United States on some kind of employment (or perhaps student?) visa, but did they stay - that is, get permanent residency (a Green Card)- on that? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As the subject of this article is about Michelle Malkin, and not her parents, it is my present opinion that further details regarding her parents is not necessary. If more content can be verified by reliable source(s) perhaps we can come back to this subject at some later date, at present such RSs do not appear to be readily available.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Historians' Committee for Fairness" letter

In this edit, I fixed a dead link to the Historian's Committee for Fairness letter, supplying here this archiveurl. I didn't do anything further than that, but I thought that I would mention here some things which I noticed and/or wondered about.

  • I've currently got connectivity problems which make it difficult for me to look into this very much, but I'm wondering whether this "Historian's Committee for Fairness" ever did anything other than issue this one letter.
  • I see that the supporting source cited is a web page from George Mason University's History News Network, and that it presents the letter as a "press release from historian Greg Robinson".
  • Greg Robinson is one of the signers of the letter, and posted some additional remarks in this September 6, 2004 article on the HNN website.
  • There's another related article also dated September 6, 2004 on the HNN website here. That article is by Eric Muller, another signer of the letter.

All of that is probably WP:UNDUE in this article, but I found it interesting and mention it here as background. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If the content is undue weight in concern to the content, and the content is not a reliable source, than removal per WP:GRAPEVINE would be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Does not follow Manual of Style

It is not standard to include "ethnicity" in the infobox and it also says "citizenship" instead of "nationality". 174.236.64.199 (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Her fifth book

"Malkin cautioned that the book is not political, but focuses on historical storytelling."

Scheduled for release sometime in the summer or fall, the working title of Malkin’s new book is: “Who Built That: The Tinkerpreneurs Who Built Everything From the Bottle Cap to Bridges.” — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitchy.com

A separate Wikipedia article will be needed for Twitchy.com which is now part of Salem Broadcasting.

Michelle Malkin writes, "Big announcement #2: I am extremely proud to announce the sale of Twitchy.com to Salem Communications." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Malkin's syndication

Reference to Malkin writing for a paper has been removed with the edit summary that the paper no longer exists. Regardless of the fact that the claim is unreferenced, the fact that the paper may no longer be in print is of no relevance to the fact that she did write for it. Additional information or qualification can be added, but facts about the past don't cease to exist just because time moves on. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I was involved in the removal, reinstatement, and subsequent edits re this. I did notice, however, that this tidbit appeared to be misleading as written re the print vs. online status of the publication during Malkin's association with it, and might not have had sufficient topical weight to justify its inclusion in the article. Please take a look at the St. Louis Globe-Democrat article before re-adding it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think your edit was appropriate to reflect the fact it went out of business, but had Chisme clarrified it was just a short-lived namesake I'd have supported removing it as undue weight, and so I have removed it. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

matter fixed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/gee-let-us-just-enforce-287-g-really-maxine
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild

one of her minor books, and coverage in the article on her is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not merged. Since she has four books, why merge into one of them? (Hindsight). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Developing edit war over topical weight of Chris Matthews exchange.

Opening shots have been fired in an edit war:

  • July 18, 2014 removal by John2510, saying "Career: Deleted Matthews exchange - Mildly interesting at the time perhaps, but not career-defining nor remotely biographical." (bold change)
  • 10:32, July 24, 2014 restoration by Cwobeel, saying "Reverted 1 edit by John2510 (talk): This is indeed biographical and well reported." (revert 1a)
  • 22:20, July 24, 2014‎ , removal by John2510, saying "Undid revision 618210285 by Cwobeel (talk) Reported. Not biographical." (revert 1b)
  • 06:02, July 27, 2014, restoration by Cwobeel, saying "This segment is useful as it provide insights on Malkin's views on that specific aspect." (revert 2a)
  • 03:13, July 29, 2014, restoration removal by John2510, saying "While you may see it as insightful, it's not BLP to her Career." (revert 2b)

