Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Michelle Malkin (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 3 >>

Contents

Malkin's Hypocrisy

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


Blah, ridiculous hyperbole. She opposes illegal immigration, as do many Americans, including the "Minutemen". Painting them all as racists is baseless libel. --204.90.92.181 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Except that the first American settlers didn't exactly ask the Native Americans if it would be OK for them to take over their land, removing quite a bit of credibility of the "legal vs. illegal" immigration argument. So illegal immigration was fine then, but now that the immigrants are settled, it's not ok. That's not baseless libel. --Dave420 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think Michelle Malkin would've ended up a cleaning lady if she remained in the Philippines? --Rev Prez 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

America was built by illegal immigration - suddenly saying it's not OK is hypocrisy. --Dave420 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Except that there wasn't any such thing as illegal immigration back then. There was conquering and breaking of treaties, of course, which was what was mainly done. Be concrete and specific when you write and think.
And by the way, why is it hypocrisy to oppose illegal immigration because people in America's past have done it? Are they my ancestors? Not at all. If they were, is it still somehow hypocrisy? I think it's generally considered conventional wisdom that it's not necessarily hypocritical to oppose murder even if your ancestor was Hitler himself. Sins of the father do not pass down.Killua 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

MalkinWatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert explanation

Why was this sourced paragraph removed without explanation?

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

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

I removed it this time (it wasn't me the previous times) because, as written at least, it was quite poor (Was Malkin or her writing style criticized by Sullivan? Who is Andrew Sullivan? [you know what I mean] What does "the other side" mean? How does her writing style compare with Ann Coulter's? Is it really her writing style that is like Coulter's or more accurately her choice of subjects, revisionist tendencies, one-sidedness, mode of attacks, etc.?) --AStanhope 02:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What about the prior version, posted above. It seems clearer that the version that you removed. -Willmcw 03:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

After following the links to Sullivan's comments on Malkin, I'd say that more should be added, not less. He appears to be a major critic of hers. I'd say a quote may be appropriate. This may not be the best, but it is colorful and pointed:
One sentence; four cliche-ridden, playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult; it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points.
In any case, the material should be fixed, not deleted. -Willmcw 05:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Where we are now.post Wiki database crash

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

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

Conservative vs. Radical

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

If the edit was not in jest it would have helped if you had been explicit in your edit summary. Calling a signifcant change like that "copyediting" makes it look like an editor was trying to sneak in a potentially-controversial edit. I don't dispute the logic you present here, but if you want to make that change in the article I'd suggest you add a sentence of explanation. Certainly, "right-wing" and "conservative" are not necessarily synonyms, and it is possible that someone could be called a "right-wing radical". Obviously, having a source for such a label would be helpful. I suspect that others have called Malkin "radical," so if you want to you should be able to find a source. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. It was sloppy work on my part. For now, I'm satisfied with keeping the "conservative" label. Thanks for the feedback. --AStanhope 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Even a casual reading of her blog would conflict with this characterization. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 17:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
By all means, Dominick, you are welcome to point out Mrs. Malkin's inconsistencies and contradictions of her own points, but a less than casual reading of her writings, particularly those in "invasion" and "In Defense of Internment", will prove the truth of my assertions. Michelle may like to cozy up to those who despise the "MSM" and "libs" in order to earn her thirty pieces of silver and fifteen minutes of fame, but in truth, she is way outside the main stream of American political thought. ampermc 13:00 EST 2005-11-05
You evidently have not read her books , as you demonstrate little knowledge as to their contents and seem to be making wide inferences based on the titles. --CltFn 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The "Self-Hating Asian" Allegation

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

She can be a self-hating american, just like the rest of us. Gzuckier 19:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/124846.shtml

