Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Malkin's Hypocrisy

Malkin is Filipino American that supports legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Her parents weren't allowed to immigrate to Unites States, she would have been cleaning bathrooms in hotels like many Filipinos do around the world. She supported the Minutemen Group at the border, many of whom were carrying Confederate flags and were extremely racist. She ignores the fact that if many of these Minuteman volunteers had their way, they would deport everybody who is non-white including Michele Malkin. August 15, 2005

Blah, ridiculous hyperbole. She opposes illegal immigration, as do many Americans, including the "Minutemen". Painting them all as racists is baseless libel. --204.90.92.181 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Except that the first American settlers didn't exactly ask the Native Americans if it would be OK for them to take over their land, removing quite a bit of credibility of the "legal vs. illegal" immigration argument. So illegal immigration was fine then, but now that the immigrants are settled, it's not ok. That's not baseless libel. --Dave420 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Michelle Malkin would've ended up a cleaning lady if she remained in the Philippines? --Rev Prez 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Malkin attacks illegal immigration, not legal immigration. There is no linkage between one's skin color and illegal/legal immigration. I wonder if the persons whom the above poster supports do themselves lead perfect lives without hint of imperfection? The concepts behind the Minutemen movement were noble, even if some of the individual expressions of those concepts and implementation were less than perfect. November 1, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.194.145.134 (talk • contribs) 09:41, November 1, 2005.

America was built by illegal immigration - suddenly saying it's not OK is hypocrisy. --Dave420 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that there wasn't any such thing as illegal immigration back then. There was conquering and breaking of treaties, of course, which was what was mainly done. Be concrete and specific when you write and think.

And by the way, why is it hypocrisy to oppose illegal immigration because people in America's past have done it? Are they my ancestors? Not at all. If they were, is it still somehow hypocrisy? I think it's generally considered conventional wisdom that it's not necessarily hypocritical to oppose murder even if your ancestor was Hitler himself. Sins of the father do not pass down.Killua 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MalkinWatch

66.167.138.65 07:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC): User:AlistairMcMillan restored a link to a three-month-old blog. When I removed it, I included a comment explaining why:

remove some random blogger's link; even if it is an anti-Malkin alternative, the guy has [sic: should have been "hasn't"] quite earned the right to be considered a professional. He uses his blog to publicize his Amazon wish list for goodness' sakes; his 12/31/2004 headline: "She noticed me! She noticed me!"

A more detailed and updated policy on Wikipedia:External links is in development; meanwhile I contend that the limited history of the blog and the anonymity of the author make it inappropriate to include this link in the list.

For now, I will annotate the link to save readers the trouble of following it, but I think it should be removed.

"If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger!" Do you have any comment on the actual content of the MalkinWatch weblog? That is what should determine whether the link belongs here or not. Whether the author is anonymous or has only been writing about Malkin for a couple of months is irrelevant. AlistairMcMillan 07:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many, many bloggers post their Amazon wishlists. --AStanhope 03:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Why was this sourced paragraph removed without explanation?

Andrew Sullivan gives out the parody Malkin Award [1] for what Sullivan believes is "cliché-ridden writing from the left and right intended to insult." Malkin's writing style has been compared to Ann Coulter's. [2]

Unless an editor can provide a reason, material that is sourced should not be simply deleted. -Willmcw 23:29, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I removed it this time (it wasn't me the previous times) because, as written at least, it was quite poor (Was Malkin or her writing style criticized by Sullivan? Who is Andrew Sullivan? [you know what I mean] What does "the other side" mean? How does her writing style compare with Ann Coulter's? Is it really her writing style that is like Coulter's or more accurately her choice of subjects, revisionist tendencies, one-sidedness, mode of attacks, etc.?) --AStanhope 02:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about the prior version, posted above. It seems clearer that the version that you removed. -Willmcw 03:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you learn a lot about a person by looking to their critics. Sullivan is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. His blog site (which is mostly political) gets 50,000 hits a day. I am not in agreement with all of Sullivan's remarks about Malkin, but they are relevant to this article and there is really no good reason to delete this. As for the comparison to Coulter, it is really mostly because they are both women, both conservatives, and both have a similar exaggerated hyperbolic writing style.

After following the links to Sullivan's comments on Malkin, I'd say that more should be added, not less. He appears to be a major critic of hers. I'd say a quote may be appropriate. This may not be the best, but it is colorful and pointed:

One sentence; four cliche-ridden, playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult; it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points.

In any case, the material should be fixed, not deleted. -Willmcw 05:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Where we are now.post Wiki database crash

There appears to have been a Wikipedia database crash last night and the Malkin entry appears to have been lost. I reverted to the last complete entry on record which happened to be one that we all appeared to have agreed upon. It includes the Andrew Sullivan paragraph and does not include the Voz de Aztlan smear about her bleaching her skin/hair which I think we can all agree does not qualify under NPOV guidelines. I haven't received official word from Wiki regarding the database crash but unofficially I think it was bad enough that we won't do better than this (the alternative is to start from scratch on this article which I think is unacceptable). --AStanhope 20:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Google search returns the following: Your search - MalkinWatchBlog hyperbole - did not match any documents.

Conservative vs. Radical

As you can see from my contributions on this article to date, I take this article seriously. I made the switch from describing Malkin as "conservative" to "radical" without a hint of irony. The media is flush with tales of traditional "conservatives" bemoaning the destruction of the Republican party by radical-extremist wing of the party. These extremists are no more "conservative" than I am, and the genuine "conservatives" resent the negative impact they are having on the greater "conservative movement." I'm not going to get into an edit war continuing to switch "conservative" to "radical" here... Perhaps we're not quite ready for that yet. I do wish to state emphatically, however, that I did not make the change in jest. --AStanhope 13:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the edit was not in jest it would have helped if you had been explicit in your edit summary. Calling a signifcant change like that "copyediting" makes it look like an editor was trying to sneak in a potentially-controversial edit. I don't dispute the logic you present here, but if you want to make that change in the article I'd suggest you add a sentence of explanation. Certainly, "right-wing" and "conservative" are not necessarily synonyms, and it is possible that someone could be called a "right-wing radical". Obviously, having a source for such a label would be helpful. I suspect that others have called Malkin "radical," so if you want to you should be able to find a source. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It was sloppy work on my part. For now, I'm satisfied with keeping the "conservative" label. Thanks for the feedback. --AStanhope 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin cannot properly be described as a "conservative". The most accurate description of the views she espouses is *fascist*. The central theme of fascism is that the interests of the state take precedence over the interests of the individual citizen. This description is particularly fitting for Mrs. Malkin, and proven by the views she expresses in her books, particularly in her standpoint that the security of the state is paramount, and that she considers the subjugation of individual liberty to the security interests of the nation-state to be not only acceptable, but imperative. This is classic fascism.

The classical "conservative" believes in the primacy of individual liberty. The classical "liberal" believes in the application of state resources to promote the general good in society. While neither of these archetypes is especially prominent in American politics today, equally, neither description fits Mrs. Malkin. --Michael Amper Ampermc

Even a casual reading of her blog would conflict with this characterization. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 17:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By all means, Dominick, you are welcome to point out Mrs. Malkin's inconsistencies and contradictions of her own points, but a less than casual reading of her writings, particularly those in "invasion" and "In Defense of Internment", will prove the truth of my assertions. Michelle may like to cozy up to those who despise the "MSM" and "libs" in order to earn her thirty pieces of silver and fifteen minutes of fame, but in truth, she is way outside the main stream of American political thought. ampermc 13:00 EST 2005-11-05

You evidently have not read her books , as you demonstrate little knowledge as to their contents and seem to be making wide inferences based on the titles. --CltFn 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah the left wing intellectual fascism that brands all other views fascist. Mike Amper, a classical moron.

The "Self-Hating Asian" Allegation

To 209.107.235.196 or the next person who wants to vandalize this article with the "Self-Hating Asian" smear... Please don't. First, it will be reverted within minutes, so you will be wasting your time. Second, it is a nonsensical and inane concept. What, precisely is a "Self-Hating Asian?" Michelle doesn't appear to be uncomfortable with who she is. Bloggers are often accused of being narcissistic. As a high-profile blogger, perhaps narcissist would be a more appropriate label for her - the antithesis of what you suggest. At what point does a child of immigrants in America simply become an American, regardless of their race? --AStanhope 23:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She can be a self-hating american, just like the rest of us. Gzuckier 19:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/124846.shtml

quote: "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake." She can have both identity, but she chose to deny it. If that's not self-hating, what do you call it? Bobbybuilder 00:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe she just doesn't like long descriptive names. From what I've seen, she certainly doesn't appear to hate herself.Al Lowe 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If an African American says "I'm not black, I'm American", then we would call this person self-hating. What's the difference here? Can we put the label "Twinkie" in the content? Bobbybuilder 21:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt any Black American would say "I'm not Black." But I could see one saying "I'm not from Africa, I'm from America." I would not call that self-hate. What I find odd is our insistance on hyphenating our culture. The way it's turned in a fashion to be "Irish-American" or any other variety of "-American," even if you're several generations removed. Whatever happened to just being "American?"

well, of course you can just be "American", but you don't need to deny the other identity, especially when it's as obvious as skin tone. Besides, Malkin is just a second generation immigrant. Bobbybuilder 09:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So, if she decides to call herself "American," that's self hate? I guess freedom of choice has it's down side.Al Lowe

You've missed the point. She denied her other identity, that's self hating. Bobbybuilder 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. I don't understand the point. Al Lowe