Guys, please re-read WP:EW and WP:BRD. Please work this out by talk page discussion rather than edit warring and arguing back & forth in edit summaries. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are that it is 10 year old detail about a single guest appearance, on one TV show, out of what must be hundreds, if not thousands, of guest appearances. It doesn't seem particularly biographical to me and it doesn't seem to fit in the "Career" section. How has that appearance affected her career? Did she lose or gain a job because of it? Was she fired or hired as a result of it? How was that one appearance pivotal in her life compared to the years before and since? --Dual Freq (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've indented the response above to make this easier to follow; perhaps making these two comments into two in a bulleted list would have been better -- please recast as appropriate.
Another incident where of Malkin crossed swords with another commentator was with Geraldo Rivera. Both incidents have enough weight to be mentioned here, IMO. The Geraldo incident mainly concerns friction between the two of them, and had significant impact on Malkin re The O'Reilly Factor (the 800 lb gorilla re forums for political commentary). The Matthews incident grew out of something more weighty (allegations by Malkin that a presidential candidate's wartime wounds were self-inflicted) but is not mentioned at all in the current article version; it doesn't seem to have had impacted Malkin's career and career choices as much as the Geraldo incident.
In the current article version, the Geraldo incident is covered by a single sentence and a link to this source which provides support and gives more detail. The Matthews incident might rate mention with similar visibility, citing this source for support and details. Additionally, perhaps both incidents might be summarized in a {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} within the Career section, providing easily hidden/showable summaries of the two incidents without the need for users to navigate via a footnoted reference to an external web page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
After watching the clip on youtube a few minutes ago, it seems like 2 minutes of talking heads arguing with the host not letting her finish a sentence and ending the segment. Something similar probably happens once a week on that type of show. While what she said or wasn't allowed to say may have caused a minor political stir 10 years ago, I don't think one or two sentence fragments said on a pundit show is terribly biographical and I still doubt that it is appropriate in a career section. Does every TV appearance that gets mentioned in the press in the past 10+ years deserve a place in a person's biography? I don't think so, but certainly, at a minimum, I would think that it's appropriate to add a sentence stating her version of events, if it goes back in. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It will come as no surprise that I agree. In a fairly short section, within a fairly short article, it's not properly part of her career biography. Despite the fact that it may have been mentioned somewhere, at some time, as having passing newsworthiness, it doesn't seem to be noteworthy now, in any context. John2510 (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me summarize the opinions expressed above as bulleted WP:straw poll votes re inclusion of mention of the Chris Matthews incident. Please correct any errors re my characterization of your votes. Please note that as a sometime editor of this article I don't have any intention of making a judgement call here about assessing consensus or about formally closing the discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Include from Cwobeel
  • Exclude from John2510
  • Exclude from Dual Freq
  • Weak include as e.g., one sentence summary citing a source containing details; from Wtmitchell (self)
It's ridiculous that the Chris Matthews incident isn't part of the Wikipedia article. That was absolutely a career-defining moment to the public. Excluding any mention of it only diminishes the value of Wikipedia itself. Argghhh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.18.66 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"... a career-defining moment... " - Says who? Certainly not those sources. The source articles aren't even about Malkin, they're about Matthews. The second one is about Matthews and Miller, and references the Malkin discussion only for comparison purposes. I note that in accusing Malkin of dodging his question, Matthews was himself clearly dodging HER question of why he hadn't asked Kerry about the origin of the wound. Neither of these are BLP material for the respective subjects. John2510 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak exclude, are there multiple reliable sources that give this event significant coverage? We have to look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:RECENTISM & WP:BLP#Balance regarding this content. Unless it can be should that each event has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources at that time, and later (say a year or more after the event) the event is mentioned again, then I can see its inclusion. Per WP:BURDEN, it is my opinion that it is up to those who want to include the content to show that this is the case. If it is neutrally worded content should be included in a brief and concise manner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

VDARE

If information about VDARE being founded after the publishing of "Alien Nation" should it's designation by the SPLC as a hate group not also be included? It's also been called controversial by more that The Huffington Post & Daily Kos which I provided & were removed.

The introductory sentence & any inclusion of "being based on the best selling book Alien Nation" is extensive and seems less necessary than hate group status.

I won't make any further edits until this is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace In Mississippi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

follow up

What is wrong with this description:

VDARE is a right wing website and blog founded by anti-immigration activist and paleo-conservative author Peter Brimelow.[2] VDARE is considered controversial because of its alleged ties to white supremacist rhetoric and support of scientific racism and white nationalism.[3][4][5] It has been designated as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace In Mississippi (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about VDARE, nor should the section be an attack page on the website. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. And the information that you have linked to is already on the article about VDARE, no need to post it here as well, it already has a wikilink to that page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple fix for a bad sentence

The sentence:

--Her first article for the paper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1]

Does not have a first reference for "the paper" - what paper is it referring to? Checking the citation source, she wrote for the Oberlin College newspaper, and "her first article" was for that publication.

