Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Michelle Malkin (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 3 >>

Contents

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)

I don't know if this fits in to the argument, but Malkin's parents probably were born when the Philippines was still a United States commonwealth. This article even states that Malkin's grandfather served under MacArthur in WWII. I think a lot of people forget that the U.S. used to "own" the Philippines.--Wambeter 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Jamil Hussein and the AP's 'Bogus Source'

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)

June 2007

Since there is a direct reference to one of Malkin's articles, it is appropriate to relate the facts presented within the article more precisely as they relate to the context of this section, which was her challenging the AP story. To leave it simply as "mosques still standing" is very misleading in the context. The user -Chris Chittleborough- might care to explain why he removed the clarification of the substance of her article. Nina137.111.47.182 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm trying to trim irrelevant details from the article. We want a useful encyclopedia article about MM, not a list of controversies MM has been involved in (which would be a looooong list ...), so I'm trying to keep stuff that does not tell readers something useful about MM out of the article.
AP told the world that ""militiamen burned and blew up four mosques". Not "attacked four mosques", not "damaged four mosques", not "set fire to four mosques" but "burned and blew up". "Blew up" always means "destroyed using explosives". "Burned" in a news story means "burned down"; otherwise journos use "set fire to" or similar. The AP report clearly conveyed, and clearly was meant to convey, that four mosques were destroyed. How many were actually destroyed? Zero — even the AP says so.
That the mosques were still standing is important. Whether they had lesser damage is irrelevant, but lots of people prefer to focus on that irrelevancy to avoid admitting that (1) the AP reported lies and (2) Malkin and friends have proven the AP reported lies.
In fact, the focus on the mosques is itself a distraction from the main point of the APs story: "that six Sunni civilians had been burned to death with kerosene" by terrorists/insurgents/freedom-fighters. How many were actually burned to death? Zero — even a New York Times reporter says so.
It's clear to any unbiased observer that the AP reported anti-Coalition propaganda as fact. Malkin and others have debunked these lies. AP corporate HQ then came up with a rather transparent cover-up; the reason it has not been shredded (yet?) is the most fascinating aspect of this whole sorry saga.
Long story short: What I removed was murkification, not clarification.
But thanks for provoking me to find more Reliable Sources that show the AP to be liars. Cheers, CWC 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What you have done to this section is not appropriate. If you can't be specific in your posts, then you should not be making these changes. You said that "AP told the world..." as if it was the AP's opinion, whereas the article specifically said that it was the police who asserted that the mosques were burned and blown up. The very next paragraph quotes the US military as saying that those assertions were not supported by fact. The context of Malkin's article, and this wikipedia section is the consideration of the AP as a source, and Malkin's criticism of it. You really need to read the original AP article again. In the spirit of brevity I have removed sources from partisan websites that provided no new evidence or insight into the value of AP as a reliable news source, which is the subject of this section as it relates to Michelle Malkin. Nina137.111.47.182 06:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this section constantly being reverted to a position that supports Malkin and criticises the associated press? Wikipedia is not a platform for individuals to voice their beliefs. Paul202.43.226.11 15:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a platform to report important things about people who are subjects of articles, including their beliefs.