You don't understand the point, that's called "you've missed the point". What if a Jewish American says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American"? It's basically the same thing. Are we talking about whether this person is American? no, we are talking about whether this person is Asian. So, if you need me to clarify, the POINT is "is it self-hating if an Asian person denies that she is asian". Bobbybuilder 22:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If a "Jewish American" says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American." I'd suspect he's either converted to another religion, or become an athiest. It's definitely not the same thing. People who follow the Jewish religion typically refer to themselves as American Jews. That's mixing race and religion. Or in America, nationality and religion. Strictly speaking, there is no "American Race." We came from all over the world. I know an old Filipino gentleman who refuses the tag of "Asian-American," because of WWII. He has no problem with either "American," or "Filipino-American." But if you call him an "Asian-American," well, my best advice is to duck and run. Michelle Malkin was born in America, so she prefers to be called "American." Considering the number of "self-hating" Americans who have either moved out of this country (Robert Altman and Johnny Depp come to mind, I'm rather happy to see someone who LIKES to be called an "American" without all the hyphenated bull crap in front of it. But then I suppose I should be called self-hating because I don't put Irish and Cherokee, or that PC term "Native American" before just plain old "American."Al Lowe

I'll stop here, because firstly I feel like talking to a wall, and secondly, after reading more of her writings, I'm happy that she denies herself as Asian, 'cos for god sake, I don't want her to be Asian, and I doubt many Asians want to include this kind of people in their race. Here's a nice fable talking about this kind of people from Aesop, [[3]].So there you go, Al, she's all yours, just another typical American. Bobbybuilder 04:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here too. She is anything but typical. IF she couldn't make up her mind if she was Asian, or American, Aesop's fable might have a point. It doesn't.Al Lowe

Mind you, that bat made up its mind it's a beast when beast is winning. Bobbybuilder 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It should have decided sooner. I have to apologize on this though. I have a stubborn streak that is at least a mile wide. And just don't know when to quit sometimes. Sorry.Al Lowe 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

MalkinWatch redux

Sorry that I didn't check if this issue had already been addressed in Talk. I can't find this consensus you refer to, though.. has it been archived or addressed elsewhere? For what it's worth, I think Michelle Malkin is intellectually dishonest, but I still don't think the MalkinWatch theory belongs here unless they come up with some more evidence. Eliot 19:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Came here via the RFC. I don't think we should include this anonymous speculation that Malkin's husband helps out with her blog. If I get a Blogspot account, can I too level meaningless accusations against my favorite conservative columnists and get picked up by Wikipedia? It's stretching it to say that Malkin's use of the royal "we" is conclusive proof that there's another author. Maybe she's just pompous. Rhobite 21:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this allegation should not be included. Blogs are not sufficient sources. If it's true, it'll probably be exposed again in another publication. Until then it's just (juicy) gossip. -Willmcw 21:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Another RFC response: The specific allegation about her husband's role doesn't merit inclusion in the article. The blog, which seems to specialize in monitoring and commenting on Malkin's work, is worth including in the external links, though. (I'm not completely clear which of these questions is being debated.) JamesMLane

RFC response. Unsourced, even unjustified, accusations may belong in biography articles (with appropriate explanation) but only if they have had a significant impact on public perception of the subject. I hadn't heard this claim before and my searching indicates that it's a pretty small part of the public image of Michaell Malkin, hence it should not go in there. However, if it became a matter of controversy and started attracting attention outside of MalkinWatch then it should go in. Agree with JamesMLane that a link to MalkinWatch ought to be kept. David | Talk 21:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC response. Blogs are not reliable sources of anything, since there is zero editorial control, and anyone can post whatever they want. Wikipedia should not use them as sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we should mention MalkinWatch at all in the text of the article (an ext link is fine). I removed the current MalkinWatch blurb since it was wrong: MalkinWatch has never accused Malkin of writing in Ann Coulter's style, for instance. I looked through the archives, but please correct me if I'm wrong. If we do mention the blog we should at least report its accusations accurately. Rhobite 14:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maiden name

Why is Michelle Malkin's maiden name relevant in this article? Are we to put every married persons' maiden name in all the articles in Wikipedia. What point does that make? --CltFn 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It's relevant because this is her biography. It is as relevant as her year of birth, place of birth, educaiton, etc. Yes, every person's name or names should be included in biographies of them. Why not? -Willmcw 23:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some prominent married women have their maiden names in their articles, like Elizabeth Dole, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton. Others, like Lynne Cheney don't. I don't see any problem with the inclusion.--Rogerd 00:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin's books are copywritten as/by Michelle Maglalang. --AStanhope 01:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That implies that Maglalang is still her legal name. Perhaps she never legally changed her name after her marriage. -Willmcw 01:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's the case: 'As for my legal name, I just never bothered to submit the bureaucratic paperwork required to change it. Simple as that.' [4] It only became an issue after she criticized Teresa Heinz for adding 'Kerry' to her name during the 2004 campaign. Holgate 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I included Malkin's maiden/birth name per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Eliot 14:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Asian American Stance

Michelle Malkin is a figure that invites ire and criticism from the Asian American communities. Asian Americans widely regard her as a "race traitor" because of her socio-political positions and personal remarks that often undermine Asian Americans' effort to challenge and fight racism against Asian. I think we should at least mention that in the main article.

Here is my personal view on her, which perhaps reflects the general view of the majority of Asian Americans:

"The problem with Asian sell-outs like Michelle Malkin, Amy Chua and Kenneth Eng is that they legitimize racism against Asians and undermine the Asians' efforts to challenge and fight racism against Asians: they turn their back on Asians and provide white people with the ammunitions for racism against other Asians."

---

Why is it that most Asian sell-outs are women, and not men? Michelle Malkin is not just a plain conservative. She plays into the hand of racist whites who are happy to have someone like Malkin on their side. I would not mind her conservatice views except that she is very very anti-immigration even though her parents are immigrants. She supports racist and anti-immigrant whites even though they hate everybody who looks like Malkin. She supports racial profilling and justifies the internment of Japenese during World War 2. How could somebody who looks like Malkin support these racist ideas? It is beyond my understanding. August 31, 2005.

---

Filipino View

I will tell you she is not a traitor to Filipino-Americans or Filipinos in general. Filipinos anywhere can be apolitical but irrespective of occupation, education or religion Fil-Ams are generally conservative and support Malkin's strong conservative views. It seems that many are against her because they see her Filipino looks rather than an as a conservative American, they would rather want a subordinate stereotypical Filipino maid shouting the whites-are-racist pro-immigration liberal line, kinda like a Filipino version of Margaret Cho. Filipino-Americans have to deal with racism from like anybody else, just that much of the hate comes from other Asian-Americans.

So hate makes it ok to hate? I don't get where you're going with that... --Dave420 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did i imply that Ms Malkin or filipino-americans are haters? Is this the assumption you make when people are conservative?

Another Filipino's View

The other "filipino" claims that most Filipinos are conservative; now this is one of the most bold faced lies ever. Most Filipinos are not conservative, but extremely liberal. Most filipinos immigrated to the US and could only afford housing in urban centers. Many second generation filipino americans grew up with an urban upbringing. It's not shocking that we filipinos love hip-hop culture and everything that it stands for. When you think of a Filipino, you probably imagine a big islander whith baggy pants and a sports jersey on, heck, thats not a stereotype, its what people wear in the city! As a result of such upbrings, many Filipinos identify with Blacks and Latinos and are very liberal in their views. In fact, the only Asian group that can be characterized as having a majority of conservatives is Japanese Americans. I am shocked by Malkin because she is of Filipino descent, but denies this. Most Filipinos are proud of their culture. But I don't think she is a race traitor, I think she has a weak mind and is just struggling to fit in with mainstream america much like Amy Chua. Marrying a Anglo husband, get an Anglo surname, and denying her heritage in favor of a European one.

---

Being a Filipino, I know that Filipinos are conservative by nature. They are highly religious and mostly Roman Catholic. Enjoying the hip-hop culture does not make a person liberal. Filipinos are very hard workers. They believe in family values. They believe in the country and most are proud to be American.

If you want to blame anyone for being race traitors, why not look at the Filipinos over in the Philippines. They are the ones who are trying so hard to look white and to be like Americans. The look down on their own people if they have darker skin.

Don't blame Michelle Malkin because she is proud of who she is. When a woman gets married, doesn't she take on the husband's name? And you are critizing her for taking his name because it sounds white?

A Half-Filipino Schoolmate's View

I went to school at Emma C. Attales School in Absecon, NJ, with Michelle and her brother, Michael. I think our two families comprised the entire Filipino-American contingent in the area. Michelle and I even shared the same piano teacher. You can find more extensive documentation of our past here.

First of all, as regards the "Asian American Stance", why do so many people find it surprising that a person of Filipino descent could harbor hatred toward people of Japanese descent, especially when considering any topic pertaining to World War II? Has every one forgotten what the Japanese did to the Philippines?

My grandfather (as well as the rest of my family) was a resistance fighter in the Philippines in WW2, so I can certainly understand the viewpoint. Not that I agree with Mrs. Malkin...

You should understand that we grew up in an era and an area where the view of "Asian-Americans" was quite a bit different than what some people may be used to in today's urban centers. Hip-hop didn't really exist outside of New York City in 1982. Also, I find the "Asian-American" label (as if there is some over-arching "community" outside of A. Magazine) to be more than a bit useless, given the propensity of Asians to attack each other.

As disappointed as I am in what Michelle has become, I will say that much of the criticism I've read of Michelle is more than a little over the top, propelled by people who would seemingly like nothing more than to fit all Filipino-Americans, or even all Asian-Americans, into one sloppy mess of a common, ancestral experience. Nothing could be further from the truth.

