Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 3

message: I added the following: to date there is no evidence of any campaign.  This keeps getting edited out.  In fact, though, I will say it again, in FACT, in NPOV FACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CAMPAIGN.  It is notable that a journalist like Malkin would make unsubstantiated claims.  It is also notable that searching on the net reveals no campaign.  There are no press releases from Google or YouTube or anyone else that there is such a campaign.  It is Malkin's statement that is not supportable.  It is NPOV to state that as of 2/1/2007 there is no substantiation for this claim.  If you google "malkin google campaign" the only cites you find are from conservative bloggers repeating Malkin's allegations.  AGAIN: THE ONLY CITATIONS ARE FROM BLOGS.  You people keep telling me we cannot cite blogs, but the only evidence on the net of any campaign is from conservative bloggers, and they provide no evidence at all.  No memos, no emails, no press releases.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR MALKIN's CLAIM.
I am going to add back in the statement that there is no evidence for Malkin's claim.  If you find that there is evidence for Malkin's unsubstantiated claim, please post it. 130.76.64.15 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Google Campaign 

message: People keep removing the following paragraph or variants thereof:
Conservatives working with Malkin have since quoted sources in Iraq as saying that Jamil Gholaiem Hussein denies being the AP's source, that the Iraqi official quoted by the AP denies saying Hussein existed, and that there is still no evidence of six people being burned alive.{ref}
"The latest on Jamil Hussein", Curt, 'Flopping Aces' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref}
"J-DAMN", Bob Owens, 'Confederate Yankee' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref}
"The Jamil Hussein Name Game — Iraqi General Weighs In", Bob Owens, Pajamas Media, 15 February 2007{/ref}
This text is deliberately terse, so I understand that people may not realize why it is important. You will have to read the MichelleMalkin.com archives for Jan & Feb 2007 to see its relevance. If pushed, I will expand it to show why it is relevant, but doing so would require multiple additional refs to MichelleMalkin.com and no-one wants that (... do they?). WP:NPOV requires us to give Malkin's side of the story at least in this article, and this stuff is important to it. Note also that these blogs are completely acceptable as Reliable Sources for the claims made here. Please do not remove this material again without first getting consensus here.
By the way, the Jamil Hussein controversy article needs lots of work. Many of the sourced statements are contradicted by their sources! It's on the "daunting" section of my "to-do" list, so I'd be very happy to see someone else start fixing it. (Please, please, oh please ...) CWC 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied bloggers

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

message: This picture of her is awful.  If I knew how to change it, I would.  Can someone please get a new one up? President David Palmer 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We struggled even to get that one. If you'd like a better one then you can help best by A) taking a better picture and donating it, B) asking the subject to donate a picture. We've already tried searching the Internet for a public domain picture, but there's always a chance one will appear. -Will Beback · † · 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Malkin resides in Maryland and some of the IP numbers represent Bel-Air, MD. She is a resident from the Washington D.C. area. She is a frequent contributer to HotAir, her personal website, YouTube, Myspace, and Wikipedia. LILVOKA 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone in Bel-Air isn't Michelle Malkin. I think. Never been there myself, so I may be wrong. Hornplease 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course everyone from Bel-Air is Malkin! ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I suspect MM would have neither the time nor the inclination to edit here but her husband would... CWC 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She actually strikes me as just the type of person who would concentrate on her own Wikipedia article.  I'd be on the lookout for her editing as well.--76.182.88.254 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malkin is a Wiki-user also 

message: Revision from 19:17, May 22, 2007.  I think someone might be an Andrew Sullivan fan: Malkin And 9/11 Theories. Jinxmchue 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malkin was a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' regarding Flight 93. (I never knew this) This must be included in all relevant articles. TheDeciderDecides 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. You obviously have not read her actual article and are simply going by what Andrew Sullivan claims the article says. Jinxmchue 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article. It's right here Just Wondering I never knew Malkin was part of the 9/11 moonbat brigade until now! This fact will not be suppressed. TheDeciderDecides 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source for recent revision by 69.113.141.210 