To the limited extent Wikipedia tries to present a rounded view of Jamil "Hussein" controversy, it does so in the Jamil Hussein controversy article. This article is about Malkin, her writings, her videos and things she's done. Cheers, CWC 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously using it as a platform to further your beliefs, rather than reporting the facts of Malkin's beliefs. Why else would you remove parts of the AP's original report that lends no support to Malkin's claim that the AP is not a reputable source? The original AP article stated that they tried to confirm the Police's story and could not, so why is the AP still under fire here? The point of the section is that Malkin challenged the AP, and ended up apologising for it. Nina 137.111.47.182 03:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no.
I'm going to make several points here, all of them important.
(1) "Why else would [I] remove parts of the AP's original report". Uh, I think I've answered that already, and more than once: to keep this article from growing like Audrey Jr.. Malkin is a very vigorous controversialist (as I'm about to demonstrate!) so this article often needs pruning. That's a reason for removing text; whether any particular removal is correct should be discussed on this talk page.
(2) My beliefs about the AP differ greatly from Malkin's, both in general (I find KC Johnson's praise for AP at http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ persuasive) and about this particular incident.
(3) I want this article to summarize Malkin's beliefs and actions, which means it has to be judged against everything she's written about this. Here's a partial list of relevant posts from MichelleMalkin.com: "The media fog of war" (cited in our article),   "Burning Six update: The AP responds (to USA Today); Update: and now, a new AP account",   "Fake news vs. real news from Iraq",   "Burning Sunnis, burning mosques, burning questions",   "Rumors and reporting in Iraq",   "The alleged war atrocity that the NYTimes can't substantiate",   "Questioning a NYTimes reporter; challenging CBS News & ASNE",   "Free Jamil Hussein",   "AP: Still not off the hook. Plus: The Question",   "Eric Boehlert: Clown of the day",   "Eason Jordan is back",   "Looking for Jamil Hussein: Accepting Eason Jordan's invitation",   "What's so funny about going to Iraq? Plus: More questions for AP",   "Tracing 'Jamil Hussein's' footsteps and ignoring anti-blog hatred",   "The AP (non-)responds and another search comes up empty",   "Going to Iraq",   "Jamil Hussein development: 'Faces arrest?'",   "Corrections" (currently cited),   "Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name?",   "Jamil, We Hardly Knew Ye",   "Fact-checking the AP and Jamil Hussein",   and "The AP's non-correction correction". There are other relevant posts I didn't track down. I think the article currently conveys Malkin's anti-AP position clearly yet concisely. (Though I can see a case for adding "The AP's non-correction correction" as a cite.)
(4) Malkin's slam at the AP in the N Y Post came well after her (non-)apology, so it's not true that she "ended up" apologizing.
(5) Journalists are (or at least should be) taught how to shape the reaction to a story by structuring it, particularly by what they put in the lede paragraph. AP's 24-Nov story was guaranteed to produce stuff like this and this. Malkin, a former reporter, knows this; hence her strong reaction. Suppose the AP's coverage of the six-burned-alive lie had been "One Sunni source claims that six Sunni were burned alive, but military sources have not confirmed this." Then the false story would have gotten much less prominence. Journalists and their editors do not make those sort of choices by random chance, as every consumer of journalism needs to know.
(6) I've tried hard to keep my POV out of this article. I think I've succeeded; at least no-one has guessed it yet. Cheers, CWC 09:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Allied bloggers