-Michael Amper

Thanks I agree. I am sorry you are not as proud of Mrs. Malkin's career. I think she has shown her intelligence and skill as a writer on her own terms, not just as a Filipina writer. As proof, the "over the top" nonsense would not be so prominent, if she was not so effective in persuading others to agree with her. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You can not like what the Japanese did in WWII, and still like Japanese people - the two are not the same. Harbouring hatred towards Japanese people is still hatred, and still racist. Racism does not make it OK to be racist. --Dave420 15:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

POV in lead

NPoV is important, and most important in the lead. I think the tweaks I made improve this while keeping the criscisms in one place. There are a few more pejoratives. If you believe that you should oppose her views, fine, we can all afford to be professional about it, Dominick 01:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" is barely pejorative, if at all, and is frequently applied to Malkin. While the placement of the term under "beliefs" is appropriate, it shouldn't be swept out of the article entirely. -Willmcw

It is considered pejorative in conservative circles. You don't see people self-identifing as neocon. Thats what I didn moved it to a different section. Dominick 10:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Air America Paragraph Removal

The Air America paragraph seems out of place in this article. I have removed it. Here is a copy:

Michelle's blog occassionally contains original investigative reports, most notably the recent investigations into the financial activities of Air America Radio[5] and the involvement of some of its founders and on-air personalities, including Evan Montvel Cohen and Al Franken. 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.

--AStanhope 05:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with this. Together with RadioEqualizer, she undertook a major piece of investigative journalism that the major dailies wouldn't touch. This is definitely a point of distinctiveness in her work and should be addressed. The graph seems fairly NPOV and raises issues that confront new media, i.e. can bloggers be journalists and vice versa. Can you explain better why you think it should be removed? Until then, I think it should go back in.

Ronnotel 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I put the paragraph in because I felt, as Ronnotel stated, that it was a "point of distinctiveness in her work" and also felt the new media vs. blog issue was noteworthy. I've reinserted the paragrpaph for these reasons. If you think it is POV feel free to edit but I say we leave it in unless a concensus feel it is irrelevant or extraneous. --68.104.233.90 06:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No proper entry on Malkin is possible

Wow. I found this entry utterly appalling, sort of like an entry on Hitler that described him as a "German Chancelleor (1933-1945) who instituted some controversial policies" and left it at that.

What I would suggest is Wikipedia have an entry along the lines of "We're Not Touching This One", on the grounds that:

• It's just not possible to have an entry on Michelle Malkin that's not POV. For instance, even her portrait is POV -- it's an idealized and innacurate portrayal of Malkin. A more accurate portrait would show her in a more typical pose, eyes bugged, spittle flying, face distorted in a mask of hatred.
• And it appears from the comments here that people are wasting a lot of time and energy on her.
• Which is a waste because if you really want to know anything useful about Malkin you're not going to find it here.
• And meantime some poor kid wanting to find out about Malkin could go here and get the impression that she's some kind of normal journalist or something. So in that sense by trying to stay non-POV Wikepedia is offering innacurate information.

After she's been dead for 20 years maybe Wikipedia can offer a useful synopsis of her career.

I'm serious about this. Wikipedia should have a "We're Not Touching This One" flag. Herostratus 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is appalling that someone would advocate twisting an article for political purposes. The whole point is not to promote one cause, but explain who someone is and why they are notable. Your cartoon of this woman is appalling, I think she deserves a fair shake, after 10 seconds of reading her blog or a column, her PoV will be clear. She writes some pieces of investigative opinion, at least she labels it as opinion, unlike some purveyors of "news" who offer punditry as the "news". Frankly, people like you give wikipedia a bad name among conservatives and liberals.Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gulfstream Liberals

Malkin really should get credit for creating this term.

That presumes it's widely used. I don't see any evidence of that. Holgate 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It only gets 50 unique hits in Google. [6] Therefore it hardly seems to be a notable term. -Willmcw 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

McCommas: Well who is this Bronwyn Lance Chester? Have you ever heard of him? I have not found this lady to be shrill at all. Just smart.

I take it back. I really jumped the gun and it appears Malkin didn't come up with the term afterall. It may have been Eric Alterman in an Atlantic Monthly article.

Virginia-Pilot

This newspaper's opinion of Malkin has no effect on me. As a matter of fact, I wonder why it is even included in the article.152.163.100.65 23:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Tetchy Smurf

USE Edit DESCRIPTIONS!

Man! How hard it that!?! Dominick ^(TALK) 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Mirecki paragraph

I deleted the paragraph about Paul Mirecki since he has his own article and this article isn't about him. (I'd revert it to the previous version but I'm a wikinewb and don't know how =( ) (unsigned User:131.55.121.8)

This is about Malkin and her work. Her work includes commenting on events and the Mirecki paragraph seems to have been included as an example of her commentary. As I read it it does not focus on his activity but rather on her response. All in all, it seems appropriate and so I've re-instated it. -Willmcw 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(sig fix) Dominick ^(TALK) 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Willmcw, and well said. - Reaverdrop 22:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Malkin.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Malkin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Has now been replaced with appropriately tagged image.--CltFn 16:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Short Film

• First they came

Why is this being added and deleted? Was this film ever released, or is it just a video clip on a website? If the latter, it is probably not worth noting. -Will Beback 06:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann

• MSBNC host Keith Olbermann named Malkin "the worst person in the world" after she posted the addresses and home phone numbers of Santa Cruz university students who protested military recruiters on campus, leading to a storm of death threats and harrassment. She has refused to take them down.

As I understand it, "The worst person in the world" is a nightly feature of Olbermann's show. Which means it is a misnamed "honor". It really is "today's worst person in the world". I think we at least need to reword this to indicate that Malkin has not been singled out but is one of many. -Will Beback 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that shows the 'incident' if any one is interested Lamuk69 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph, moving the focus away from Oblbermann to Malkin and SAW, with the two best links I could find. I think/hope that everything I've written can be verified from those links (assuming the first email here is a death threat). Further edits welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. -Will Beback 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:66.245.52.86 a link to http://media.michellemalkin.com/4-17Olbermann.wmv (thanks!) but that URL no longer works, so I've replaced it with a link to the transcript of that Olbermann show. I also incorporated Malkin's clarification about lack of contact from the 3 SAW students. And then I got ambitious and reformatted all the dates in the <ref>s. CWC(talk) 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan is described as a "moderate"? I've never heard him as described as anything but a conservative, which he is. Except that, being gay, he's a supporter of gay rights, he's pretty much a down-the-line conservative. He's a Republican, an enthusiastic supporter of the President and the war (well, he's had second thoughts, but at this point so have many conservatives), and pretty much follows the Repubublic line on fiscal and social matters. "moderate conservative" I guess would be OK, but "moderate"? Herostratus 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you read him? Every other day he speaks of King George and the theocracy the GOP has created [his words, a bit too over-the-top for me]. He's straddling between pro-choice and pro-life, and supported Kerry for president. He likes to call himself conservative... but it really stretches credibility when he quoted favorably from the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case that upheld Roe v. Wade. "Moderate" is far more accurate.Killua 21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rm blogroll comment

A blogger removing Malkin from his blogroll is not encyclopediac. Can you state a reason why this is important to a reader who wants to know about Malkin? Dominick ^(TALK) 19:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Malkin vs SAW

(This is a continuation of "Olbermann" and "Rm blogroll comment" above.) I've had another go at this paragraph. I've worked in "left wingers" supporting Malkin and conservatives (Don Surber) opposing her. (I'm sure "left wingers" is the wrong term; someone please improve my work. Also, I've described Michael Crook's attack on Malkin as "racist", which (1) is true, (2) is arguably POV and (3) should be expanded.) The edit conflicts were quite annoying, BTW! Comments and further edits welcome — CWC(talk) 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is just not notable please look at WP:NN, what other people say about her on a blog just is not encyclopediac. (period) Dominick ^(TALK) 16:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Chris Chittleborough for the effort, but I tend to agree with User:Dominick. The blogosphere is not considered to be a notable or reliable source. If the blogger were notable in their own right, such as Malkin herself, or Huffington, then their blog may be used as a source for their opinion. But I don't know that Crook is really notable at that level. Also, it would be POV to call a reference "racist" unless we have a source who does so. While I realize it is frustrating to be unable to use such obvious and relevant sources, a lack of coverage in the non-blog world may indicate that an incident if not as important as we think. -Will Beback 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. ("Not as important as we think": heh.) Sadly, this may become more important. See http://www.mcomike.com/michelle_malkin_at_it_again, where Crook lists Malkin's current and previous home address, current and previous cell-phone numbers, her father's work address and the name of one of her children, and also links to an image (a large .gif) containing aerial photos of Malkin's house and a map showing how to get there. One copy of this image is hosted at imageshack.us, and people (far right followers of Crook?) have published the URL of that image in comments at several blogs. Hence http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005029.htm (which Crook is now gloating about). BTW, it seems to me that this is an example of the racist right using shared opposition to Iraq to try to recruit among left-wingers — and not for the first time, either. Ugly. CWC(talk) 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, if it continues escalating we won't have any trouble finding sources covering it. -Will Beback 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As a parent it is troubling to say the least. More than a few wikipedians feel the same way. I don't like that if you are outrageous enough people talk. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Orignal Investigative Reports"?

I'm asking for comments about Malkin's alleged "original investigative reports". The example given (Al Franken/Air America) was NOT "original" reporting, it was merely a basically a series of cut and pastes from the New York Sun and blog commentary over a period of two weeks. What Malkin did was trumpet the works of others. If anyone can supply another example of "original investigative reporting", please do so. (unsigned User:FinFangFoom)

Well, Malkin and Maloney did do some original reporting on the Gloria Wise scandal, and did break some aspects of the story. See [7] and [8], to start with. CWC(talk) 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of racial slurs

Replacing the raghead reference is not notable, for the rest of the article. It sticks out, and seems to be there just to see slurs in the text of this article. Is this for google rank? Dominick ^(TALK) 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"permanently relocate"?