message: Exactly how does one person's personal quibble with the page justify the tag? Can I go and put that tag up on pages I personally disagree with, too? Jinxmchue 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't, especially when the quibbling editor appears mostly perturbed because he or she is being prevented from slanting this article in a way in violation of Biographies of Living Persons. Thanatosimii 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've removed the tag. Note that  has admitted to being a sock account. CWC 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: According to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims that Flight 93 was shot down "Some conspiracy theorists (including notable right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin[118]) who question the common account of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, have speculated that it was shot down by US fighter jets". Shouldn't that be in this article too? Nil Einne 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be adequately covered and cited in the article you linked to, Nil Einne.  Why duplicate it here?  In my opinion, we should strive to avoid duplication and redundancy, so in that regard, the section about Jamil Hussein could be reduced to one or two sentences and provide the link to the main article.  JordanSealy 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11th conspiray theorist? 

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

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

message: Somehow in the last round of editing the Michelle Malkin blog has been inadvertantly conflated with Hot Air, which actualy is a completely separate website. Malkin owns it, but exerts little apparent editorial control (e.g., one of her bloggers is an outspoken athiest), Also, her personal blog and Hot Air were founded at different points in time, so internet history is becoming less distinct. 
I can see placing Hot Air and MichelleMalkin.com in the same section if conciseness is desired, but the sites are quite dissimilar, and that section is less accurate now than it has been in the past.Scooge (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Blogs Are Distinct, and Dissimilar 

message: We are having an edit war about a section dealing with comments Malkin made about a series of gruesome murders in Knoxville, Tennessee, which some people claimed were racially motivated.  She evidently did make some divisive comments about the murders.  The cite was from a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group whose viewpoint is opposite to Malkin's but which is not in the habit of disseminating false facts or of misquoting people.  Are those who are taking this section out taking it out because they think Malkin was misquoted, or for some other reason?  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are an advocacy group though--right? Surely there's a better source, if these remarks got any coverage?Scooge (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'd characterize it as an edit war; I removed the material once, because the source did not support the material as it was written in this article; in fact, it didn't even come close. The source made an extremely brief reference to her, about half a sentence in passing, with no details at all. WP:BLP requires 100% accuracy and reliability in sourcing.Doc  Tropics 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Note: after rereading carefully, I did find that the article cited contains 2 - 3 sentences about Malkin, rather than just the single sentence I had found earlier. However, that same review showed that the cite is an editorial from an advocacy group. This is definitely not an acceptable source for "factual" information, only for opinions or essays about their own advocacy positions. I am going to remove the section again; please don't replace it without proper sourcing. Remember, BLPs are required to meet the very highest standards, and every single sentence, every single tidbit of info,  must be properly sourced. Doc  Tropics 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knoxville Murder section 

message: This is a new process for me so please give these old bones some grace. 
I can't help wondering why someone isn't insisting on getting quotes from insurance companies based on pooling all the federal employees with the 15-20 million qualified uninsured. This should provide a good base for coverage at a very reasonable price overall.
I have never seen an accounting of the total number of federal employees, their wages,and perks, especially in this case, the cost of their health care. 
Lets see an accounting of the total health care costs for those retired politicians and the totals of their retirement costs to the tax payer.
Why can politicians federal and state reserve parking places on public land? They should have to walk in bad weather like the rest of us; after all, we all own the land. Maybe it would be subtle way of pulling the red carpet out from under them. I know they are not all bad and this broad broom may sweep up the good with the bad but I think its worth considering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.192.123 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest in wikipedia, but unlike a forum or discussion group, our article's talkpages are to be used only for comments that will help improve the article. If you have any specific suggestions related to improving the Michelle Malkin article we'd be happy to hear them, but questions and comments like the ones above can't really be addressed here; sorry. Doc  Tropics 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health insurance 

message: This subject may well not escape the driving desire by some to paint her in an unfavorable light. But while we await higher level action to preserve a vestige of objectivity ... can we not remember the original NPOV spirit of Wikipedia? ChulaOne (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your recent two edits here and here remove the adjective "conservative" from several places. Calling her a conservative is not a WP:NPOV violation, calling Regnery a conservative publisher is not a WP:NPOV violation, and saying that she is aligned the GOP is not a WP:NPOV violation, any more than it would be to call President Obama a liberal. NPOV does not mean that we purge pages of all "points of view", but that we report on topics (including political alignment, the opinions of groups, criticisms, controversies, etc...) from a neutral point of view. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see above, Michael ... ChulaOne (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please feel free to assume that when I post a reply to a comment, I have read the comment to which I have replied. MichaelLNorth (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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

