Talk:Michelle Malkin

Rivera remarks

An editor remover the remarks by Rivera as a BLP issue. I reverted them then had some connectivity issues. As a result, there revert of my revert was undone by me by accident. I have revert this mistake, pending discussion. Rivera said nasty things about Malkin, as is well sourced. For purposes of this discussion, we will avoid his specific words and say he said "Malkin is ZZZ". The article, prior to the claimed BLP removal did not say that Malkin is ZZZ (sourced to a Rivera quote in a reliable source). That would be a BLP issue as Rivera is not a reliable source. Prior to the removal, the article said that Rivera said that Malkin is ZZZ. Actually, it was more careful still, quoting him.

The contentious information here is not whether or not Malkin is ZZZ. The contentious information is whether Rivera said it. It is clearly sourced. The source is reliable. The wording we have used is NPOV (though Rivera's, clearly, was not).

The only remaining issue is weight, not cited as a concern by the removing editor. Normally, A says something about B, it's no big deal. Lots of people say lots of things about other people. However, this is part of a larger story. Malkin had been a regular guest host of The O'Reilly Factor, untill she disliked how Fox News handled a dispute over these comments. Without the quote, the article says Rivera said derogatory things about her and the reader's imagination is asked to fill in the blanks. There is no dispute that I can find about whether or not he said these things or context. He said them. Whether or not Malkin is ZZZ is not the issue. Whether or not Rivera said them is. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to say that Rivera would spit on Malkin, nor do we need a lengthy quote. Maybe something like, "Malkin has been criticized harshly by Rivera due to her stance on immigration, and particularly what he says is her wish that people should report their neighbors".   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the remarks are properly sourced to Rivera there is no BLP issue; it's not a problem to quote a disparaging remark as long as it's done accurately and with proper attribution. For exactly that reason it's better to use the quote itself rather than try to paraphrase it, interpret it, or reword it. Of course we can still ask whether or not the quotation adds useful content, but Rivera's high-profile status as journalist and commentator seems to give it weight. Doc Tropics 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's better to quote Rivera rather than to summarize his view? We can source all kinds of things that we don't quote verbatim.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, by the same token, why paraphrase when we can quote the source directly? Expressing the idea that "...Rivera wishes she'd be nicer..." isn't really the same as "I'd spit on her if I saw her!" is it? Doc Tropics 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By paraphrasing or summarizing we risk creating an actual BLP problem. Any summary you might wish to offer will, in someone's view, exaggerate or understate Rivera's meaning. Overstate it and we've disparaged Rivera. Understate it and we make Malkin look like a crybaby. Quote it and it is what it is. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've boldly reinserted the quote, but in a footnote rather than in the body of the article. Feel free to change this if some other consensus emerges on what should be done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'm the person who removed the quote. I say it is a BLP violation, and that the difficulty of summarizing it without violating BLP proves my point. The BLP violation is not quoting the statement but failing to put it into context, thereby violating the "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" part of Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise.

For example: Is Geraldo correct in claiming that Malkin says "that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors"?. If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so. (Also, if Malkin is "the most vile, hateful commentator" he has ever met, then he must have an astoundingly narrow circle of acquaintance. I think the spirit, if not the letter, of BLP requires either noting the hyperbolic nature of such a statement or omitting it entirely.)

My main concern, however, is that this is far from the only deranged statement about Malkin. Lots of WikiNotable people have said or written astonishingly silly things about her, some worse than Geraldo. If we quote him, why not the others? How do we avoid having an enormous article quoting dozens of nasty attacks on Malkin? I strongly suggest a policy of linking to these attacks wherever possible, instead of quoting them.

(BTW, as the archives of this page will show, one of my major concerns with this article is keeping it to a reasonable size. Reporting even a fraction of the incidents involving a controversy-happy pundit like MM would require a long, choppy and rather tedious article. Congratulations to those editors who have kept the article short and tight over the last few years.) Cheers, CWC 06:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot to comment on here, but I'll try to keep it brief. First, please note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and exercise caution in your own remarks about living people here. (You may wish to redact some of the above.)

The point in question hovers around your claim that "If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so." This is simply not true. We are not reporting that Malkin is ZZZ, we are reporting tht River said Malkin is ZZZ. This is not a BLP issue. How do we know what Rivera meant? We don't. If we quote it, we don't need to know what he meant, only what he said. Why include it? Because it is the reason Malkin gives for leaving the show. If we don't include it in some way, we are left with giving Malkin's side of the story without Rivera's or using some overly vague explanation. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As SummerPhD and I have explained, this is not a BLP issue and the concept that "If he's wrong, BLP requires us to say so" is a misunderstanding of the policy. As Summer has further explained, this particular quote is important because of the context and the events surrounding it. This was not a random statement by John Doe on the street; Rivera's remark led to Malken making a life-changing decision (to quit her job) and is clearly significant to her biography. We don't need to record every comment that has ever been made about her, but sometimes details matter, and this is one of those cases; the article is stronger and more complete with the quote than without it. Doc Tropics 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in this case. Furthermore, if someone has been described in various negative ways by notable people how does that make it less appropriate to include ANY negative comments people have made about them? I would think a "media-personality" invites such appraisal.Ninahexan (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if River said that, we'd take it seriously, because she's psychic ... </firefly joke>

No one has "explained" why this is not a BLP issue, merely asserted that it is not. But it clearly violates the BLP policy, as I demonstrated above.