As I write, the article says that the people who put Malkin's home address on the web prompted her to "permanently relocate her family". Do we have a source for this statement? Cheers, CWC(talk) 05:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah. User:Stesichorus has posted one. Thanks. CWC(talk) 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Malkin on May 1st protests

User 70.108.122.193 (talk · contribs) added the following short paragraph (since removed):

During the May 1, 2006 immigrant day protest she made several anti-immigrant remarks.

Unfortunately this (1) needs URLs, (2) is POV, and (3) is not true. OTOH, I'm sure she made "anti-illegal-immigrant" remarks. Of course, what name should be used for people who entered the U.S. without any paperwork is part of the debate, which makes it kinda hard to write encyclopedia articles about them.

Does anyone want to have a go at checking MM's blog, media appearances, etc re these protests and putting something in the article? (I'm not volunteering, sorry.) Then we can start a debate over terminology ...

CWC(talk) 18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Did SAW get anti-semitic abuse?

I've just changed

After Malkin's post, the three SAW contacts received abusive and anti-semitic messages by phone and email, including death threats.

to

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

because (1) our reference says nothing about anti-semetic attacks, (2) SAW is not identifiably Jewish and is almost certainly strongly anti-Zionist and (3) Malkin being a strong support of Israel, her supporters are very unlikely to be anti-semites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Chittleborough (talk • contribs) 27 May 2006

Anchor baby

Can we please discuss this here instead of having a revert war? If it does't stop shortly the page will have to be protected and/or users blocked. -Will Beback 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

She has clearly articulated her position. Her op-ed in Jewish World Review about the Yaser Esam Hamdi situation is a case in point.[9]:

"Clearly, the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Hamdi, tourists, and to countless "anchor babies" delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security. Originally intended to ensure the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves and their families after the Civil War, the citizenship clause has evolved into a magnet for alien lawbreakers and a shield for terrorist infiltrators and enemy combatants.

If the courts refuse to close the birthright citizenship loopholes, Congress must. Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only."

Her own self-written biography on her website indicated that her parents were here on a work visa - her father is a doctor. This is a straightforward situation: Malkin defines "anchor babies" to include the children of non-immigrants who are legally in the country. She was born here while her parents were in that situation. It is black and white. Pointing this out isn't an attempt to villify her - I don't think any editor here has any problems with "anchor babies." Given the context here, however, it is clearly "controversial" and merits inclusion in the article. --AStanhope 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• What do you think about the neutral language in this possible future edit:

"Malkin is outspoken in opposition to the granting of automatic U.S. citizenship to babies born to tourists and temporary workers (so-called "anchor babies"), saying, "Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only."

Malkin articulated her position on "anchor babies" with regards to the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen born to Saudi parents who were working in the United States on temporary work visas.[10]

These views are in contrast to Malkin's own personal situation: she was born in the U.S. while her parents were in the country on work visas."

---I could not care less about Michelle Malkin, but I do care about NPOV. Dcflyer 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's great and encourage you to make the changes. Perhaps the sentences "These views are in contrast to Malkin's own personal situation" could be tuned. Is "contrast" the right word here? Anyway - excellent work. You have my support for the edit(s) as such. --AStanhope 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback, AStanhope. I agree that the wording needs some tuning. I am unable to make any changes under the 3RR policy. Please make any changes you see fit. Dcflyer 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is in her biography then we shouldn't say it was discovered, which is sensationalistic. Instead, a better way of introducing the information would be to preface her view of anchor babies by simply stating her own status. For example, "Despite being born in the US to parents visiting on a work visa, Malkin is outspoken..." We need to keep the tone neutral rather than accusatory. This isn't an indictment. -Will Beback 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that was an excellent NPOV phrasing of the situation Nicely done! Lawyer2b 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Your example statement uses neutral language. Dcflyer 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think making this change would count against anybody's 3RR count for the day. It isn't a simple revision - it is something we reached together through consensus. This sort of editorial conflict resolution is precisely the ANTIDOTE to 3RR concerns. Any volunteers to make the changes? If not, any objections to my making the changes? --AStanhope 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to you making the change. You probably can word it better than me.Dcflyer 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK - I've done it. There is a discrepancy between the citation of a footnote for the VDARE link vs. a straight external link for the Jewish World Review op-ed by Malkin. I would imagine that there is a style standard to which we should try to adhere, however I know not what that standard is. I am leaving it as-is in that respect for the moment. If any of you know what linking style we should be making use of here and wish to correct it, please do. Otherwise hopefully some dashing White Knight of an editor will come to our rescue sometime in the future. Excellent consensus building work here, fellow Wikipedians! --AStanhope 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job! --Dcflyer 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with the change that 132.241.246.111 made, as I was going to suggest that my original wording of "contrast to" should be changed to "conflict with" --Dcflyer 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the last edit, however, it looks like this dispute will continue, unfortunately.--Dcflyer 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevancy

Do we have to drill down to the parents work visa some thirty years ago as in this line? "Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang in Philadelphia to Filipino parents, Dr. Apolo and Rafaela Maglalang, in the United States on a work visa." --CltFn 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fake 1992 Bikini Picture

This was specifically brought up in the Doug Markwith interview she had on the O'Reilly Factor. Doug brings up the counter point that theres a photo of her posing in a bikini (found by simply googleing her name). She states the photo is fraudulent. Anyone know the status of this photo? I think a very small note could be added to the controversy section of this article, if infact the picture is legitimately her. Reference to this interview is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9QOqzz9HX8 Cannibaltom 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the photo. Her hands are bigger than her head. I don't believe there's any serious contention by anyone who has examined the incident that the picture is legitimate. Furthermore, we have the real picture from which the head has obviously been photoshopped. Thanatosimii 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I found evidence to clear this up. It was photoshopped. http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/04/original-photo-for-michelle-bikini-photoshop-located/ Cannibaltom 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For Malkin's take on this incident, see this blog post from October 2006. (The other relevant posts are "Malkin Derangement Syndrome", "The Gawker smear machine", and "College student slams Gawker Media". I've changed the heading above for clarity. Cheers, CWC 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Please leave the trivia section up. It's interesting to have information like this on people in the public eye, possibly the most interesting part of a wiki on a person. I know the anti-photogenic point is kind of PoV, but if it's something we can all agree on, then personally it's my opinion that it should be let up.Anonywiki 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Cite some sources, then you can put it back up. Otherwise, it's OR, and is being removed per WP:BLP. - Crockspot 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (EC)Exactly what I was about to say. Unsourced POV not worth having here as it is now. --OnoremDil 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is quite biased, and it seems to omit much of her past issues with truthful reporting and the issues of journalistic integrity associated with here book on internment. Someone seems to have edited this to put her in a completely positive light even the controversy section deals mostly with her "successes" in exposing already discredited people.

Stop Editing the Trivia Section

As both an unregistered user and now as a registered user, I have edited the first part of the trivia section, which talks about Malkin's views on so called "anchor babies". I have cited constitutional case law to point out that Malkin's views are just that, her opinion, and are contrary to what is the law of the land. Another user, probably the same person, keeps changing that back, despite the factual accuracy of the edit. Stop doing that.N1120A

As I said on my talk page, you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. The problem is not the argument, the problem is that it's you who is making it. If, for instance, Janet Reno were to make this comment in regard to Malkin, and her comments were published in the Miami Herald, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But if you make that assertion on your own, without a published reference, it's original research. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I included a published reference, the published opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The only reference that the person who reverted my edit could come up with was from a special interest group with a specific bias, not exactly NPOV. As I said, the law of the land runs contrary to what Malkin said.

It's not for us to decide what the law of the land is. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So we could report that "so-and-so says that Malkin's interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect", but we may not make that judgement on our own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is for the Supreme Court to decide, and they have already decided this. They decided it over 100 years ago and confirmed it as recently as Hamdi. As I wrote, her view runs contrary to the case law of the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate "so-and-so" in this discussion.

When the Supreme Court says that Malkin is wrong about the law then we can report that. Heck, if any reasonably notable commentator says that Malkin is wrong on the law we can report that. But we can't say Malkin is wrong on the law because of our own reading of a SCOTUS opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our own reading, it is the way the law is applied. If the Supreme Court wanted to change the reading of the 14th Amendment, they would have done it with Hamdi. They didn't.

Then find someone notable who says so in a reliable source, and cite it. Otherwise, leave it out, or you leave Wikipedia open to libel charges per WP:BLP. If you're really anxious to talk about your own opinion of Malkin, you can get a blog at MySpace dirt cheap. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Supreme Court isn't notable. There is nothing libelous about using the case law of the Supreme Court to say something she published has no basis in law. I am very well aware of what libel entails, likely far more than you, and I wouldn't do that to this site.

Hmm, I'm reading that opinion at FindLaw, and I don't see anything about Michelle Malkin in there. Maybe I'm stupid because I'm a soldier and not a lawyer - could you point me to the applicable paragraph? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The cases speak to what the law actually is, not about Michelle Malkin. Unfortunately, it seems you are allowing your conservative bias to creep in to your editing.

Please do not make negative comments about your fellow editors on article talk pages. Don't forget to sign your comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Useless. I didn't even say anything negative. I guess this further shows the bias of this site and those that run it N1120A

As an aside, discussing personal political tendencies is taboo in my line of work - it disrupts the mission. We follow the orders of any legal administration. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction - it seems that anyone who sees my occupation automatically assumes I am some kind of Republican drone, which is not the case for me (or for most GIs that I know). I'm not sure where this assumption comes from.