message: The section reads: "Malkin was born in Philadelphia to Rafaela, a schoolteacher, and Apolo, an aspiring doctor,[3] both Philippine citizens who had arrived in the U.S. earlier that year. At the time, her father was a physician-in-training with an employer-sponsored visa.[3][4] She grew up in the small southern New Jersey town of Absecon, where she was raised in the Catholic faith.[3] Malkin cited a formative event when she was in kindergarten: One day, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that, "everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[5] Malkin attended Holy Spirit Roman Catholic High School, where she edited the school newspaper and planned to become a concert pianist.[3] In 1988, Malkin enrolled at Oberlin College. She later described her alma mater as a "radically left-wing, liberal arts college".[3][6] While at Oberlin, she changed her major from music to English and began writing for an independent newspaper, the editor of which was her future husband, Jesse Malkin. In her first article for the paper, she attacked Oberlin's affirmative-action program and received a "hugely negative response" from her fellow students.[3]"
None of this history gives even the remotest clue as to why Michelle Malkin was either historically, or became, so profoundly right-wing. Taken together, these pieces of history fully seem to suggest that she would have actually become left-wing. 
I want to know if perhaps her mother Rafaela and father Apolo might have come from the Philippines fleeing the armed communist group there, or something similar. But that is the only thing I could think of that would have lead Malkin to have the views she has — and even that is a long reach, considering that if she'd been right-wing from a very young age due to her parents, the last place she would have wanted to go is Oberlin College. Basically, her history does not correlate with her views as each is presented here. The early history really needs to be fleshed out properly so that it connects. Does anyone have sources for that kind of bridging that they can dig up? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Kikodawgzzz is talking about. The early life history actually supports the opposite of what Kikodawgzzz said. I also agree with Scooge. 71.255.92.103 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this edit, I've made some changes and additions intended to point up her development as a conservative a bit, using sources already cited. Feel free to improve or revert. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  her early-history section 

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

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

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

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

message: I removed some poorly sourced nonsense from the article. --Tom (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this material is (per your edit summary) "poorly sourced non notable nonsense introduced by agenda driven bad faith POV editors".  While we should not editorialize about the possible hypocrisy of Malkin's views vs. her own origins, it is perfectly appropriate to include a comment of this sort.  I understand how you feel — and I've made it pretty clear how I feel — but hopefully we can get some other people to comment and try to reach a consensus.  Richwales (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote and comments are not POV, but factual. I don't think she is hypocritical. All people have no choice on where they are born and what laws apply to that birth in a country. If MM as a foreigner had a baby that became a USA citizen then she advocated that children born in the US to foreign born parent(s) not become USA citizens that would be hypocritical. I want to use the term ironic, but that is not the appropriate term to use to describe this situation. Kilowattradio (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... this edit removed text asserting that Malkin was "... born in the United States to alien parents who were legally, temporarily in the U.S. at the time" (italics added), citing this source, which says that she was "... born to Filipino immigrants ...". It looks to me as if the cited source does not support the removed assertion. Also, she was born to legal immigrants, and is described as having taken a position opposing citizenship for illegal immigrants. I don't see anything either hypocritical or ironic about that. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This point may be well taken, depending on exactly what her parents' US immigration status was at the time of her birth.  If her parents were lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) when she was born, then the suggestions of her positions being hypocritical may indeed be without merit — though a related suggestion that her immigration-reductionist stance would have prevented her own parents from coming to the US could be in order.  If, on the other hand, her parents were in the US in some temporary (albeit still legal) status — such as a student visa or non-immigrant work visa — then Malkin is arguably one of the very group of "children of . . . temporary workers" whose claim to jus soli citizenship she opposes.  I haven't been able to find anything definitive yet on her parents' exact status at the time of her birth; perhaps I (or someone else) can find a verifiable statement on this subject, which would be relevant to this article in either case.  I will say that I've found one source saying Malkin's parents had immigrated (presumably with "green cards", though this is not explicitly stated) to the US in the wake of liberalized immigration legislation from the mid-1960's, but this particular source appears to be a blog or other self-published source, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use here.  Other sources I've read that say her parents were "immigrants" or had "immigrated" didn't seem to be specific enough to be reliable; remember that many writers on "immigration" do not show a clear understanding of the difference between temporary residence in the US, permanent residence (a "green card"), and US citizenship, so you have to be very careful when evaluating material on this subject.   Richwales (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we stop using the term hypocritical since no one is arguing that since there isn't any regardless of her parents "status" at the time of her birth. I would call it more of an "oddity" ect. --Tom (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda driven nonsense 

