Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where we are now.post Wiki database crash 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Filipino View 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Half-Filipino Schoolmate's View 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Air America Paragraph Removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No proper entry on Malkin is possible 

message: 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)
replies: text: It only gets 50 unique hits in Google.  Therefore it hardly seems to be a notable term. -Willmcw 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulfstream Liberals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Virginia-Pilot 

message: Man! How hard it that!?! Dominick (TALK) 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USE Edit DESCRIPTIONS! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Mirecki paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Malkin.jpg]] has been listed for deletion 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Short Film 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's much better, thanks. -Will Beback 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Olbermann 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Andrew Sullivan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rm blogroll comment 

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

message: 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  and  , to start with. CWC(talk) 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orignal Investigative Reports"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gratuitous use of racial slurs 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah-hah. User:Stesichorus has posted one. Thanks. CWC(talk) 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "permanently relocate"? 

message: User  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)
thread_title:  Malkin on May 1st protests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fake 1992 Bikini Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geraldo becoming "unhinged" 

message: User  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."Denton's apparent suicide shocks community", Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 25, 2006
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Denice Denton]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think this has received enough attention to warrant a new section under controversies. Bbrown8370 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this... It would be important to keep up to date with this current situation. rmosler 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeme Frost 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Self-published" sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michele's Daily Vent 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Or not, "Page Not Found". ʄ!•¿talk? 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A proper source, at last 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect search 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hot air website. which video 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoM90bAsr1M  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuses John Kerry of shooting himself on purpose... 

message: An odd edit, reverted here.  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)
thread_title:  Husband's scholarship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lot of clunky style and bad grammar in this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new ratings 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Anchor Baby 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Needs pruning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Accusing Rachael Ray of supporting terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy and Viewpoint sections 

message: In this edit, an anonymous editor added the following assertion to the article:
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)
replies: text: I agree. The edit does not summarize the subject's statement accurately.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material moved here from the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Done.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, she posts video blogs regularly with Pajamas TV. Kelly hi! 15:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can mention that under "Career"?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Malkin posts regular video blogs" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've fixed this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting lost: Needs fix 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On President Obama "material" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Detractors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I am sure this changes over time so I just changed it to "a number of".--Tom (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 1 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for making the fix!  The price of a quality Wikipedia is eternal vigilance.... — Lawrence King (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim regarding Malkin's citizenship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restoring the Viewpoints section