My sole concern is maintaining neutrality in the encyclopedia. The SCOTUS legal opinion has interesting implications, certainly - but it's not our job to comment on its specific application to Malkin's opinion's, unless so commented on by notable people in a reliable source. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased in favor of Malkin. Most notably, it completely omits any reference to the controversy over her ridiculous claim that John Kerry shot himself in order to get a Purple Heart in Vietnam. It also glosses over the controversy surround her book on Japanese internment and her shoddy research methods. The article also falsely labels Asians who are oppose her views as "liberals", when in fact there are many conservative Asian Americans who disagree with her as well. OneViewHere 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia bio is the place to describe a person through his or her actions, accomplishments, and views, and to cite reputable dissenting opinions to controversial views. The article mentions "In Defense of Internment" and cites referenced criticism of it. Wikipedia is not the place to cut someone to shreds (left OR right) in order to serve a political bent. Zubdub 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not "cutting someone to shreds" to make mention of the controversy surrounding her claims against John Kerry. There is already a "Controversies" section of the bio and that incident should be documented there. Also, to state that only "Liberal" Asians have issues with her is outright misleading, as many Asian Americans of all political leanings have issues with Malkin.OneViewHere 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not, as you put it, state that only liberal Asians have issues with her. The article states Malkin says she has been "attacked as an 'Aunt Thomasina and a sellout and a race traitor' by liberals of Asian background". If you have references where conservative Asians call her an Aunt Thomasina, a sellout, or a race traitor, then by all means present them. It should be obvious that there are plenty of people of all ethnicities that dislike her. No secret there. What is notable is the assertion that all Asians should possess certain political beliefs, and those that don't are "traitors". Now, it's possible that somewhere there are some non-Asians that consider her a "race traitor", but I doubt there are very many of them. "Race traitor" is a term generally reserved for members of one's own race. Zubdub 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

neutral editor opinion. I agree that his article has too much criticism trivia. It should be summarized but since Ms. Malkin seeks to be a piquant commentator, noting it in this article is appropriate.aharon42 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Geraldo becoming "unhinged"

People who edit a page on someone should know about their body of work... If people bothered to read her book titles, they would find Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild Discpad 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

People writing a neutral encyclopedia article about a subject should expect that people reading the article won't be experts on the subject, and shouldn't make cute plays on words that can easily be misunderstood. --Onorem♠Dil 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Denice Denton

User 141.150.206.25 (talk · contribs) recently added a sentence about Denice Denton, which now reads:

The Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz at the time of this controversy, Denice Denton, committed suicide soon after this controversy moved out of the headlines, reportedly due in part to the stress from her academic position.<ref>"Denton's apparent suicide shocks community", Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 25, 2006</ref>

I notice that neither our article on Denton nor the cited Santa Cruz Sentinel news item mention Malkin, so I've deleted the sentence as required by WP:BLP.

Does anyone have a Wikipedia:Reliable Source that connects Malkin directly to Denton's suicide? (A claim that strong would require a very strong source, preferably more than one. Stuff like "Noted commentator X suggested ..." won't do.) Cheers, CWC 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy started by Malkin + Suicide Related to Work Pressures + Verified and Reputable News Source = Legitimate Addition to Malkin's Page. Does the Santa Cruz Sentinel have to include Malkin's name in the article for the reference to be pertinent and important? No....why would you risk having your website crashed and your editorial page's personal information splashed across Malkin's page. It makes sense to include the reference, as Malkin's actions seem to be at least a proximate cause of Denton's suicide, and note the edit didn't say "Malkin caused her to kill herself." It simply stated that she committed suicide due to work pressures and part of that pressure came from Malkin's actions. Bluefield 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The connection you are making above from Malkin to Denton's suicide is original research (no published reliable source has made the connection from Malkin to Denton) and isn't neutral (it could clearly be disputed that Malkin had any involvement, proximate or otherwise, with Denton's suicide) ... which makes it inappropriate for inclusion. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Frost

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?em&ex=1192161600&en=434864696362576b&ei=5087%0A — goethean ॐ 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this has received enough attention to warrant a new section under controversies. Bbrown8370 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —comment restored by Guyzero (talk • contribs)

I agree with this... It would be important to keep up to date with this current situation. rmosler 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published" sources

Crockspot, I replaced the cite you deleted with a cite to the original CSPAN transcript. However, I suggest you look up the definition of "self-published" sources before you claim that a webpage that contains nothing but a transcript of a CSPAN interview is "self-published." YOU should know better than that. --EECEE 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• This blog certainly qualifies as a self-published source, being published by one guy, with no editorial oversight. The CSPAN transcript is fine, and I am glad you were able to find it. It doesn't matter if the guy is publishing a public domain copy of the US Constitution, we shouldn't be linking to his copy of it. It's a matter of verifiability and editorial oversight. - Crockspot 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crock. I saw and responded to your other post over at my talk page. As I said, I disagree with your take on what constitutes as "self-published" source, as I think the Wiki definition goes to the content itself. In addition, there are many, many examples throughout Wikipedia - including at articles you edit, I believe - where the only available link is to a secondary publishing of an original source, such as a newspaper article contained at a blog. However, as I was able to find the original C-SPAN transcript, I went ahead and linked to that. I do appreciate your vigilence on behalf of the Wiki community. --EECEE 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Original Research"

Crockspot, a review of the Wiki rules on original research (synth):

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

[11]

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

This article, like most other bios on Wiki, contains information that reflects in one way or another on the subject's own views. This is another example - MM says one thing in one published source, and says something that reflects on that point in another published source. It is not original research, it is not synthesis of published sources. --EECEE 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR, and you're right, wikipedia bios are chock full of it. For it to not be OR, there would need to be a reliable secondary source pointing out this discrepancy of statements, and the hypocrisy that is inherent. To juxtapose two sources and lay them out for readers to see "the hypocrisy" is the very essence of original research/synthesis of thought. It would take a lifetime to remove it all from wikipedia, but we have to start somewhere. Are you sure there is not an editorial by a notable reporter that points this out? Where did you twig on this info? I'm betting it came from a blog originally. If you can find a RS that makes the observation, then it isn't OR. If it came from a blog, it's non-notable, and OR on the part of the blogger. - Crockspot 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, what is giving me a problem, and making it OR, it where it appears in the article. This is under "viewpoints", but it isn't a viewpoint. Why is it there? It's there to advance a position, the position being that she is a hypocrite, because she was born to Filipinos who were legally in the country on a visa, but is opposed to automatic citizenship for babies born to illegals. It just isn't relevant to her position on the topic, and it's a misuse of Wikipedia to take a jab at her. Now if the information about her parents being on a visa was tacked on to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the intro, then it would be sourced background information, and would not be attempting lead the reader to any conclusion vis a vis her position on "anchor babies". In fact, I am going to make that so right now. - Crockspot 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After checking the source, I adjusted the wording a bit. It isn't clear whether, at the time of Malkin's birth, her father was still on a work visa, or already had his Green Card. So I just said that they were recent immigrants to the US at the time of her birth. It's really rather sad that the typical playing out of the American Dream ended up twisted into a counterpoint to her opposition of automatic citizenship for the children of illegals. An attempt at a cheap shot, but falls far short. Not a proud moment in wikipedia history. - Crockspot 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want in the intro, but I am returning the information about the circumstances of her birth in the "Viewpoints" section. Please quit arbitrarily removing stuff that you know people are discussing.

She was born the same year her parents arrived; it is physically impossible to get a green card in that short amount of time. In addition, her comment was specifically in response to what kind of visa her parents had. And in any case, it doesn't change the fact that she herself gained the automatic citizenship which she so strenuously objects to.

By the way, the term "immigrant" refers to persons who are living or working in the US on a green card, so I am going to change the intro to just say that her parents had recently arrived. --EECEE 09:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

People are discussing? Where? I was discussing, and there was silence. Or are you talking about some blog where you dragged this off of? I know you didn't come up with this yourself, because you almost never edit outside of Kerry-related articles, and are usually pretty well within policy. But if you want, I'll call an RfC, and let outsiders express their opinion. - Crockspot 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You and I have been discussing it.

I removed a critical remark I'd posted earlier because you went out of your way to explain things on my user talk page. It's always a good idea to  ::refrain from speculating on people's motives for posting. --EECEE 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you even read the JWR piece? She's talking about visitors who have no intention of staying, and who leave after their children are born. Her parents came here with the intention of becoming Americans, and did become Americans. Do you not see how sorry and sad the comparison you are advocating for is? It doesn't make the political position you are trying to make, and if it does, it is incorrect anyway. Also, your logical conclusions about whether it was possible to have a green card at a certain time is also an original research process. That's not what the source says, and the source actually says that they had green cards at some time, it just doesn't say when. You really need to read WP:OR very carefully. - Crockspot 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that and other pieces. Her objection overall is to the granting of automatic citizenship, and people on tourist visas are an extreme example. By the way, her reference to the term "anchor babies" had to do with people who were here illegally.