message: I keep noticing that after almost every statement or book that Malkin has written, this article includes heavy criticism of those statements and books. Why can we not just report Malkin's views, and possibly any potential major altercations that Malkin herself has responded to? Her statements should be critiqued by Wiki's readers, not by the inclusion of the rantings of certain individuals that disagree with her every single time. Bladerunner100 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Malkin's books is a complete joke.  In describing her book about Japanese internment camps, the author of the entry seems to be writing his own book review by claiming that Malkin is minimizing the internment camp experience.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems to have an inordinate amount of her critics statements 

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

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

message: Michelle Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang. However, this site (and a lot I found on Google) says she was born Michelle Marie Maglalang, but this source (with legal court documents) claims she was born Michelle Perez Maglalang. At first, I thought it was one of the cases where the parent(s) give the child four names (ex. Michelle Perez Marie Malkin), but it appears that all the sources either say Marie or Perez. Anybody know for sure? That would be great for the article. Estheroliver (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say for sure, but it's worth noting that some people have two first names. Lisa Marie Presley's first name is "Lisa Marie", for example. It's possible that the subject's first name is "Michelle Marie" and that she never used the second half. Perez could be her mother's maiden name. The Philippines uses Spanish style naming conventions which are quite different from Anglo Saxon traditions.   Will Beback  talk   02:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, Perez ~IS~ her mother's maiden name. Yes, I have been told it is not uncommon for Filipino people (especially females) to have their mother's maiden names as their middle names. Whether her first name is Michelle or Michelle Marie or not, like you said, I don't know. It's inconclusive. Everybody calls her just Michelle. Estheroliver (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name = Marie or Perez? 

message: Why isn't there a separate wiki page for Hot Air (blog)?  I noticed that Huffington Post and Daily Kos have their own wiki pages.  Why shouldn't Hot Air? HopeChangeForever (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the wikipedia guide. But MM is no longer owner of or associated with Hot Air. It was sold to a company last year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure that's more reason to create its own page.  HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nevermind.  There is a separate site for Hot Air the blog, only it's Hot Air (news site).  I redirected the redirect from Hot Air (blog) to point to Hot Air (news site) instead of Michelle Malkin's page.  Hopefully that makes sense to people? HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot Air 

message: I have done some checking and verifying on the first part of this article, and it seems that it contains a bit of WP:OR and a few unsupported statements. Here is a comparison of one of the statements that is now in the text with what it says in the source followed by the change I will be making and the reasoning for it.
What the source said                                                                                                                                                                                                               	Current version                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	My revision                                                                                                                                                                                               	Comments
"She told the audience that once, in kindergarten, she came home crying because she was called a racist name. 'My mom wiped my tears...and told me everyone has prejudice,' she said. 'I am eternally grateful for this [lesson].'"	Malkin has spoken of a formative event: while she was in kindergarten, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that "Everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[9]	When Malkin was in kindergarten, she was called a racist name, and her mother comforted by telling her that "everyone has prejudice." Malkin has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that lesson.[9]	Current version contains WP:OR description and conclusion that the incident was "formative event" and OR assumption that the children were the ones who called her a racist name. Verbose and stilted phrasing: "for that counsel" which also changes the meaning somewhat. It is not actually not clear whether she meant the lesson she learned was from her mother's advice, from being called by an epithet, or from both events - but the Wikipedia text should not just pick one of these three meanings arbitrarily.
Obviously, I won't be doing a table like this for each change I might make, but this statement had several issues, so I decided to present them here in an easy to see format. I will be making a few more changes to a few sentences, and will explain them as best as I can in the edit summaries. --KeptSouth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, if everyone put that kind of effort into explaining a revision, there would be a lot fewer edit wars! Your changes represent an increase in accuracy and quality of writing so I support this new version. Thanks for such a singularly comprehensive explanation. Doc  Tropics 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one who doesn't understand the relevance of this story or even the "lesson" of either the incident or her mother's counsel?  What's the bottom line: Her mother once told her that everyone has prejudices?  And this is somehow significant?173.8.220.209 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly, it's significant because Malkin is one of the few commentators of Asian descent. Having grown up in predominantly white areas in America, she suffered excessive racism. I figured it was more of a personal story than an early childhood one. Estheroliver (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A formative event? 