People keep removing the following paragraph or variants thereof:

Conservatives working with Malkin have since quoted sources in Iraq as saying that Jamil Gholaiem Hussein denies being the AP's source, that the Iraqi official quoted by the AP denies saying Hussein existed, and that there is still no evidence of six people being burned alive.{ref} "The latest on Jamil Hussein", Curt, 'Flopping Aces' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref} "J-DAMN", Bob Owens, 'Confederate Yankee' blog, 11 January 2007{/ref}{ref} "The Jamil Hussein Name Game — Iraqi General Weighs In", Bob Owens, Pajamas Media, 15 February 2007{/ref}

This text is deliberately terse, so I understand that people may not realize why it is important. You will have to read the MichelleMalkin.com archives for Jan & Feb 2007 to see its relevance. If pushed, I will expand it to show why it is relevant, but doing so would require multiple additional refs to MichelleMalkin.com and no-one wants that (... do they?). WP:NPOV requires us to give Malkin's side of the story at least in this article, and this stuff is important to it. Note also that these blogs are completely acceptable as Reliable Sources for the claims made here. Please do not remove this material again without first getting consensus here.

By the way, the Jamil Hussein controversy article needs lots of work. Many of the sourced statements are contradicted by their sources! It's on the "daunting" section of my "to-do" list, so I'd be very happy to see someone else start fixing it. (Please, please, oh please ...) CWC 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Picture

This picture of her is awful. If I knew how to change it, I would. Can someone please get a new one up? President David Palmer 10:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We struggled even to get that one. If you'd like a better one then you can help best by A) taking a better picture and donating it, B) asking the subject to donate a picture. We've already tried searching the Internet for a public domain picture, but there's always a chance one will appear. -Will Beback · † · 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is a travesty

Troll warning This section of the discussion page contains trolling and untrustworthy statements. Before you post a reply, consider the effect your comments may have. When you do respond, remember that a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

What a joke. How many links are to her site? Is her husband editing this article? /TheDeciderDecides 07:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The links to her site are called references to back up items in the article, and are quite normal. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After checking from RfC, I'm inclined to consider User:TheDeciderDecides to be trolling. The reference links are certainly reasonable in explaining her views. As far as overall tone, I get the sense that it's slightly sympathetic in tone, but overall it's a fair article, IMO. Sxeptomaniac 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It could definitely use a criticism section though, to balance things up a bit. Gatoclass 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The size of the article exceeds the notability of the subject. There is clearly a use of Wikipedia for promotion here. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Malkin is one of the most notable, controversial and successful bloggers around. As an example of her acumen, Hot Air became a fixture in the conservative side of the political blogosphere in less than a year.
There is no "use of Wikipedia for promotion here". There are lots of Malkin-haters out there, and some of them vandalize the article or use it to attack her. She also has lots of fans, and they come here to defend her. All these incidents pile up, and the article keeps growing. (We should prune away some of the older stuff.)
Also, the article does contain criticism of Malkin (eg., "habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking") but it's spread out. Per user:Gatoclass, we could move it into a new section. I can see arguments both for and against that. What do other editors think?
Here's another question: Why is Malkin so unpopular on the left? Some conservative blogs display a banner saying "I support Michelle Malkin even though she is, in fact, a woman and a minority", which is an expression of the theory that many lefty bloggers can't stand seeing someone violating their ideas of group identity. That's only one theory, of course. I wonder if any Reliable Source has written about this hostility to Malkin? If so, we should definitely mention it in the article. Cheers, CWC 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Her kooky extreme far right stances like internment, her bombastic (Coulter want-to-be) style, her exaggerations and outright lies, her pandering to the Bush administration, the UCSC suicide, the allegations that her husband writes her blog under her pen name at times. Should I go on? TheDeciderDecides 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're lost. Democrat Underground is over here. Jinxmchue 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Malkin is fiercely hated by people from the left, the racist right and jihadists. (It was Michael Crook who spread Malkin's home address, phone numbers, etc during the SAW controversy. The "moonbat" left did a great job of protecting her privacy, with only a few exceptions.) I wonder which of them is using this page to spread silly lies about her? CWC 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Malkin herself printed the names and private info of some protestors she opposed on her blog. She is 'fiercely hated' by almost everyone except her fringe dwelling supporters. TheDeciderDecides 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin is a Wiki-user also

Malkin resides in Maryland and some of the IP numbers represent Bel-Air, MD. She is a resident from the Washington D.C. area. She is a frequent contributer to HotAir, her personal website, YouTube, Myspace, and Wikipedia. LILVOKA 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Bel-Air isn't Michelle Malkin. I think. Never been there myself, so I may be wrong. Hornplease 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course everyone from Bel-Air is Malkin! ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I suspect MM would have neither the time nor the inclination to edit here but her husband would... CWC 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
She actually strikes me as just the type of person who would concentrate on her own Wikipedia article. I'd be on the lookout for her editing as well.--76.182.88.254 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bel Air is twenty or so miles northeast of Baltimore, which in turn is about 30 miles northeast of Malkin's home in Bethesda so it's unlikely that Bel Air IPs are Malkin's. SHJohnson 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pruned and reorganized