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

Maybe she just doesn't like long descriptive names. From what I've seen, she certainly doesn't appear to hate herself.Al Lowe 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
If an African American says "I'm not black, I'm American", then we would call this person self-hating. What's the difference here? Can we put the label "Twinkie" in the content? Bobbybuilder 21:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I highly doubt any Black American would say "I'm not Black." But I could see one saying "I'm not from Africa, I'm from America." I would not call that self-hate. What I find odd is our insistance on hyphenating our culture. The way it's turned in a fashion to be "Irish-American" or any other variety of "-American," even if you're several generations removed. Whatever happened to just being "American?"
well, of course you can just be "American", but you don't need to deny the other identity, especially when it's as obvious as skin tone. Besides, Malkin is just a second generation immigrant. Bobbybuilder 09:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
So, if she decides to call herself "American," that's self hate? I guess freedom of choice has it's down side.Al Lowe
You've missed the point. She denied her other identity, that's self hating. Bobbybuilder 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss the point. I don't understand the point. Al Lowe
You don't understand the point, that's called "you've missed the point". What if a Jewish American says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American"? It's basically the same thing. Are we talking about whether this person is American? no, we are talking about whether this person is Asian. So, if you need me to clarify, the POINT is "is it self-hating if an Asian person denies that she is asian". Bobbybuilder 22:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
If a "Jewish American" says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American." I'd suspect he's either converted to another religion, or become an athiest. It's definitely not the same thing. People who follow the Jewish religion typically refer to themselves as American Jews. That's mixing race and religion. Or in America, nationality and religion. Strictly speaking, there is no "American Race." We came from all over the world. I know an old Filipino gentleman who refuses the tag of "Asian-American," because of WWII. He has no problem with either "American," or "Filipino-American." But if you call him an "Asian-American," well, my best advice is to duck and run. Michelle Malkin was born in America, so she prefers to be called "American." Considering the number of "self-hating" Americans who have either moved out of this country (Robert Altman and Johnny Depp come to mind, I'm rather happy to see someone who LIKES to be called an "American" without all the hyphenated bull crap in front of it. But then I suppose I should be called self-hating because I don't put Irish and Cherokee, or that PC term "Native American" before just plain old "American."Al Lowe
I'll stop here, because firstly I feel like talking to a wall, and secondly, after reading more of her writings, I'm happy that she denies herself as Asian, 'cos for god sake, I don't want her to be Asian, and I doubt many Asians want to include this kind of people in their race. Here's a nice fable talking about this kind of people from Aesop, [[3]].So there you go, Al, she's all yours, just another typical American. Bobbybuilder 04:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree here too. She is anything but typical. IF she couldn't make up her mind if she was Asian, or American, Aesop's fable might have a point. It doesn't.Al Lowe
Mind you, that bat made up its mind it's a beast when beast is winning. Bobbybuilder 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It should have decided sooner. I have to apologize on this though. I have a stubborn streak that is at least a mile wide. And just don't know when to quit sometimes. Sorry.Al Lowe 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

MalkinWatch redux

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

Came here via the RFC. I don't think we should include this anonymous speculation that Malkin's husband helps out with her blog. If I get a Blogspot account, can I too level meaningless accusations against my favorite conservative columnists and get picked up by Wikipedia? It's stretching it to say that Malkin's use of the royal "we" is conclusive proof that there's another author. Maybe she's just pompous. Rhobite 21:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this allegation should not be included. Blogs are not sufficient sources. If it's true, it'll probably be exposed again in another publication. Until then it's just (juicy) gossip. -Willmcw 21:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Another RFC response: The specific allegation about her husband's role doesn't merit inclusion in the article. The blog, which seems to specialize in monitoring and commenting on Malkin's work, is worth including in the external links, though. (I'm not completely clear which of these questions is being debated.) JamesMLane
RFC response. Unsourced, even unjustified, accusations may belong in biography articles (with appropriate explanation) but only if they have had a significant impact on public perception of the subject. I hadn't heard this claim before and my searching indicates that it's a pretty small part of the public image of Michaell Malkin, hence it should not go in there. However, if it became a matter of controversy and started attracting attention outside of MalkinWatch then it should go in. Agree with JamesMLane that a link to MalkinWatch ought to be kept. David | Talk 21:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
RFC response. Blogs are not reliable sources of anything, since there is zero editorial control, and anyone can post whatever they want. Wikipedia should not use them as sources. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Maiden name