My comments about the time it takes to get green cards would be "conclusions" and maybe even OR if I had posted those comments at the article. I didn't. The fact is that you were proposing language based on some idea that her parents could have had green cards, which is a conclusion of your own and is in fact incorrect. --EECEE 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The source does not state how her parents were in the US (work visa, etc), other than that they were "recent immigrants." Is there a source that says work visa? Juxtaposing the situation around her birth next to her viewpoint of "anchor babies" is synthesis, we need find a source that makes this connection, we cannot make it on our own. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I undid your edits until they could be discussed here, per Wiki etiquette for controversial articles. First of all the Booknotes article does not say anything at all about her parents being "recent immigrants." In addition, the term "immigrant" denotes permanent residence via green card status or ultimate citizenship. That was not the case with her parents at the time she was born. The Booknotes source makes clear from her own telling that her parents were here on visas...there really is no other way to state it. The juxtaposition would only be synthesis if a third point were being made; it's not, hence the "although." --EECEE 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy.. OR should be removed from WP:BLP articles per BLP policy, but sorry for not joining the conversation before my revert (I did join immediately after tho! =) ... The booknotes article does not state specifically that her parents were in the US on a visa, green card, etc. It does specifically state that they were immigrants. Booknotes also does not mention anchor babies. As I stated, my view is that the created synthesis is derived from the juxtaposition of her birth situation (booknotes) and her view of anchor babies (jwr) == WP:SYN. We need a RS to make this connection -- I'm surprised one does not exist. --guyzero | talk 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for participating here. The Booknotes interview actually does say her parents were here on a visa; that is the question she was asked, and she responded. The fact that her father was sponsored by his employer is her elaboration on the circumstances. In addition, it is impossible to obtain a green card in the timeframe Malkin describes; that is not original research, that is not including an assumption that is not supported in any way by the source, ie, that her parents had green cards at the time of her birth, or even that they could be described as "immigrants" at that time. See my prior note on that - the term "immigrant" has a specific meaning, and only applies to permanent alien residents or naturalized citizens.

And also as I stated before, Malkin's reference to "anchor babies" had to do with children born to illegal immigrants, and I think it should be described and sourced as such. I don't think it appears in the Booknotes interview. --EECEE 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the point I have been trying to make. There is a position being advanced. It just isn't a stated position. It's an implied position. And the inference that I get is she is a hypocrite for opposing something that she benefited from. But it isn't even a correct implication, because her parents' situation is not the kind she refers to in the JWR article. She uses a specific example of a Saudi person. It is an extreme contortion to even compare the two situations, and to word it as "Even though she is blah blah blah, she opposes blah blah" is extremely POV. It is advancing an assumption that the two concepts are in conflict. The booknotes source also characterizes her father as being "sponsored" by an "employer", and that they did have green cards at some point, and I believe that they are now citizens. So obviously their intent was to become American from the start. Unlike the Saudi person who is her main example in the JWR piece. "Recent immigrants" seems like a fair characterization to use. I had intended to have an RfC on this question up by now, but I have been busy. - Crockspot 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Further: I'm also not sure we should be relying on the Booknotes source so strongly. This is a television interview with a source close to the subject (the subject herself, can't get any closer than that). There is not an editorial oversight or fact-checking process at work here. We are relying on her words directly without independent verification. - Crockspot 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted this thread to WP:BLPN#Michelle Malkin. - Crockspot 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Crock, I have no problem with saying something like "Malkin has stated that ..." etc. In addition, I would have no problem saying that she has been criticized for her remarks about the automatic granting of citizenship to babies born in the U.S. given her statement that her parents etc. etc. I think this information is important to a discussion of Malkin and her views and should be included in the article.

I also think there should be more sources included for her views on immigration in general. For instance, as I pointed out before, her comment about "anchor babies" was actually made in a differenct context and should be described and sourced that way. --EECEE 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Michele's Daily Vent

Unfortunately, as Michele has become more busy, her "Daily Vent" hasn't been happening for at least the past six months. I'd say now she might do it once a month. A few days ago, I noted that, only to have someone else undo my revision. I happen to like both the Hot Air site and MM, but the fact of the matter is that she no longer is doing Daily Vents. To pretend that she still is, just because you might like her, is inaccurate. Asc85 22:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, she's kinda cute at least. No argument there.204.130.0.8 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability (or: lack thereof)

Is this person really notable enough to warrant an article this extensive? Perhaps it'd be a good idea to cut it down to a more fitting size (or delete it). Bloggers are a dime a dozen and I don't really see why this one is worthy of inclusion in the almighty Wikipedia. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.190.7 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article and you can see she's more than just a blogger. Jauerback 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is MM is more than just a blogger, she's notable purely as a blogger, by hit-count and influence (especially if you count HotAir.com).

On the other hand, this article is too long, IMO. There's an entirely-understandable tendency to mention each fresh controversy as it happens, but we probably should remove or trim coverage of the more transient controversies. (Deciding which controversies are "more transient" is left as an exercise for this discussion page.) Many Wikipedia articles about controversial people have the same problem. CWC 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Malkin is notable in several respects, and an AfD would be a snowball keep. I do think that many articles of this type go into way too much detail documenting every little thing that could possibly make the subject look bad, or seem hypocritical. - Crockspot 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That she actually is so bad and hypocritical just might have something to do with it. -- 71.102.128.109 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Severe issues with this article

This article is nearly entirely referenced using her own website. Clear violation of Wikipedia rules in almost every way. The only other sources that appear in this article come from sources that are neither RS nor talk about her extensively. Out of the 62 sources on this article well over half are MichelleMalkin.com. This is completely absurd and this article either needs a complete rewrite or I'll simply start removing entire sections lacking any sort of proof. If you care about this article start fixing it because as it stands now it almost warrants deletion. JRWalko (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that MM is notable as a columnist, blogger and TV pundit, none of which generate much in the way of Reliable secondary sources. So we've tended to rely on MM herself as a primary source, which is legitimate up to a point. (This is a common problem with articles about bloggers.) Have we gone too far in using primary sources? I'm not sure, and I'd be interesting in other editors' thoughts on that issue.

Having said that, let me reiterate two points from the preceding section:

1. MM clearly meets Wikipedia's notability standards, so this article won't be deleted.
2. This article is too long. An encyclopedia article about someone like MM should summarize her career and viewpoints, instead of being a long list of controversies involving her. We should winnow out the less notable stuff. For instance, IMO her strong opposition to illegal immigration is notable, but her feud with Geraldo is not.

Cheers, CWC 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she is notable but there are assertions in this article which are essential to her viewpoints (like the immigration status of her family) that simply can't be confirmed by citing her blog. This article should not lend her credibility by citing her own blog, obviously that's asinine. Statements here talking about how she does this kind of investigating reporting or that are sourced from her blog...well, you know I could start a blog and call myself the best conservative blogger in the whole world, right? Criticism from actual sources should stay, praise from her blog should not. That's not because I dislike her, rather because that seems to be the balance of references on here. As suggested the article needs to be kept but shortened to reflect encyclopedic facts and not an advertising campaign. JRWalko (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is that MM is notable as a columnist, blogger and TV pundit, none of which generate much in the way of Reliable secondary sources. So we've tended to rely on MM herself as a primary source, which is legitimate up to a point."

That's your justification for using MM herself as primary source? Lack of sources? Awesome. I'd think you'd start looking for MORE sources then, not lowering the quality of the sources used.

I guess you could argue that MM is an "expert" on herself, but it also washes any objectivity out the window. It's called peer review in science, it's not called self-review. :P Basically, the same reason why judges are not allowed to judge their own trials....

My suggestion: Leave the article empty until you find reliable sources. If you want her birthdate, dont ask her, check public records or, wich might differ between nations, govermental organizations or other entities not being the person, or his/her immidiate family, in question.

213.141.89.53 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

if you give me a little time and guidance I would be happy to help come up with more sources using lexisnexis etc. But please assist me to format them and make them appropriate, because I am a newbie. Ill put them on the discussion page.aharon42 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Critiques of Malkin

What place do blog opinions of a person have on their Wikipedia bio? Would people object if I posted a blog entry of my own that was favorable to Malkin (not that I would...I realize it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.1.138 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But you seem to have no problem with references from her own blog? ʄ!•¿talk? 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Blog entries may only be used as references for the blog author's opinions, generally only in articles about the blogger. So it's fine to quote Malkin's blog in this article when referencing things she's written or thought. It's not appropriate to use her blog in other contexts, or to use other blogs in reference to her. See WP:SPS and the following WP:SELFPUB. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article uses her blog as a source for claims it makes about her -- that's totally wrong. At most her blog should be used to cite direct quotations of her words. -- 71.102.128.109 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A proper source, at last

Malkin's local newspaper has published a news article about her: "Right at home" by Jonathan Pitts. Finally, we have a fact-checked article about her to use as a source. But I'm too lazy busy at present, so I'm asking other editors to use it to improve this article. Cheers, CWC 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or not, "Page Not Found". ʄ!•¿talk? 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Sun only keeps articles on their website for two weeks, then makes them available for a fee via pqarchiver.com. That article about MM can be purchased here. It's still a good source ... and, as it happens, there's a copy on my hard disk. Cheers, CWC 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)'

Incorrect search

A search on "Hot Air" returns this article which is incorrect. Most likely an exploitation of wiki for personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.47.21 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? It redirects to the section about the website, Hot Air, run by the subject... --Onorem♠Dil 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a subsection on an article for an ambiguous website with respect to a physical phenomenon that others may want to find specific information about. At the very least this should be included as a disambiguation on "hot air" and given it's own article rather than being a stub of Michelle Malkin's article. The fact that the search on "Hot Air" returns an article to a person implies a personal attack at first glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.47.21 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hot Air used to be an article about the website. It was deleted after this AfD. There was no other current use for the page, so it was turned into a redirect. If you think that there should be a different article or disambiguation page at Hot Air, be bold. --Onorem♠Dil 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And "Hot Air" is Ms Malkin's own self-deprecating name for the website, not an attack on her. CWC 18:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

hot air website. which video

can you clarify. which video did they want to remove. Michelle's video expressing her criticism or the rap artist's video. And why is that a violation of the digital rights act?? can we add that? aharon42 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Accuses John Kerry of shooting himself on purpose...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Husband's scholarship