Here's a thought experiment: suppose I find a quote in which a notable psychologist says that Mr O— has a pathological fear of women. (This situation is not as hypothetical as Mr O—'s many fans would wish.) Would it be OK to add that quote to our article about Mr O—? Would our BLP rules allow us to include that quote with no qualification whatsoever? Does anyone still want to argue we can quote a incredibly-exaggerated attack without mentioning that it is inaccurate?

Some more points:

• My words above are carefully chosen, as are the words below. Please read carefully. If you read more into them than they actually say, it's you who has a problem, not me.
• Malkin did not quit "her job". The incident was not "life-changing", nor "significant" to her biography. She's a very successful writer, blogger and web entrepeneur, who formerly appeared regularly on TV.
• "If someone has been described in various ways by notable people", we can and should note the frequent criticism (using a RS of course), not privilege the incidents we like the most. That goes double when we are motivated by dislike/fear/hatred of the subject.
• We can easily report the incident without using the quote.
• I'm sure the many Malkin-haters out there would want the article to include the quote. They might even claim the it is "stronger and more complete" with the quote. But that's totally irrelevant: Wikipedia's bandwith → Wikipedia's rules → the quote must go. CWC 17:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a "thought experiment": Let's suppose someone claimed a political figure is a space alien, terrorist, not eligible for the office they hold, a traitor, etc. Is reporting that a notable source made this claim a BLP issue? David Icke asserts specific living people are reptilian humanoids who control the world. We would not say any of them are reptilian humanoids without heavy sourcing, but the fact that Icke makes these claims is very well sourced. (If it weren't, saying he made the claim would be a BLP problem.) Numerous notable people have made numerous disparaging claims about Barack Obama. That notable individuals have made these claims is not a BLP concern. We will not, of course, make the disparaging claims about Obama without heavy sourcing. (cf. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CWC, your frequent references to "Malkin haters" in relation to my comments seem largely paranoid and even offensive given the fact that I have no opinion at all about her, neither as a journalist nor as a person. I have no interest in the topics that she writes about (which seem to be mostly U.S. politics and related social issues...not my cup of tea); I've just seen that this article is a frequent target for all kinds of partisan nonsense from both sides, so I tend to watch it closely in an effort to minimize the damage. Your misconceptions regarding our BLP policy have hopefully been cleared up at this point by the several explanations above. Doc Tropics 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Numbered paragraphs for ease of reference)

1. I do not claim that anyone here is a hater. I was just trying to provoke people to think about Malkin-hatred and how to keep its subtler forms out of the article. (More here.)
2. Talking about provoking people: take a look at what MM wrote about Geraldo on 2007-07-16 and on 2007-08-17. (The Boston Globe profile was published 2007-09-01.) No wonder he was "bubbling with anger"! And she attacked him on several other occasions as well.
3. Covering this "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" is going to be harder than I thought. I've started looking for a good secondary source to put the whole Malkin-Rivera feud into context. No luck so far, all help very much appreciated. Cheers, CWC 11:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So your reference to the "many Malkin-haters" out there of course was in no way directed at the contributors to this talk page, or to the article? The fact that you assume that other people base their edits on their personal opinions is telling indeed, but in no way does that accusation help the article.Ninahexan (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Directed at contributors? No. Directed 'at' the article? Yes. Editing articles about Living People who have lots of "unhinged" web-using opponents is always trickier. I think it does help such articles when editors keep that opposition in mind. Best wishes, CWC 05:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So now they are "unhinged web-using opponents"... The best wishes seem a little disingenuous, and your tone really isn't constructive. Your opposition to people editing the article in ways you do not like is noted.Ninahexan (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder what this conversation would be like if if were about the article instead of the editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malkin in the news

I found these articles about her recently here and here. I am not good at writing so maybe somebody can put this information in the article? She is very rarely mentioned on live news; most information streams from her own blog. 75.4.226.247 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle name = Marie or Perez?