I said above that "We should prune away some of the older stuff." Well, now I've gone and done it. In this edit, I took out lots of stuff that seems to me to be largely of historic interest only:

  1. Removed Malkin's reaction to Jessica Cutler ("How can anybody live on $25K/year?? ...").
  2. Trimmed paragraph about In Defense of Internment.
  3. Removed paragraph about "the spy Leandro Aragoncillo".
  4. Removed paragraph about "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome" because all sensible lots of people condemn the MSM for this.
  5. Removed paragraph about [Joshua Belile]] and "Hadji Girl".
  6. Removed paragraph about blog-feud with Andrew Sullivan because blog-feuds with Sullivan are now ubiquitous, if not universal ;-).
  7. Removed paragraph about Paul Mirecki.

I considered removing the paragraph about "Passenger Bill of Rights", but decided the bit about "quoting from a liberal blog that suggested her critics were quote mining" made it notable enough.

I also changed the formatting of the <ref>s to make them easier to edit.

Then I reorganized the article to avoid one-paragraph sections. I think it now "flows" better and is more readable. It's certainly shorter: 20,766 bytes of wikitext, 7 sections and 42 references compared to 24,603 bytes, 11 sections and 52 references in this version. (Also, I feel a little tired just now.)

Now lets discuss the mistakes I made during these edits. (I'm sure there is at least one.) What do people want to put back? Are there other parts that should be removed? Cheers, CWC 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 'negative reaction' should be changed to criticism and greatly expanded. Malkin's credbility was severly damaged over her Jamilgate, and Mosque claims, and there's nary a mention of it. Is this a Malkin fan page, or article? http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/michellemalkin http://mediamatters.org/columns/200701090003 TheDeciderDecides 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huuuuuh. The AP said that "Shi'ite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post". Malkin and others proved that in fact zero (0) people were burned alive, and also debunked other details of that AP report, notably that the info came from "police Capt. Jamil Hussein". Even the AP now admits that they do not have a source named Jamil Hussein. And Soros's people want us to believe that Malkin's credibility is "severly (sic) damaged"?
The really sad thing is that so many people who generally don't trust enormous multi-national profit-making corporations or their messages will decide to trust one in this case because they like what it tells them. CWC 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jamil Hussein exists (much more than the WMD's) much to the embarassment of Malkin and the other increasingly irrelevant warbloggers "In the end, the Jamil Hussein fiasco simply highlights the dramatic fall from grace warbloggers have suffered over the last 24 months. Following Memogate in late 2004, when warbloggers helped drive CBS' Dan Rather off the air for botching a report on Bush and his days with the Texas Air National Guard, warbloggers, basking in the glow of mainstream media acclaim, had a real chance to grow the right-wing blogosphere into something influential and politically important. Instead, today it's an outpost of misplaced arrogance." TheDeciderDecides 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible source for recent revision by 69.113.141.210

Revision from 19:17, May 22, 2007. I think someone might be an Andrew Sullivan fan: Malkin And 9/11 Theories. Jinxmchue 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Malkin was a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' regarding Flight 93. (I never knew this) This must be included in all relevant articles. TheDeciderDecides 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. You obviously have not read her actual article and are simply going by what Andrew Sullivan claims the article says. Jinxmchue 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I read the article. It's right here Just Wondering I never knew Malkin was part of the 9/11 moonbat brigade until now! This fact will not be suppressed. TheDeciderDecides 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

She's now counter-attacked (decisively, IMO).
(She quotes several paragraphs from this guy. I think he nailed it in a single sentence she didn't quote: "Not one of her best columns, but at the time one could be forgiven for not believing every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Norm Mineta, and calling for a more complete release of information ...") Cheers, CWC 16:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for clean-up

The main problems are that it's not a NPOV encyclopedic article about her, but written by supporters to present a highly skewed pro Malkin view, and as a vehicle to propogate Malkin's stances and POV on a wide range of issues in a non encyclopedic manner.