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

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

message: The article currently says:
"At Oberlin, she began writing for an independent newspaper that was being started by Jesse Dylan Malkin, a Rhodes Scholar with established conservative leanings; the two eventually began dating"
This sentence makes it sound like Jesse either attended Oberlin on a Rhodes scholarship, or else, after graduating from Oberlin and completing his Rhodes scholarship, he returned to start a newspaper. At the time that Jesse was starting the newspaper, he was presumably, "a future Rhodes scholar", which still sounds awkward. I'm not sure how to rephrase the sentence to make the correct timeline clear. While the Rhodes scholarship is a significant honor, I'm not sure how relevant this detail of Jesse's biography is in an article on Michelle. I am removing mention of Jesse's Rhodes scholarship.Plantdrew (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may sound akward, but it passes WP:VER; therefore, the mentioned of Jesse being a Rhodes scholar, should be include somewhere. Removing the reference no longer establishes that Jesse is a student with conservative leanings, this can now be contested by a passing reader. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But Jesse was indeed a Rhodes Scholar. He just wasn't one when he was in college. Therefore, the question is not that he was or not. It's how to word it. As RCLC said, if we don't put that he is a RS, then the sentence would not make sense. Readding it with new wording. ★Dasani★ 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse's Rhodes scholarship 

message: (Dasani again.) I noticed in one edit summary you mentioned, "Nowhere in these sources does it say they moved from MD to CO." Well, "Malkin is a graduate of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. She lives with her husband in North Bethesda, MD." in the first article. It was quite a frenzy for some months on her blog that her kids had been followed and exploited in MD private schools and she had to move them to CO. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you possibly could have noticed this because I never wrote such an edit summary. Please stop making things up. This is the at least the third time you have made up quotes from me or said have I done something that I did not do. This is what my edit summary said, and the edit I made. diff and here is another edit summary of mine which completely contradicts the false assertion you are making. -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making things up. I'm sorry we're in such dispute over something so trivial. Oh, wow - you're pointing out that ONE cite does not say that. Well, I'm sorry, but a lot of lines are supported by more than just ONE citation. Besides that very small and unnecessary point, the fact of the matter remains: Malkin was indeed a resident of Maryland and was forced to remove to Colorado. Read her biographies. Google her. Read her blog. I'm sure it'd be easy to find another source if necessary. ★Dasani★ 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never disputed that Malkin once lived in N Bethesda MD and moved to CO Springs nor have I changed that text. diff The Personal life section of the preceding diff shows that I found that 2 of the cites did not support the statement, and I removed them -- but 2 other cites do support the statements and they remain. This should be non controversial. In your latest remarks, you indicate you might like to add new info that Malkin was forced to move to Colorado in Nov 2008 to protect her children. If you have a RS that says this, why not add the statement and the source? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: As a final consideration, we might want to remove a tiny bit of info on the kids particularly if they were indeed so continallly harassed that the family had to move 2000 miles away. With that in mind, here is the change I made -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelle and Jesse Malkin moved 

message: Name similarity - the supposed name similarity link at the top of the article doesn't match up with other such links on wikipedia. Google the phrase "similar name see" limited to wikipedia.org and you'll see actually similar names (differing in perhaps one vowel). I point this out because the link to a not-similarly-named person here smacks more of a snide joke than a genuine attempt to be helpful and encyclopaedic.
 Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. And state changes in an X to Y format. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 August 2012 