So, the sentence could easily be changed to:

--Her first article for the Oberlin College student newspaper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1]

Or:

--An article she wrote for the Oberlin College student newspaper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1]

Cheers from a retired newspaper editor ...

74.132.121.211 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oberlin

New discussion moved to bottom of page to retain chronological order 009o9 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Oberlin (relocated)

Does anyone know what her marks were like in college? Oberlin was one of the first colleges to admit African American students and it has an affirmative action admissions policy; was Michelle admitted under an affirmative action program? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oberlin admitted its first black student in 1844, not exactly in Malkin's timeline. Also, Malkin criticized Affirmative Action while she attended Oberlin, if you'd checked this article before you posted here. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

3--- BOOKS

This quote in the current article, under the BOOKS section .....

'''"U.S. government's internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans in prison camps" .... is entirely incorrect. It is factually WRONG. It is a fraudulent misrepresentation of history.

Firstly, of the 112,000 (in the initial coastal evacuation), more than 40,000 were NOT U.S. citizens! (That fact is easily established from a number of sources, especially original sources, such as the WRA's own STORY OF HUMAN CONSERVATION final report from 1946. It is also recorded in the WRA Director Myer's memoirs from the 1970's.)

Secondly, the use of the phrase "prison camps" is misleading and inappropriate. As Director Myer reports, anyone, in 1942, was free to leave and relocate himself in the other 44 states that were NOT part of the Western Defense Command (combat, exclusion) Zone, as many did, to other cities or to jobs or to colleges.

This kind of distortion and inaccuracy is NOT going to survive the "light of day" truth in honest history research. Wikipedia would be foolish and ill-advised to allow the "concentration camp" "race agenda for dollars" to continue, because it is being exposed, more and more, across the land, despite the "politically-correct" propaganda effort at America-bashing, as currently expressed even in this article! The lies won't last, because, no matter how much they'd like to, politicians CANNOT rewrite history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

These claims are extremely inaccurate. Some Japanese Americans were killed in escape attempts or what were inaccurately claimed to be escape attempts. Myers himself is one of the least accurate sources and makes numerous falsehoods in his reports. Ad what is whith the extended and deeply racist use of terms like "race agenda for dollars"? Is wiki going to start using white supremacists like that ranter? (Of which Malkin is herself openly one, a self hating Asian who won't even call herself Asian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.180.33 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Malkin sparked debate in 2016 when she questioned the guilt of convicted serial rapist Daniel Holtzclaw. She wrote about the case, and said that she believes Holtzclaw is innocent based on no forensic evidence and other poor investigative techniques. Malkin released a film about Holtzclaw's innocence called "Daniel in the Den." <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/01/exclusive_what_if_the_convicted_serial_rapist_cop_is_innocent_132483.html> <https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-show-on-convicted-okc-officer-held-in-enid/article_95e0b156-cd6d-5e8c-935d-cf7106cdc7f7.html> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmKVMklq6Wk> Bmj466 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: 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 reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a weasel word oblique way of publishing lies that violate BLP?

Article says, "Amanda Carpenter has reported that Malkin began to "link arms with the most vocal elements of the white nationalist movement" in 2020." Is it notable that Carpenter attacks Malkin with figurative language? This is not an article on Carpenter. I recommend that this statement be deleted, & if there is genuine proof that Filipino Malkin is a white nationalist, that be substituted. Otherwise, don't weasel word imply she is such.(PeacePeace (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC))

Fuentes controversy

Should be something on the recent Nick Fuentes controversy in connection with Malkin... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be something about all the white nationalists she's defended and supported. This page is in desperate need of a Controversies section Dys (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to those who added relevant info! AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

More info here: now she’s gone on Red Ice (a neo-Nazi radio show). [15]. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The above "More info" comment appears to have no relevance in this talk page section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If Alex Jones was on the Megyn Kelly show, does that imply that Alex Jones is a disciple of Kelly or holds her political views? "Why Alex Jones has gone on Megyn Kelly (a neo-Liberal show)!"(PeacePeace (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC))

Vaccines

There should be a section on this on "views". She's an anti-vaxxer [16] who disguises her views as "skepticism" and "defense of freedom of speech". [17] [18]. 181.231.5.213 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

3--- BOOKS

This quote in the current article, under the BOOKS section .....