Here are the problems as I go through the article.

  1. 'Top 5 conservative blog' not supported in refs provided
  2. Notable investigation into Air Americas financial irregularities? What would make it notable is if RSes outside the right wing blogosphere and right wing press sourced her. Prove this and this unsupported claim might meet WP.
  3. The claim that the objections to 'In defense of internment' came only from Asian Americans is so far from the truth that it displays just how far the Malkin supporters here have gone to skew this article by discounting the wide ranging criticism to Malkin and her stances. Over the next few days I'll write a new paragraph on this book for review. In the meantime, I'll attempt to clean up the many WP violations from the MM supporters here. TheDeciderDecides 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


People reading only left-wing blogs (or racist-right websites) may have a very negative impression of Malkin, but those blogs are not allowed to be used as sources in this article. (We are allowed to use Malkin's blog as a source in this article. We can also use supportive blogs as sources but only for what those bloggers wrote or did.)
Responding to the three points:
  1. The first two "refs provided" rank MichelleMalkin.com as the #1 conservative blog in the world. (Alexa rankings are not authoritative.) Perhaps we should cite just http://truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php instead?
  2. We currently say that Malkin "highlights investigative reports from other sites, most notably an investigation into [Air America]". (That's not quite right: she was one of the investigators into that scandal, along with Brian Maloney.) Her work on "Air Enron" is notable amongst the investigations she has highlighted on her blog. (BTW, the scandal got MSM coverage after Malkin and Maloney published on it: [2], [3] . That makes it Notable.)
    OTOH, I think the next sentence needs lots of improvement: "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."
  3. We do not claim that "objections to 'In defense of internment' came only from Asian Americans" (they came from lots of people, even the racist right). We do link to a detailed critique by Eric Muller and Greg Robinson and the "Historians' Committee for Fairness".
Also, the article has already passed one review: see here and above. I see that TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs) did not wait for a response before requesting another review.
Furthermore, I am not a "Malkin supporter". My POV about Malkin is not at all encyclopedic, and AFAIK I've kept it out of Wikipedia. Cheers, CWC 15:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your claim "[left wing] blogs are not allowed to be used as sources in this article. (We are allowed to use Malkin's blog as a source in this article. We can also use supportive blogs as sources but only for what those bloggers wrote or did.)" If right wing blogs can be use for support of her, so can left wing blogs be used for criticism. There is much too much use of Malkins blog for 'argument' too. The purpose and goal of the article is to describe her stances and positions, not re-argue them here with extensive quotes and links to her original content thus presenting her side of any argument disproportionately. This article fails it purpose, and Wikipedia and its millions of readers, and fails them miserably. It is little more than a highly POV fawning fan page. Please give me some links to the 'racist right' crticism of Malkin you keep mentioning. TheDeciderDecides 20:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. Malkin's blog can be used, because the article is about her. (The subject of an article counts as a Reliable Source for that article, unless claiming to have invented the internet or similar.) Other blogs can be cited "only for what those bloggers said or did", which means neither support nor criticism. AFAICT, at present, the only cite from a blog other than Malkin's which expresses an opinion of her is Greg Sargent's post debunking the Cheney/Rumsfeld privacy scare,[4] which accuses her and others of "vitriol and bloodthirsty howling".
More important: the purpose of the article is to "[present] her side ... disproportionately" — that's a loose and overly-simplified but useful summary of one of Wikipedia's most important policies, WP:BLP. TheDeciderDecides, you need to study that policy very carefully. Cheers, CWC 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
While BLP is obviously very important in this case and in general blogs are not reliable sources, this doesn't mean we should be disproportionate. BLP and NPOV work together. That said, claims from random blogs are not acceptable sources. This doesn't seem like a hard case. JoshuaZ 02:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ is right. I was overstating things in an attempt to communicate to User:TheDeciderDecides, who has since been blocked indefinitely. CWC 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Exactly how does one person's personal quibble with the page justify the tag? Can I go and put that tag up on pages I personally disagree with, too? Jinxmchue 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, especially when the quibbling editor appears mostly perturbed because he or she is being prevented from slanting this article in a way in violation of Biographies of Living Persons. Thanatosimii 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've removed the tag. Note that TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has admitted to being a sock account. CWC 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dropped by The Virginian-Pilot