message: This discussion, started by Dasani while he or she was making reversions and changes to the Michelle Malkin article, has been moved from my talk page to here as it concerns article content and improvement only. I will be adding new remarks to the bottom concerning new edits and my attempts to resolve issues raised by Dasani. KeptSouth (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not say she was baptized a Roman Catholic. The source, while discussing her growing up years says, "Like most Filipinos her family was Roman Catholic, an affiliation Michelle retains to this day." It is as simple as that. It is simply your assumption that she was baptized, and unless you can find a source which mentions that she was baptized Roman Catholic, we should try a work around rather than adding unsourced, WP:OR. Rather than fragment this discussion over the article's talk page my talk page, I believe this content discussion should be done on the article's talk page, and diffs shoud be part of the discussion-to keep it on track.KeptSouth (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you ignored my explanation. I think it really is just best we say, "Malkin's family was RC" or something along those lines. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume from the context, that you are Dasani, and just did not sign in. The dispute was about whether the article should say she was baptized a Roman Catholic, but apparently you now agree that unsourced assumption should not be in the article. That is good.KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I have reverted the re-addition of source from youtube added here by Medeis. I had originally removed it as YouTube is not a reliable source; please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Youtube again regarding the use of videos from YouTube. It should not have been re-added per WP:BRD, and a discussion should have been started rather than re-adding it.
Additionally the wording did not appear to be neutral, thus not abiding by WP:NEU. Another concern is as this is a biography this article should not become a an attack page, and content should be presented neutrally and in a balanced manner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is that you called the source unreliable, which it was not.  The link you provided above has to do with copyright, not liability, so I have simply removed the live link to youtube. The interview itself still exists.  I agree with your attack page concern, indeed the article is horrible in that respect, every little section being a "let's throw mud at her and see what sticks".  I will support edits that go toward neutrality and due weight--but that's a separate matter from the technical one of sources. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube source 

message: In this edit, I fixed a dead link to the Historian's Committee for Fairness letter, supplying here this archiveurl. I didn't do anything further than that, but I thought that I would mention here some things which I noticed and/or wondered about.
*I've currently got connectivity problems which make it difficult for me to look into this very much, but I'm wondering whether this "Historian's Committee for Fairness"  ever did anything other than issue this one letter.
*I see that the supporting source cited is a web page from George Mason University's History News Network, and that it presents the letter as a "press release from historian Greg Robinson".
*Greg Robinson is one of the signers of the letter, and posted some additional remarks in this September 6, 2004 article on the HNN website.
* There's another related article also dated September 6, 2004 on the HNN website here. That article is by Eric Muller, another signer of the letter.
All of that is probably WP:UNDUE in this article, but I found it interesting and mention it here as background. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the content is undue weight in concern to the content, and the content is not a reliable source, than removal per WP:GRAPEVINE would be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Historians' Committee for Fairness" letter 

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

message: "Malkin cautioned that the book is not political, but focuses on historical storytelling."
* http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/10/conservative-firebrand-michelle-malkin-has-some-exciting-news/
Scheduled for release sometime in the summer or fall, the working title of Malkin’s new book is: “Who Built That: The Tinkerpreneurs Who Built Everything From the Bottle Cap to Bridges.”
— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her fifth book 

message: A separate Wikipedia article will be needed for Twitchy.com which is now part of Salem Broadcasting.
* http://michellemalkin.com/2013/12/10/two-big-announcements-book-deal-and-twitchy-com-deal/
Michelle Malkin writes, "Big announcement #2: I am extremely proud to announce the sale of Twitchy.com to Salem Communications." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitchy.com 

message: Reference to Malkin writing for a paper has been removed with the edit summary that the paper no longer exists.  Regardless of the fact that the claim is unreferenced, the fact that the paper may no longer be in print is of no relevance to the fact that she did write for it.  Additional information or qualification can be added, but facts about the past don't cease to exist just because time moves on. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I was involved in the removal, reinstatement, and subsequent edits re this. I did notice, however, that this tidbit appeared to be misleading as written re the print vs. online status of the publication during Malkin's association with it, and might not have had sufficient topical weight to justify its inclusion in the article. Please take a look at the St. Louis Globe-Democrat article before re-adding it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think your edit was appropriate to reflect the fact it went out of business, but had Chisme clarrified it was just a short-lived namesake I'd have supported removing it as undue weight, and so I have removed it. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Malkin's syndication