An odd edit, reverted here.[12] Apparently there is a bizarre smear going around the Internet that Ms. Malkin's husband is a Rhodes scholar and ghost-wrote all her books. Not sure what the two have to do with each other, but Internet smears don't always make sense. Well, the first half does seem to check out. He is a Rhodes scholar as best I could tell... I was wondering if this citable tidbit is worth including. All-in-all I think not. He's identified as a former RAND economist, which is probably a little more notable than a scholarship however prestigious. But if anyone thinks that adding the background is useful it's out there. Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The ghost-writing claim was readded without citation as part of this wider edit [13] by an unregistered user. I've removed it, leaving the other changes intact for now Ajhodd (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lot of clunky style and bad grammar in this article

There are several sentences here with needless words--nothing to do with a content dispute, just poor style. There are also some clear nits like references tags before periods instead of after, omitted definite articles, etc. Also, there are some places where the descriptors are needlessly vague. (Instead of saying that she is an author, say how many books she wrote. Instead of calling her Asian-American, designate her ethnicity specifically.) I will work on fixing this stuff. TCO (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the lede section and biography. Will do career next. Not sure that I will bother with the rest of the sections. TCO (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

new ratings

Am rating at C on journalism and bio sites. Needs more non-MM sources. Needs to have controversy and viewpoint sections reduced in size and made less essay like. Needs to have textual rewrite from career on down, to tighten style. TCO (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

"Malkin opposes the granting of automatic U.S. citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens, tourists, and temporary workers. Malkin discussed her position on these children, which she called "anchor babies" in a 2003 Jewish World Review column. The column ended, "Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only."

Perhaps there should be a few lines added to this mentioning that following her own rules, Malkin would have never recieved her citizenship and would instead be living in a third world nation right now (the philippines) instead of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.192.170 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. First describing all her positions is a waste of time. Second, this kind of veiled rebuttal/argumet is the kind of low level high school/college student crap that makes wiki less of an encylopedia and more of a DKOS college kid forum. TCO (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TCO, see WP:EQ. I find it pretty funny that this keeps coming up as an issue here. The blatant hypocrisy in this woman's opinion is obvious regarding "anchor babies" — she herself clearly was one. What's more it has been brought up many places, simply find a reference and cite it, and this information should be included in the article. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't fucking care if she is an achor baby or not. I'm calling your behavior silly and veiled argument, not encylopedia writing. Then write a separate external essay on this suibject. For one, you don't even know that her parents used her as an anchor baby or got citizenship at a normal rate. Do the research and write the essay external to Wikipedia. Right now, you are doing little high school crap. But then again, wiki is just a fucking message board anyhow. TCO (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess someone didn't take my advice about checking out WP:EQ... wow. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs pruning

Controversy sections skew the article and make it less encyclopedic.166.217.98.35 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a lot of cutting! Are you that was all necessary? Pundits thrive on controversy, so a focus on here controversies doesn't seem entirely out of place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, lets get rid of the Michelle Malkin template. It seems like promotion of her, and the few articles it links to should be put in to a "see also" section. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It was too long, and poorly written, even poorly organized before. Basically, there is a tendancy here on wikipedia to want to write rather negative (or praising) recapsulation of people's viewpoints by rather sophomoric...sophomores. We should really strive to a more EB type of attitude. The hit (or praise) jobs aren't even really that well written. I think extensive pruning is better. Extensive recapping (favorable or unfavorable) of pundit's viewpoints is not really that helpful, given that the writings of the pundits themselves are really the source and are easily accessed. And really the person writing the article is trying to push his POV in the most obvious way. TCO (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"The person writing the article..."? Are you unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works? You are the person writing this article. Please be sure that your POV isn't getting pushed either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the bulk of the material that was delete by the anon was sourced, and since the anon didn't discuss the edits first, I'm going to restore the material. When deleting sourced material greater care should be taken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusing Rachael Ray of supporting terrorism

I'm going to adding this to the article soon unless someone gives me a reason not to. From the source, "Rachael Ray drinks a Dunkin Donuts Cool Latte in a brief online ad. She is wearing a black-and-white fringed paisley scarf. Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin likens the scarf to the keffiyeh, a traditional Muslim headdress worn by some Palestinian extremists, calling Ray to task for promoting terrorism. Source can be found on page 7 of http://money.aol.com/special/ads-gone-bad. TheXenocide (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's already been added, but was deleted. I'm not sure why editors are removing so many sourced statements that clearly contribute to the article. I'll be undoing these. TheXenocide (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Stating that she is "promoting terrorism" for wearing an item of clothing is WP:POV, not to mention bizzare and ridiculous. I assure you, you will not be readding such statements. Also, it would be appropriate if you left edit summaries. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And the source you provided doesn't even state that she is either wearing a keffiyeh, or "promoting terrorism". ʄ!•¿talk? 11:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the above mentioned page 7 of http://money.aol.com/special/ads-gone-bad, looking for the promised sources. What I found there about the topic was a blog comment saying: "Ridiculous! That is what I have to say about the comment made about Rachel Rays scarf. Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin is your typical fear mongering over the Top IDIOT!!! She probably drinks that Horrible coffee Star Bucks has to offer.", and a description apparently by the Ads Gone Bad writers saying: "The complaint: Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin likens the scarf to the keffiyeh, a traditional Muslim headdress worn by some Palestinian extremists, calling Ray to task for promoting terrorism. What Malkin's comment actually said was: "Charles Johnson notes, and many readers have e-mailed about, Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachel Ray’s clueless sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology.@, which is a pretty silly remark but is not an accusation of supporting terrorism. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and Viewpoint sections

Do we really need so much discussion of the specifics of Malkin's views? Whether you like her views or hate them, it seems not really worthy to recap them, given that every single thing she writes tends to be combative (and I say that sorta liking her). These sections seem to have been written by a couple college students from either side. Let's have a tighter, more professional article. After all, Malkin's views are pretty well discussed in the descriptions of the books, in the lede and her website itself is linked to from here. TCO (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So let's remove the Controversy section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Since people are posting and removing controversial issues to suite their personal goals, let's remove the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdfkka (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, these "controversies" are easily connectible to Malkin's career, for example the "Dunkin' Donuts" controversy stemmed from a blog post of hers. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say the amount of selective editing and whitewashing of this wiki entry verges on vandalism. There is almost no indication of this persons contributions or editorial merit. I understand that American Conservationism has become increasingly unpopular, but this rather blatant attempt to not have one of the most notable and successful pundits of this ideology whitewashed into either a run of the mill blogger or retired journalist/editorial does her a great disservice. I agree this should not be a dumping ground for every unflattering thing that she has written or stated, but it also should not be used as an attempt to present her as moderate.

Material moved here from the article

In this edit, an anonymous editor added the following assertion to the article:

Malkin also supports the reinstitution of sodomy laws, arguing in an opinion piece for the Jerusalem Post that homosexuality leads directly to pedophilia, and there is almost no difference between the two.[14]

The cited article is a March 16, 2001 piece from Jewish World Review which I read as stating her opposition to lowering the age of consent, not as supporting the reinstitution of sodomy laws, and not as arguing that homosexuality leads directly to pedophilia. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The edit does not summarize the subject's statement accurately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Malkin posts regular video blogs"

In 2006, Malkin began daily video blogging. Last year, after she left the O'Reilly show, Malkin's video blogging essentially ceased. She has not produced a video blog since a one-off trip to Iraq in 2007. Virtually all original video content on her site was deleted, some was re-hosted on youtube. A visit to her site and to Youtube can confirm this. This fact was documented by a single blog and I noted this in the article, which was subsequently reverted by user Will Beback as "blog sourced assertation" which he asserts is a violation of Wikiprotocol. Therefore, the article as currently written implies that Malkin has a strong video presence on the internet, when the exact opposite is true. What is the best way to document this? FinFangFoom (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no source for her posting regular video blogs, so the simplest solution would be to remove the assertion entirely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she posts video blogs regularly with Pajamas TV. Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can mention that under "Career"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative"

The last few edits have alternated between two versions of the lede sentence:

1. Michelle Malkin (née Maglalang) is a conservative American commentator and blogger.
2. Michelle Malkin (née Maglalang) is an American commentator and blogger.

I strongly prefer the first version. (1) Her conservative views are one of the most distinctive things about her. (2) We need to link her to Conservatism in the United States because she is "conservative" in that particular sense, not in the traditional sense of the word. What do other editors think? CWC 15:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How are other bios about liberal and conservative folks handled? How do we "measure" her conservativeness and whether it warrants inclusion in the lede? I myself, prefer to keep ledes as "simple" as possible and then go into the "labeling" and fleshing out of such things further into the article. I know that the lead should stand on its own so....anyways, --Tom 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick test, I took a look at some noted liberal columnists and bloggers - for example, Arianna Huffington, Markos Moulitsas, and Maureen Dowd. None of those mentions their political orientation in the lead section. I think it's pretty adequately covered later in the article. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is a "policy"/guideline for this, a link for a quick refresher for all would be appreciated. --Tom 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out "strongly" above after seeing these comments. I think it's very important to say what kind of conservative she is, but that does not have to be in the lede.