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

It's relevant because this is her biography. It is as relevant as her year of birth, place of birth, educaiton, etc. Yes, every person's name or names should be included in biographies of them. Why not? -Willmcw 23:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Some prominent married women have their maiden names in their articles, like Elizabeth Dole, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton. Others, like Lynne Cheney don't. I don't see any problem with the inclusion.--Rogerd 00:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Michelle Malkin's books are copywritten as/by Michelle Maglalang. --AStanhope 01:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That implies that Maglalang is still her legal name. Perhaps she never legally changed her name after her marriage. -Willmcw 01:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
That's the case: 'As for my legal name, I just never bothered to submit the bureaucratic paperwork required to change it. Simple as that.' [4] It only became an issue after she criticized Teresa Heinz for adding 'Kerry' to her name during the 2004 campaign. Holgate 10:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I included Malkin's maiden/birth name per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Eliot 14:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Asian American Stance

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

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

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

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

Filipino View

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

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

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

Another Filipino's View

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

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

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

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

A Half-Filipino Schoolmate's View

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

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

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

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

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

-Michael Amper

Thanks I agree. I am sorry you are not as proud of Mrs. Malkin's career. I think she has shown her intelligence and skill as a writer on her own terms, not just as a Filipina writer. As proof, the "over the top" nonsense would not be so prominent, if she was not so effective in persuading others to agree with her. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You can not like what the Japanese did in WWII, and still like Japanese people - the two are not the same. Harbouring hatred towards Japanese people is still hatred, and still racist. Racism does not make it OK to be racist. --Dave420 15:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

POV in lead

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

"Neoconservative" is barely pejorative, if at all, and is frequently applied to Malkin. While the placement of the term under "beliefs" is appropriate, it shouldn't be swept out of the article entirely. -Willmcw
It is considered pejorative in conservative circles. You don't see people self-identifing as neocon. Thats what I didn moved it to a different section. Dominick 10:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Air America Paragraph Removal

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

Michelle's blog occassionally contains original investigative reports, most notably the recent investigations into the financial activities of Air America Radio[5] and the involvement of some of its founders and on-air personalities, including Evan Montvel Cohen and Al Franken. She is frequently used as an example of the blurred line between bloggers and reporters, given such investigations and her widely distributed columns and appearances on multiple media outlets.

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

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

Ronnotel 17:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

No proper entry on Malkin is possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gulfstream Liberals

Malkin really should get credit for creating this term.

That presumes it's widely used. I don't see any evidence of that. Holgate 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
It only gets 50 unique hits in Google. [6] Therefore it hardly seems to be a notable term. -Willmcw 23:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Virginia-Pilot

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

USE Edit DESCRIPTIONS!

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

Removal of Mirecki paragraph

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

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

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

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

Image:Malkin.jpg has been listed for deletion

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


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

Short Film

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

Olbermann

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

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

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

I've rewritten that paragraph, moving the focus away from Oblbermann to Malkin and SAW, with the two best links I could find. I think/hope that everything I've written can be verified from those links (assuming the first email here is a death threat). Further edits welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks. -Will Beback 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
User:66.245.52.86 a link to http://media.michellemalkin.com/4-17Olbermann.wmv (thanks!) but that URL no longer works, so I've replaced it with a link to the transcript of that Olbermann show. I also incorporated Malkin's clarification about lack of contact from the 3 SAW students. And then I got ambitious and reformatted all the dates in the <ref>s. CWC(talk) 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan

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

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

Rm blogroll comment

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

Malkin vs SAW

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

It is just not notable please look at WP:NN, what other people say about her on a blog just is not encyclopediac. (period) Dominick (TALK) 16:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Chris Chittleborough for the effort, but I tend to agree with User:Dominick. The blogosphere is not considered to be a notable or reliable source. If the blogger were notable in their own right, such as Malkin herself, or Huffington, then their blog may be used as a source for their opinion. But I don't know that Crook is really notable at that level. Also, it would be POV to call a reference "racist" unless we have a source who does so. While I realize it is frustrating to be unable to use such obvious and relevant sources, a lack of coverage in the non-blog world may indicate that an incident if not as important as we think. -Will Beback 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That's reasonable. ("Not as important as we think": heh.) Sadly, this may become more important. See http://www.mcomike.com/michelle_malkin_at_it_again, where Crook lists Malkin's current and previous home address, current and previous cell-phone numbers, her father's work address and the name of one of her children, and also links to an image (a large .gif) containing aerial photos of Malkin's house and a map showing how to get there. One copy of this image is hosted at imageshack.us, and people (far right followers of Crook?) have published the URL of that image in comments at several blogs. Hence http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005029.htm (which Crook is now gloating about). BTW, it seems to me that this is an example of the racist right using shared opposition to Iraq to try to recruit among left-wingers — and not for the first time, either. Ugly. CWC(talk) 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Well, if it continues escalating we won't have any trouble finding sources covering it. -Will Beback 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As a parent it is troubling to say the least. More than a few wikipedians feel the same way. I don't like that if you are outrageous enough people talk. Dominick (TALK) 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Orignal Investigative Reports"?