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.nowpublic.com/gee-let-us-just-enforce-287-g-really-maxine
*:Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: one of her minor books, and coverage in the article on her is sufficient  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild]] 

message: If information about VDARE being founded after the publishing of "Alien Nation" should it's designation by the SPLC as a hate group not also be included?
It's also been called controversial by more that The Huffington Post & Daily Kos which I provided & were removed.
The introductory sentence & any inclusion of "being based on the best selling book Alien Nation" is extensive and seems less necessary than hate group status.
I won't make any further edits until this is discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace In Mississippi (talk • contribs) 04:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about VDARE, nor should the section be an attack page on the website. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. And the information that you have linked to is already on the article about VDARE, no need to post it here as well, it already has a wikilink to that page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  VDARE 

message: What is wrong with this description:
VDARE is a right wing website and blog founded by anti-immigration activist and paleo-conservative author Peter Brimelow.http://www.vdare.com/about VDARE is considered controversial because of its alleged ties to white supremacist rhetoric and support of scientific racism and white nationalism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/michelle-malkins-white-su_b_20873.html?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1066432/-Michelle-Malkin-contributes-to-hate-site-VDAREhttp://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/VDAREhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/17/amazon-paypal-and-spotify-inadvertently-fund-white-supremacists-heres-how/ It has been designated as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace In Mississippi (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about VDARE, nor should the section be an attack page on the website. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. And the information that you have linked to is already on the article about VDARE, no need to post it here as well, it already has a wikilink to that page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: follow up

message: The sentence: 
--Her first article for the paper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1]
Does not have a first reference for "the paper" - what paper is it referring to? Checking the citation source, she wrote for the Oberlin College newspaper, and "her first article" was for that publication. 
So, the sentence could easily be changed to: 
--Her first article for the Oberlin College student newspaper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1] 
Or: 
--An article she wrote for the Oberlin College student newspaper heavily criticized Oberlin's affirmative action program and received a "hugely negative response" from other students on campus.[1]
Cheers from a retired newspaper editor ... 
74.132.121.211 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple fix for a bad sentence 

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

message: Does anyone know what her marks were like in college? Oberlin was one of the first colleges to admit African American students and it has an affirmative action admissions policy; was Michelle admitted under an affirmative action program?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oberlin admitted its first black student in 1844, not exactly in Malkin's timeline. Also, Malkin criticized Affirmative Action while she attended Oberlin, if you'd checked this article before you posted here. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Oberlin (relocated)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This quote in the current article, under the BOOKS section .....
"U.S. government's internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans in prison camps"
'''
.... is entirely incorrect.  It is factually WRONG.  It is a fraudulent misrepresentation of history.
Firstly, of the 112,000 (in the initial coastal evacuation), more than 40,000 were NOT U.S. citizens!  (That fact is easily established from a number of sources, especially original sources, such as the WRA's own STORY OF HUMAN CONSERVATION final report from 1946.  It is also recorded in the WRA Director Myer's memoirs from the 1970's.)
Secondly, the use of the phrase "prison camps" is misleading and inappropriate.  As Director Myer reports, anyone, in 1942, was free to leave and relocate himself in the other 44 states that were NOT part of the Western Defense Command (combat, exclusion) Zone, as many did, to other cities or to jobs or to colleges.
This kind of distortion and inaccuracy is NOT going to survive the "light of day" truth in honest history research.  Wikipedia would be foolish and ill-advised to allow the "concentration camp" "race agenda for dollars" to continue, because it is being exposed, more and more, across the land, despite the "politically-correct" propaganda effort at America-bashing, as currently expressed even in this article!  The lies won't last, because, no matter how much they'd like to, politicians CANNOT rewrite history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  3--- BOOKS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=40982
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724900
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022142806/http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/bushs-open-borders-nominees-2/ to http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/bushs-open-borders-nominees-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013191746/http://booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1705 to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328060105/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007095519/http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/politics_law/archives/jacl_malkin_response_0804.asp to http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/asian/politics_law/archives/jacl_malkin_response_0804.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505053513/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007446.htm to http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/007446.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723234737/http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php to https://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Malkin sparked debate in 2016 when she questioned the guilt of convicted serial  rapist Daniel Holtzclaw.  She wrote about the case, and said that she believes Holtzclaw is innocent based on no forensic evidence and other poor investigative techniques. Malkin released a film about Holtzclaw's innocence called "Daniel in the Den."  <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/01/exclusive_what_if_the_convicted_serial_rapist_cop_is_innocent_132483.html> <https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-show-on-convicted-okc-officer-held-in-enid/article_95e0b156-cd6d-5e8c-935d-cf7106cdc7f7.html> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmKVMklq6Wk> Bmj466 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018 