Tom is right: a link to a guideline would be real handy (my excuse for not looking for it: I have to cook dinner now). Cheers, CWC 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What are we eating? :) I would probably start with WP:LEAD. I am sure there are more and probably more specific to this situation.--Tom 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gang, she's a conservative by every measure. Read her columns and her many books. At the very least you can say with certainty she is not a "liberal" because of she makes many references to liberals with whom she disagrees or finds distasteful. If one makes a living that way, odds are she is a conservative. Rush Limbaugh made a point one time about how conservatives are willing to embrace the word "conservative" while liberals in his view try to dodge it. Ms. Malkin is in the same universe as many others whose body of work consists largely of critiquing the media and the excesses of folks with one might call liberal views- this universe is made up of self-identified conservatives. Her columns appear on outlets like Human Events and such, and these are the titles organizing the columns: "Michelle Malkin: Conservative Articles" "HUMAN EVENTS Michelle Malkin : Conservative Columns and News from Townhall" Maybe Republican does not need to be in the lead, but Ms. Malkin is INDISPUTABLY a conservative. I'm going to put in conservative in the article, if you think it inappropriate please write on the talk page before removing- it is a FACT.

There's no doubt she's a conservative, this is covered thoroughly later in the article. The question debated above is whether this needs to be in the first sentence of the article. Kelly ^hi! 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, that's super dooper Kelly- she's a conservative, a conservative commentator, a conservative blogger, a conservative conservative conservative conservative...I think this is open and shut- it should be on there because her writings espouse more or less always espouse modern American conservative viewpoints. From the first sentence a browser will see generally speaking where she is coming from if the word is included

Read the arguments above - there's no need to identify it in the first sentence. And, per WP:BLP get some consensus here before including your edit in the article. Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a biggie but it's no BLP vio to say she's conservative (I'm assuming here but no doubt it's eminently sourceable), and I think it ought to be stated upfront in the lede so that anyone who just reads the first sentence gets the most succinct, relevant point about who she is, and that's being a conservative sort-of-journalist. As a case in point, the Santonio Holmes article says he "is an American football wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League", not that he's an American sportsman. Sometimes you gotta identify which team someone is catching the ball for.Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(having said that, I don't object to its removal) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

The best we can come with for a controversy on this lady is another editorialist saying she's the "Asian Ann Coulter"? Does that really rate inclusion as a "controvery" for her? In my mind, a controversy is something that she said that can specifically be challenged, not something said about her by someone who clearly doesn't like her. This would fit better on the other guy's page for calling her "Asian" when she can challenge that, in that she's not (personally) from Asia. Nolefan32 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try to include actual controversies. You will find quick undos and reverts. There seem to be certain IP's that are involved with it. Ninahexan (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Formatting lost: Needs fix

The section "Viewpoints" includes a reference to former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani as "Rudy-come-lately". This was formatted as a blockquote in the article version of Dec 29, 2008 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Malkin&oldid=260608709#Viewpoints -- but the formatting was apparently lost some time in the last few weeks. The reference is not currently indicated to be a quote, and in fact looks like vandalism (I had to check to see that it wasn't.)
I'm not interested enough in this article to straighten this out myself, but someone who is, should. Thanks.
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On President Obama "material"

I have removed the following twice today:

In February of 2009, Henrietta Hughes, a homeless woman, issued an emotional plea for help to President Obama in his town hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida.[41]

Afterwards, Michelle Malkin said in a story on her conservative Web site that if Hughes "had more time, she probably would have remembered to ask Obama to fill up her gas tank, too." She then added the following comment about President Obama: The soul-fixer dutifully asked her name, gave her a hug and ordered his staff to meet with her. Supporters cried, 'Amen!' and 'Yes!'.''

Is there really notable or worthy of inclusion in this bio? --Tom 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Detractors

May I put out a general plea not to heap on long quotes by her detractors, however famous? I've removed and condensed a couple of extended quotes by people that don't really elucidate who she is, they just complain about her. This is an article about Malkin, her career, her public persona, etc... not a place to say in their own words what every one of her critics has to say. Even covering every criticism that that blew up into a scandal would be a large task, something that would have to be carefully balanced and thought through with regard to WP:WEIGHT. She seems to be a truly controversial figure with a lot of run-ins with other controversial figures. If that's worth writing about, can't we find a good reliable source that describes her history of controversy rather than piecing together an incomplete mosaic one scandal at a time? And even that kind of neutral treatment should not overwhelm the article either. Wikidemon (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The above seems reasonable. I trimmed some non notable, unsourced, and blog related "material". The article could probably use some more attention. Can we try to only include "stuff" that has been widely reported by main stream media sources and discuss them here first? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference 1

Why does ref 1 link back to a wiki page for the Baltimore Sun as a reference to say Malkin's column appears on almost 200 newspapers and websites,I tried looking up the story the reference was probably referring to in the Baltimore Sun archives,but you need to pay to be able to look at their archives in full text.I found it a bit hard to believe that her column would appear in almost 100 newspapers ( just took half) because that's quite a lot of newspapers.If it was something along the line as lets say 150 websites and 50 newspapers I could believe it easier, as its not that hard to get on websites as it is to get in newspapers.And if it is something like 150 sites and 50 papers the article should be changed to reflect that.Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durga Dido (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops forgot to sign up there.I found the article the ref was suppose to link to on this website : http://origin-www.baltimoresun.com/news/specials/bal-malkin0309,1,1746466.story?page=1 Don't know if it can be used to fix ref 1, the site seems to be just a internet archive so i wouldn't see why not.

I still keep my question as to where the 200 number comes from and how it is divided between newspapers and websites. Durga Dido (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the cite. The number 200 comes from the Baltimore Sun article ("... writes a column picked up by 200 newspapers and Web sites each week"). The author of that article didn't say anything about how that number is divided between newspapers and websites. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this changes over time so I just changed it to "a number of".--Tom (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim regarding Malkin's citizenship

The article states:

... although Malkin herself would not be a US citizen were it not for the practice of birthright citizenship.

This passage -- if it belongs here at all -- needs to be rewritten. Malkin did in fact become an American citizen on 10/20/1970 because she was born in the United States, and there are plenty of citations to support this fact. However, the quoted sentence above says much more than that. It says that Malkin would not be a US citizen if it were not for this law. This is completely speculative, and clearly absurd. If the US did not have a law saying that all babies born in the USA are citizens, it would have some other law: for example, it might have a law saying that all babies born to legal immigrants are citizens (which would have made MM a citizen in 1970), or it might have a law allowing some people to obtain citizenship through a complex process, and MM might have gone through that process. In other words, none of us can say what the U.S. laws would be if birthright citizenship were not in the Constitution, and therefore this passage is absurd.

I can see two options: (1) This clause can be changed to "... although Malkin herself received her own citizenship due to having been born in the United States." (2) This clause can be omitted entirely, since this is in a section supposedly about Malkin's Viewpoints, and such a section should not include rebuttals to her viewpoints proposed by Wikipedia editors.

Comments? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Strike the clause, imo -- it seems to be there to make a WP:POINT. The phrase should go unless we find an RS that makes the exact claim contained in the phrase per WP:BLP. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say strike it as well. She is not arguing against the doctrine of birthright citizenship, only its application to those who are not legal immigrants or those who do not fit the classic definition of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. The column itself speaks against "blanket birthright citizenship." The original inclusion of the comment suggested her parents were on student visas. Her father, at least, was on a work visa. As such, the original inclusion was clearly false and placed to make cast a judgment rather than to elucidate the facts. This comment has no place in this section. Dolewhite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for making the fix! The price of a quality Wikipedia is eternal vigilance.... — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoints page

The Viewpoints section is a hodgepodge of random opinions she has given, mostly on subjects where she has no training, experience or expertise. It should be replaced by a brief summary of her political philosophy. She is noteable enough to have an article, and there is a common theme to her work--- but (like most political commentators) she is often asked to give opinions on things she knows nothing about. And, for better or worse, she has a habit of answering those questions. I am not sure what purpose is served by picking a few isolated examples of her answering questions she doesn't know the answer to. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't see why a "viewpoints" section is inappropriate in a bio of a famous opinion columnist and blogger --expressing viewpoints is essence of such a career.

As to your "hodgepodge" argument -- the definition of "hodgepodge" is "a mixture" or "jumble." You say that is a reason to strike the section. However, what you have done is to paste some of the viewpoints material into the middle of a chronological discussion about Michelle's employment history. It appears that you have created a hodgepodge, not corrected one.

I will also be restoring other properly sourced information that was deleted without notice, and will explain my reasons on this page.

I will not delete any of your recent additions to this article without prior notice on this page, as per the rules on controversial topics which are posted at the top of this discussion page.

W E Hill (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

W E Hill is entirely correct that a viewpoints section is appropriate - how can it be otherwise for a public figure whose primary claim to celebrity is that she publishes her viewpoints. Without at least having some reference to key opinions (properly attributed) anyone using Wikipedia for research purposes would be ill-served. 621PWC (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the Viewpoints section

The viewpoints information was pared from 351 words to 104 words, without prior discussion. I added it back at the end of the article, and I added organizing subsections in response to the criticism that the viewpoint section was a “hodgepodge”.

In response to the comment that Michelle’s view on unemployment benefits was just a spontaneous opinion given by habit “on things she knows nothing about” and an “isolated example of her answering questions she doesn’t know the answer to”:

1. she has 17 years experience as a journalist,

2. she made the comments at a discussion that included 2 or 3 other journalists as well as 2 economists,

3. these are not comments she disavowed as slips of the tongue or blurting- in fact, on her website, she linked to the comments so fans could listen to her articulate her opinions ,

and most importantly -

4. the comments are not a spontaneous opinion, or an isolated example - according to Malkin, she has “been blogging about” the issue of unemployment benefits “since last January, when the Bush administration embraced expanding the entitlement.” “Sunday morning on the Beltway rountable circuit” W E Hill (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)