Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 2

message: Maybe I'm just missing it but I can't find any reference to "anti-semetic calls" in the article history.  Can you point out when that was? Lawyer2b 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added back in May. I removed it a few hours later. My apologies for forgetting to sign my talk-page note about that. — An embarrassed CWC(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-semitic abuse of SAW

message: Having re-read WP:EL recently, I suspect that some of the anti-Malkin links should be deleted. (Remember that WP:EL is a style guide, not a WP:Policy.) See also #Links_removed above.
Here's the current list, numbered for reference:
#MalkinWatch, a blog devoted to insulting Malkin
#MichelleMalkinIsAnIdiot.com, another blog devoted to criticising Malkin
#A series of blog posts by professors Eric Muller and Greg Robinson critiquing In Defense of Internment
#Michelle Malkin: The Radical Right's Asian Pitbull, at a website for Asian Americans
#Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: Michelle Malkin, from a Center for American Progress website
#One of many claims by Malkin's more energetic detractors that she lies about the authorship of her blog and columns
#Is Michelle Malkin a Journalist? - left-wing journalist David Neiwert says no
My comments:
:1 and 2 are blogs, full of peurile insults and "unverified original research". They have to go.
:3 is from a blog, but by a notable academic (see the recently-created Eric Muller article) with substantive comment. It should stay.
:4 reports Malkins biography (in more detail than we do) as well as criticising her, and is now somewhat dated. It also carries advertising. I'm undecided about it.
:5 is anti-Malkin propaganda designed to destroy her reputation. It has to go.
:6 represents an unsubstantiated and defamatory claim which "LiberalAvenger" has been energetically promulgating for quite some time: that Michelle Malkin is just a front for Jesse. (Don't her Vents put the lie to this?) Keeping 6 makes it easier to keep this claim, which would be a clear violation of the WP:BLP policy, out of the article. I vote to keep 6.
:7 is another blog posting, but by someone who once worked with her. I vote to keep it.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with any of those links staying.  I do have a problem with how many of them stay.  Three or four is enough.  Six is unnecessary and imbalanced, especially when only three "pro-Malkin" sites are shown.  There are currently seven. Lawyer2b 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing #s 2 and 4.  --AStanhope 11:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed #1, at least for the time being. Its depicts Malkin as a uniformed Nazi (a stunningly stupid ploy), and makes damaging but unsubstantiated claims about her in almost every post. Anyone wanting to restore the link will need to make a convincing case for disregarding large slabs of WP:EL. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, an anon user has removed all of the "critical" sites a couple of times.  I have of course restored them.  I haven't been following this discussion here that closely, but my sense of the consensus is that there should be sites both pro- and anti-, and that there should be some small, roughly equal, number of each.  For what it's worth, I certainly think that is a good idea subject to WP:EL, but in any case I felt confident that the unilateral removal of all critical sites was not what the consensus here is.  -- Deville (Talk) 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy says:
*Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. [emphasis in original]
The original rationale for using the television image is that it depicts the subject. However a PD image has been found which also depicts the subject, so the original rationale is no longer operative.  -Will Beback 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know any better way to depict that Malkin is an FNC contributer than to place an image showing her contributing to FNC. Does fair use policy preclude having multiple images in the article, one free and one fair use? They depict different aspects of the subject, I don't see a problem with including them both. Well, except the group photo, maybe that should be cropped to just depict Malkin, I don't know that the other guy has anything to do with this article. --Dual Freq 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we want to minimize Fair Use material as much as possible. If the reason to have a photo is to show what the subject looks like, then the PD photo suffices. I can't see any other purpose for the TV picture. We already make it clear oin tue text that the subject appears on TV, so the photo does not add anything.  -Will Beback 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minimize, not eliminate. The group photo is an 8k, low quality image that is not adequate to identify Malkin on its own. Sure its better to use free images, but not low quality group photos. I tried to crop it, but the image of her head is only 89x98, barely big enough to use as an avatar on a web bulletin board let alone for identification of the subject of an article. --Dual Freq 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to include the Fox Image, especially at it's inordinately large size. Wikipedia is a promotional tool for neither Malkin nor Fox. It needs to go. · XP · 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for congressman Steve King, especially because of the image's inordinately small size and low quality. The original image better represents the subject, "free" image is a group image this article is not about congressman Steve King, what does he have to do with this article?  --Dual Freq 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a free image that featured the subject. Hence, it should be used. · XP · 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing to do with POV; its policy. I just haven't gotten to those yet; they're coming out as well. · XP · 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't about the Limbaugh page, it's about the Fair Use policy. The rationale for using the TV picture was to show what the suybject looks like, and we've found a PD photo that fills the same role. Therefore there is no longer a need to use the Fair Use image and so it must be removed. -Will Beback 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of :Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg is correct. As a totally free image it lets our project be used for the purposes it is intended, which a copyrighted image does not. The assertion of 'fair use' in this instance doesn't stand because there is an alternative free image available. The fact that there is a second person present does not change the fact that it is a free image and should continue to be used. --AlisonW 08:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image 

message: The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:
# it is a photo of a famous individual illustrating an example of the subjects participation Fox News Channel telecasts;
# it is of lower resolution than the original NTSC broadcast picture (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality);
# the photo is only being used for informational purposes.
# Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of the article and supports the accompanying material. --Dual Freq 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use in [[Michelle Malkin]]

message: Has been posted here, for a final policy based opinion from the community. Note that fair use never trumps our own policies, which are more restrictive than copyright law by design. · XP · 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of :Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg is correct. As a totally free image it lets our project be used for the purposes it is intended, which a copyrighted image does not. The assertion of 'fair use' in this instance doesn't stand because there is an alternative free image available. The fact that there is a second person present does not change the fact that it is a free image and should continue to be used. --AlisonW 08:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification

message: This web page has nothing to do with the Congressman and I don't see why a picture of him with the subject of this page is included. It should be a picture of her alone, unless the Congressman is somehow directly involved with the topics on this page, which he is not. 
Image:Congressman-malkin.jpg|thumb|250px|Malkin with Congressman Steve King—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 22:18, October 16, 2006
:I agree, but the answer is not to violate WP:3RR. You can help by contributing a free image of Michelle Malkin so we can dump this low resolution group image. --Dual Freq 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed picture of Malkin with Congressman 

message: Where's the reference to Malkin's parents being in America on a work visa? Ken Arromdee 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work visa 

message: The wording of certain phrases such as "Like many political bloggers, she has disabled comments on her blog because of a torrent of obscene (and, in her case, racist) comments.[4]" are uncessary and somewhat misleading if not biased towards Malkin.  As anyone who had ventured onto political blogs would know, there are all types of hostile comments, racist, sexist, even criminal existing on most political sites across the political spectrum.  Yet the so called "trolls" are few and between and are usually dealt by the active user community.  IMO most political bloggers allow and even encourage user participation.  In fact, the only prominent political blog I can think of which does not allow comments is Instapundit's blog.  
My next objection to this article would be the title of the section which includes Malkin critiques.  The term "anti-malkin" is antigonistic.  The fact that Eric Muller criticizes Malkin's thesis in her book hardly makes him "anti-malkin".  Why not term the section "Critiques"?  Wikipedia should not be a tool for a controversial figure and her fans to defend her ideals while painting those who criticize her as racists or trolls.
141.154.82.59 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary info and POV?