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

message: Should be something on the recent Nick Fuentes controversy in connection with Malkin... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be something about all the white nationalists she's defended and supported. This page is in desperate need of a Controversies section Dys (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The above "More info" comment appears to have no relevance in this talk page section. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: If Alex Jones was on the Megyn Kelly show, does that imply that Alex Jones is a disciple of Kelly or holds her political views? "Why Alex Jones has gone on Megyn Kelly (a neo-Liberal show)!"(PeacePeace (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuentes controversy

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006641.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This quote in the current article, under the BOOKS section .....
"U.S. government's internment of 112,000 Japanese Americans in prison camps"
'''
.... is entirely incorrect.  It is factually WRONG.  It is a fraudulent misrepresentation of history.
Firstly, of the 112,000 (in the initial coastal evacuation), more than 40,000 were NOT U.S. citizens!  (That fact is easily established from a number of sources, especially original sources, such as the WRA's own STORY OF HUMAN CONSERVATION final report from 1946.  It is also recorded in the WRA Director Myer's memoirs from the 1970's.)
Secondly, the use of the phrase "prison camps" is misleading and inappropriate.  As Director Myer reports, anyone, in 1942, was free to leave and relocate himself in the other 44 states that were NOT part of the Western Defense Command (combat, exclusion) Zone, as many did, to other cities or to jobs or to colleges.
This kind of distortion and inaccuracy is NOT going to survive the "light of day" truth in honest history research.  Wikipedia would be foolish and ill-advised to allow the "concentration camp" "race agenda for dollars" to continue, because it is being exposed, more and more, across the land, despite the "politically-correct" propaganda effort at America-bashing, as currently expressed even in this article!  The lies won't last, because, no matter how much they'd like to, politicians CANNOT rewrite history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  3--- BOOKS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=40982
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724900
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022142806/http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/bushs-open-borders-nominees-2/ to http://michellemalkin.com/2005/01/17/bushs-open-borders-nominees-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013191746/http://booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1705 to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328060105/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/173558-1/Michelle+Malkin.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Malkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007095519/http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/politics_law/archives/jacl_malkin_response_0804.asp to http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/asian/politics_law/archives/jacl_malkin_response_0804.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505053513/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007446.htm to http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/007446.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723234737/http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php to https://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Malkin sparked debate in 2016 when she questioned the guilt of convicted serial  rapist Daniel Holtzclaw.  She wrote about the case, and said that she believes Holtzclaw is innocent based on no forensic evidence and other poor investigative techniques. Malkin released a film about Holtzclaw's innocence called "Daniel in the Den."  <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/01/exclusive_what_if_the_convicted_serial_rapist_cop_is_innocent_132483.html> <https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-show-on-convicted-okc-officer-held-in-enid/article_95e0b156-cd6d-5e8c-935d-cf7106cdc7f7.html> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmKVMklq6Wk> Bmj466 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018 

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

message: Should be something on the recent Nick Fuentes controversy in connection with Malkin... AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be something about all the white nationalists she's defended and supported. This page is in desperate need of a Controversies section Dys (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The above "More info" comment appears to have no relevance in this talk page section. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: If Alex Jones was on the Megyn Kelly show, does that imply that Alex Jones is a disciple of Kelly or holds her political views? "Why Alex Jones has gone on Megyn Kelly (a neo-Liberal show)!"(PeacePeace (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuentes controversy

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

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