In my big trim edit (see above), I cut out the background to Bronwyn Lance Chester's "Asian Ann Coulter" quote. (BTW: I wrongly called her a former columnist because I didn't read her 'Fond Farewell' column properly. She left the Virginian-Pilot to become a syndicated columnist.) Here's what I was thinking:

  1. The validity of BLC's quote is not affected by the circumstances that inspired it.
  2. Regional papers frequently pick up and drop syndicated columns; this event was not notable except for E&P using it to attack Malkin.
  3. The cite for the comment carries the title "Virginia Paper Drops Columnist Malkin", so we're not hiding the fact that MM was dropped.
  4. Readers can always read the E&P story.
  5. There is absolutely no need to give any details about the Virginian-Pilot in this article.

I've removed the stuff I think is clearly irrelevant to this article. It now starts

A columnist at The Virginian-Pilot, Bronwyn Lance Chester, stated when the newspaper dropped Malkin's column that Malkin "habitually ..." ...

I'd like to change that paragraph to:

Columnist Bronwyn Lance Chester has stated that Malkin "habitually ..." ...

What do other editors think?

Cheers, CWC 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not ask the reader to find and check the cite to understand the context of a quote about her. There is also no reason to drop the date of this event. regards, --guyzero | talk 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the source states that Chester is an editorial writer, not a columnist. --guyzero | talk 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)I'm not sure why you insist on changing her job title?
Ah, there is a reason to drop the date: trying to keep the article from growing too big. Malkin is a vigorous controversialist, and an account of the disputes she's been involved in would (so to speak) fill an encyclopedia, so I say we should keep unnecessary details out of the article body in addition to skipping the less important incidents.
As I see it, that quote stands independently of the date or the circumstances that prompted it. No big deal, though.
Also, I thought "editorial writer", "op-ed writer" and "columnist" were synonyms. (Are you saying BLC was a Leader writer at the Pilot, Guyzero?) Again, no big deal: it's only a few words. (OTOH, to paraphrase John Paul Getty and Prince William Henry, a few words here, a few words there ... before you know it, you're talking another damned thick book, eh?.) Cheers, CWC 05:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough and thanks for the reply. With regards to Chester's title, I don't know if columnist is a synonym or not tbh. Since BLP also applies to Chester, I feel it is safest to use the same title ("editorial writer") that is used in the source. cheers, --guyzero | talk 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

contrast treatment of Malkin's contention w/ that of her critcs

Compare:

After Malkin's post, the three SAW contacts received abusive emails and phone calls, including death threats.[20]

to:

Malkin has stated that this forced her to remove one of her children from school and move her family.[23]