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

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

Gratuitous use of racial slurs

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

"permanently relocate"?

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

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

Malkin on May 1st protests

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

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

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

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

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

Did SAW get anti-semitic abuse?

I've just changed

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

to

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

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

Anchor baby

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

Agreed.
She has clearly articulated her position. Her op-ed in Jewish World Review about the Yaser Esam Hamdi situation is a case in point.[9]:
"Clearly, the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Hamdi, tourists, and to countless "anchor babies" delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security. Originally intended to ensure the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves and their families after the Civil War, the citizenship clause has evolved into a magnet for alien lawbreakers and a shield for terrorist infiltrators and enemy combatants.
If the courts refuse to close the birthright citizenship loopholes, Congress must. Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only."
Her own self-written biography on her website indicated that her parents were here on a work visa - her father is a doctor. This is a straightforward situation: Malkin defines "anchor babies" to include the children of non-immigrants who are legally in the country. She was born here while her parents were in that situation. It is black and white. Pointing this out isn't an attempt to villify her - I don't think any editor here has any problems with "anchor babies." Given the context here, however, it is clearly "controversial" and merits inclusion in the article. --AStanhope 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you think about the neutral language in this possible future edit:

"Malkin is outspoken in opposition to the granting of automatic U.S. citizenship to babies born to tourists and temporary workers (so-called "anchor babies"), saying, "Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only."[1]

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

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

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

  • I think that's great and encourage you to make the changes. Perhaps the sentences "These views are in contrast to Malkin's own personal situation" could be tuned. Is "contrast" the right word here? Anyway - excellent work. You have my support for the edit(s) as such. --AStanhope 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback, AStanhope. I agree that the wording needs some tuning. I am unable to make any changes under the 3RR policy. Please make any changes you see fit. Dcflyer 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is in her biography then we shouldn't say it was discovered, which is sensationalistic. Instead, a better way of introducing the information would be to preface her view of anchor babies by simply stating her own status. For example, "Despite being born in the US to parents visiting on a work visa, Malkin is outspoken..." We need to keep the tone neutral rather than accusatory. This isn't an indictment. -Will Beback 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that was an excellent NPOV phrasing of the situation Nicely done! Lawyer2b 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Your example statement uses neutral language. Dcflyer 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think making this change would count against anybody's 3RR count for the day. It isn't a simple revision - it is something we reached together through consensus. This sort of editorial conflict resolution is precisely the ANTIDOTE to 3RR concerns. Any volunteers to make the changes? If not, any objections to my making the changes? --AStanhope 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections to you making the change. You probably can word it better than me.Dcflyer 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK - I've done it. There is a discrepancy between the citation of a footnote for the VDARE link vs. a straight external link for the Jewish World Review op-ed by Malkin. I would imagine that there is a style standard to which we should try to adhere, however I know not what that standard is. I am leaving it as-is in that respect for the moment. If any of you know what linking style we should be making use of here and wish to correct it, please do. Otherwise hopefully some dashing White Knight of an editor will come to our rescue sometime in the future. Excellent consensus building work here, fellow Wikipedians! --AStanhope 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Great job! --Dcflyer 00:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And I agree with the change that 132.241.246.111 made, as I was going to suggest that my original wording of "contrast to" should be changed to "conflict with" --Dcflyer 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the last edit, however, it looks like this dispute will continue, unfortunately.--Dcflyer 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevancy

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