'''"U.S. government's internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans in prison camps" .... is entirely incorrect. It is factually WRONG. It is a fraudulent misrepresentation of history.

Firstly, of the 112,000 (in the initial coastal evacuation), more than 40,000 were NOT U.S. citizens! (That fact is easily established from a number of sources, especially original sources, such as the WRA's own STORY OF HUMAN CONSERVATION final report from 1946. It is also recorded in the WRA Director Myer's memoirs from the 1970's.)

Secondly, the use of the phrase "prison camps" is misleading and inappropriate. As Director Myer reports, anyone, in 1942, was free to leave and relocate himself in the other 44 states that were NOT part of the Western Defense Command (combat, exclusion) Zone, as many did, to other cities or to jobs or to colleges.

This kind of distortion and inaccuracy is NOT going to survive the "light of day" truth in honest history research. Wikipedia would be foolish and ill-advised to allow the "concentration camp" "race agenda for dollars" to continue, because it is being exposed, more and more, across the land, despite the "politically-correct" propaganda effort at America-bashing, as currently expressed even in this article! The lies won't last, because, no matter how much they'd like to, politicians CANNOT rewrite history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

These claims are extremely inaccurate. Some Japanese Americans were killed in escape attempts or what were inaccurately claimed to be escape attempts. Myers himself is one of the least accurate sources and makes numerous falsehoods in his reports. Ad what is whith the extended and deeply racist use of terms like "race agenda for dollars"? Is wiki going to start using white supremacists like that ranter? (Of which Malkin is herself openly one, a self hating Asian who won't even call herself Asian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.180.33 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://michellemalkin.com/2004/12/03/maglalangadingdong-this
  2. ^ http://www.vdare.com/about
  3. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/michelle-malkins-white-su_b_20873.html?
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1066432/-Michelle-Malkin-contributes-to-hate-site-VDARE
  4. ^ http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/VDARE
  5. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/17/amazon-paypal-and-spotify-inadvertently-fund-white-supremacists-heres-how/
  6. ^ http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Malkin sparked debate in 2016 when she questioned the guilt of convicted serial rapist Daniel Holtzclaw. She wrote about the case, and said that she believes Holtzclaw is innocent based on no forensic evidence and other poor investigative techniques. Malkin released a film about Holtzclaw's innocence called "Daniel in the Den." <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/01/exclusive_what_if_the_convicted_serial_rapist_cop_is_innocent_132483.html> <https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-show-on-convicted-okc-officer-held-in-enid/article_95e0b156-cd6d-5e8c-935d-cf7106cdc7f7.html> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmKVMklq6Wk> Bmj466 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: 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 reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a weasel word oblique way of publishing lies that violate BLP?

Article says, "Amanda Carpenter has reported that Malkin began to "link arms with the most vocal elements of the white nationalist movement" in 2020." Is it notable that Carpenter attacks Malkin with figurative language? This is not an article on Carpenter. I recommend that this statement be deleted, & if there is genuine proof that Filipino Malkin is a white nationalist, that be substituted. Otherwise, don't weasel word imply she is such.(PeacePeace (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC))

Fuentes controversy

Should be something on the recent Nick Fuentes controversy in connection with Malkin... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be something about all the white nationalists she's defended and supported. This page is in desperate need of a Controversies section Dys (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to those who added relevant info! AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

More info here: now she’s gone on Red Ice (a neo-Nazi radio show). [19]. 97.116.51.145 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The above "More info" comment appears to have no relevance in this talk page section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If Alex Jones was on the Megyn Kelly show, does that imply that Alex Jones is a disciple of Kelly or holds her political views? "Why Alex Jones has gone on Megyn Kelly (a neo-Liberal show)!"(PeacePeace (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC))

Vaccines

There should be a section on this on "views". She's an anti-vaxxer [20] who disguises her views as "skepticism" and "defense of freedom of speech". [21] [22]. 181.231.5.213 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

American Renaissance

This article contains a reference to amren.com, a primary and unreliable source. If we're going to say that people are appearing at or associated with white supremacism, we need to use reliable independent mainstream sources, not white supremacist websites, to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Malkin/Archive_3&oldid=1258042930"