Do you see the bias? Compare this article's treatment of Malkin's critics' claim (by three unnamed "contacts" from a campus radical group), to the treatment of Malkin's claim. Malkin's critics' claim is taken at face value and reported as simple fact, but Malkin's claim is prefaced by "Malkin has stated that," which suggests that there is doubt about whether it is factual. Can we all agree that either "Malkin has stated that" should be deleted from the article, or else "SAW has stated that" should preface their allegation? NCdave 08:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, that whole paragraph could be rewritten better--I think it's funny that politely asked is in quotes--and some of the citations are a bit dodgy. Might be better for some of the citations to be replaced with the Sentinel article. As for bias, well anyone who has a strong opinion about MM's views either way should probably avoid editing her article (but we know that won't happen). I personally have no opinion on MM's views, or her critics' etc. Anyway, to avoid the perceived bias you mentioned, NCdave, consider rewriting the sentence to: In an e-mail to the Santa Cruz Sentinel [about the controversy], Malkin wrote: "I am now forced to remove one of my children from school and move my family." No bias, just quoting the third-party article precisely. (Note: I have no idea what kind of publication the Santa Cruz Sentinel is... an online newspaper or student newspaper?) And the same works for SAW's allegations as well. JordanSealy 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It was I who put "politely asked" in quotes. (I wanted to indicate that those were SAW's words, from here.) I'm sure we can find a better wording.
NCdave is right: we should be more even-handed.
JordanSealy's suggested rewrite is excellent. (The only reason I haven't put it in the article already is that I'm hoping for more great suggestions ...)
The Santa Cruz Sentinel is an old-fashioned newspaper (1856!) now owned by a new-fangled newspaper chain.
I think that big Malkin/SAW paragraph is overdue for some clean-up, but I don't want to tackle it myself. You two would do a great job. So, please, go for it!. Cheers, CWC 11:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, CWC, I wasn't making fun of "politely asked" but just thought it was funny. Having [now] read all of the source citations and more, I sceptical about anyone on either side of this controversy being particularly polite. Thus, funny to me. As for reworking this paragraph, I'll think of something. My gut feeling is that it could be easily summarized into three, maybe four sentences and doesn't need lengthy quotes about who said what. Just simple facts. Perhaps interestingly, it appears that one website other than MM's still has the full press release with the students' contact info up. It appears to be a progressive/alternative/arnarchy-type blog, but I'm assuming that based only on its blurb and the links to the right of the page. I really don't know anything about it. I don't know if they are MM friend or foe or impartial. But it does seem as if the contact info was definitely in the original press release.
So, in fairness, it appears that the simplest facts are: SAW held a demonstration and subsequently wrote a press release. MM posted their contact info from the press release. SAW received nasty e-mails, phone calls, threats, etc., and supporters retaliated by posting MM's contact info, home address, maps, et al. MM also receives nasty comments and threats. All out blog war ensues, readers and supporters on both sides acting very poorly. Sentinel article written with MM's e-mail comment about moving. That sound right? JordanSealy 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize. You're right, the irony is striking.
Your summary is right on, except for one rather small point, which probably doesn't matter. SAW made a tiny and natural mistake when putting a copy of their press release on their website: they forgot to take out the contact details (phone numbers, email addresses) for their 'press team'. A whole bunch of left-wing/Indymedia websites posted the whole press release too. Malkin got the info from SAW's website, IIRC, and posted it on her blog. Then things got ugly.
There's more details in Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 2, including me making myself look very, very stupid. Cheers, CWC 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at this entire article for a few hours now, not just the above-mentioned paragraph. I think what I'm about to suggest may initially anger many of you that have been tirelessly updating this wiki, and I apologize in advance. Before I say it, a little about my background in the hopes that you'll understand where I'm coming from. I used to be an editor for a fiction magazine--this doesn't make me any more or less qualified to edit wikis than anyone else, it just means I'm used to looking at things in a critical, unbiased fashion. Anyway, I'll just come out and say it:
I think most of the Controversies section could be cut or at least summarized without excessive detail (i.e., mention and cite the incidents that happened, but don't give a blow-by-blow account of each - if the readers want to know more detail, let them follow the citations). Most of the stuff listed isn't all that controversial. Some of it is just pointing out her mistakes in reporting, or what have you. For what's worth, before anything is edited or changed below are my exact thoughts on each paragraph in Controversies, and just give it some consideration. I also just want to say that this article could be vastly impoved if its layout conformed to the WikiProject Biography template. I don't think the article is helped by having a separate "controversies" heading. So, my thoughts as follows, and it's only opinion, so feel free to disagree, folks:
The first paragraph about the Virginian-Pilot is not controversial, doesn't really add much, and should be cut. The "Asian Ann Coulter" bit is interesting, however, and could be used elsewhere as a note about her style and presentation. For example, loosely, "MM has been called an Asian Ann Coulter by..."
The second paragraph about SAW and MM is controversial (i.e. reposting contact info, threats, etc., rinse and repeat) and should be summarized elsewhere as an notable event.
The third paragraph isn't controversial and should be cut. It's MM's opinion most likely based on what happened to her in April with SAW. If anything, it's her viewpoint about liberals' actions.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs with YouTube... okay, these have value, but they both seem to be missing anything particularly controversial. Forming a conservative YouTube isn't controversial. Complaining about YouTube's policies of deletion isn't controversial. These are just incidents that happened... and there will probably be more. These two sections could be worthy of expanded treatment as a viewpoint about fairness or something else. My own quick research shows MM has made a couple of videos complaining about YouTube, and being banned, and so on. (And damn, she's cute in some of those vids, too. Sorry.)
The sixth paragraph about Shabazz dances around a controversial subject, but in itself isn't anything more than two people throwing barbs at each other. I think it should be cut or summarized to a one-sentence blurb with citation, perhaps relating to her guest hosting the O'Reilly show.
The final paragraph. Well. Is posting hate mail received controversial? Lots of people do that. My suggestions is to tie in that bit with her web site stuff.
That's it really. No doubt that MM is a controversial figure for those who don't agree with her views or her books, or even maybe for those who do agree with her, but I don't think a whole section devoted to controversy benefits the article. I didn't know anything about her until I came here via the Random Article function, but I live in London and I don't think many know about her here... yet. Or maybe they do and I'm just not paying attention. JordanSealy 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not angry. Quite the contrary. I think JordanSealy is showing better judgment than I have. (A former editor? Welcome, welcome, welcome to Wikipedia!)
The argument for keeping the third paragraph is that the incident got lots of attention on US political blogs. Is that a good argument? I'm not sure.
I'd like to delete the "Controversies" section and cover that stuff in with the relevant reporting. I think articles work better with controversies mixed in with other stuff, not split off into their own section.
Similarily, having a "Viewpoints" section implies a comprehensive list of her views, which we're never going to have. Maybe we should have a section on Malkin and Immigration and put that anchor baby stuff there? Cheers, CWC 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, CWC. I was a fiction editor, not a biographical editor or a journo. Slightly different worlds; not sure if my experience counts for much. So, speaking of biographical ... have a look at Template:Biography. Can this article be "tweaked" to correspond with that template? I think so, and most of the hard work regarding sources has already been done. Some of the headings aren't applicable, but most are--and it's flexible too with the "expanded description" bits. I could be wrong, but if the article is written in a format such as bio template, it will be slightly less prone to vandalism and political/idealogical edits, etc. Also, if there's anything particularly controversial, making a new article to describe the controversy could be the way forward. You know, like the Jamil/AP/MM one. Let's give it a few days to simmer and consider. Perhaps we should make a new heading and discuss the possibility of changing the layout so that it's not lost in this long thread. JordanSealy 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the current organization is less than ideal. However, I haven't come up with any great ideas a better one yet. Best, CWC 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

September 11th conspiray theorist?

According to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims that Flight 93 was shot down "Some conspiracy theorists (including notable right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin[118]) who question the common account of United Airlines Flight 93 crashing as a result of an attempted cockpit invasion, have speculated that it was shot down by US fighter jets". Shouldn't that be in this article too? Nil Einne 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be adequately covered and cited in the article you linked to, Nil Einne. Why duplicate it here? In my opinion, we should strive to avoid duplication and redundancy, so in that regard, the section about Jamil Hussein could be reduced to one or two sentences and provide the link to the main article. JordanSealy 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Shouldn't that be in this article too?" No, because it is false.

Zubdub 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)