Talk:Michelle Malkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Archive
Archives
  1. June 2006 & prior
  2. July 2006 - Jan 2007

Contents

Feel free to add new comments below.

[edit] Anchor babies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Alleged Google Campaign

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

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

[edit] Jamil Hussein and the AP's Bogus Source that really did exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] AP Rebuttal

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichelle_Malkin_47c5.html"