Michelle Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang. However, this site (and a lot I found on Google) says she was born Michelle Marie Maglalang, but this source (with legal court documents) claims she was born Michelle Perez Maglalang. At first, I thought it was one of the cases where the parent(s) give the child four names (ex. Michelle Perez Marie Malkin), but it appears that all the sources either say Marie or Perez. Anybody know for sure? That would be great for the article. Estheroliver (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but it's worth noting that some people have two first names. Lisa Marie Presley's first name is "Lisa Marie", for example. It's possible that the subject's first name is "Michelle Marie" and that she never used the second half. Perez could be her mother's maiden name. The Philippines uses Spanish style naming conventions which are quite different from Anglo Saxon traditions.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, Perez ~IS~ her mother's maiden name. Yes, I have been told it is not uncommon for Filipino people (especially females) to have their mother's maiden names as their middle names. Whether her first name is Michelle or Michelle Marie or not, like you said, I don't know. It's inconclusive. Everybody calls her just Michelle. Estheroliver (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hot Air

Why isn't there a separate wiki page for Hot Air (blog)? I noticed that Huffington Post and Daily Kos have their own wiki pages. Why shouldn't Hot Air? HopeChangeForever (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I mainly ask because I intended to create that page, but then realized I don't know how to do so, especially when there is a redirect, and neither does my girlfriend, who is teaching me wikipedia. HopeChangeForever (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia guide. But MM is no longer owner of or associated with Hot Air. It was sold to a company last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I figure that's more reason to create its own page. HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. There is a separate site for Hot Air the blog, only it's Hot Air (news site). I redirected the redirect from Hot Air (blog) to point to Hot Air (news site) instead of Michelle Malkin's page. Hopefully that makes sense to people? HopeChangeForever (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A formative event?

I have done some checking and verifying on the first part of this article, and it seems that it contains a bit of WP:OR and a few unsupported statements. Here is a comparison of one of the statements that is now in the text with what it says in the source followed by the change I will be making and the reasoning for it.

What the source said	Current version	My revision	Comments
"She told the audience that once, in kindergarten, she came home crying because she was called a racist name. 'My mom wiped my tears...and told me everyone has prejudice,' she said. 'I am eternally grateful for this [lesson].'"	Malkin has spoken of a formative event: while she was in kindergarten, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that "Everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[9]	When Malkin was in kindergarten, she was called a racist name, and her mother comforted by telling her that "everyone has prejudice." Malkin has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that lesson.[9]	Current version contains WP:OR description and conclusion that the incident was "formative event" and OR assumption that the children were the ones who called her a racist name. Verbose and stilted phrasing: "for that counsel" which also changes the meaning somewhat. It is not actually not clear whether she meant the lesson she learned was from her mother's advice, from being called by an epithet, or from both events - but the Wikipedia text should not just pick one of these three meanings arbitrarily.

Obviously, I won't be doing a table like this for each change I might make, but this statement had several issues, so I decided to present them here in an easy to see format. I will be making a few more changes to a few sentences, and will explain them as best as I can in the edit summaries. --KeptSouth (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if everyone put that kind of effort into explaining a revision, there would be a lot fewer edit wars! Your changes represent an increase in accuracy and quality of writing so I support this new version. Thanks for such a singularly comprehensive explanation. Doc Tropics 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the relevance of this story or even the "lesson" of either the incident or her mother's counsel? What's the bottom line: Her mother once told her that everyone has prejudices? And this is somehow significant?173.8.220.209 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, it's significant because Malkin is one of the few commentators of Asian descent. Having grown up in predominantly white areas in America, she suffered excessive racism. I figured it was more of a personal story than an early childhood one. Estheroliver (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever removed her from being an anti-illegal immigration activist?

Like being a pro-life activist and even moreso, she has participated in anti-illegal immigration events. She blogs about it frequently. She even wrote a book about it, and contributes to VDARE. If she does not belong in Category:anti-illegal immigration activists, next to no one does. I'm ashamed someone still felt the need to delete her from this category. It's a good thing I caught that and put her back in the category. J390 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Malkin's cousin missing

A new hot topic on the news that overrides all of her political commentary controversy: Michelle Malkin's cousin has gone missing! I've since added the appropriate references to the article. (And I hope they find her soon!) I wasn't sure if that was relevant to Malkin or not, but I figured it was worth a try to add it and see. Estheroliver (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesse's Rhodes scholarship

The article currently says: "At Oberlin, she began writing for an independent newspaper that was being started by Jesse Dylan Malkin, a Rhodes Scholar with established conservative leanings; the two eventually began dating"

This sentence makes it sound like Jesse either attended Oberlin on a Rhodes scholarship, or else, after graduating from Oberlin and completing his Rhodes scholarship, he returned to start a newspaper. At the time that Jesse was starting the newspaper, he was presumably, "a future Rhodes scholar", which still sounds awkward. I'm not sure how to rephrase the sentence to make the correct timeline clear. While the Rhodes scholarship is a significant honor, I'm not sure how relevant this detail of Jesse's biography is in an article on Michelle. I am removing mention of Jesse's Rhodes scholarship.Plantdrew (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It may sound akward, but it passes WP:VER; therefore, the mentioned of Jesse being a Rhodes scholar, should be include somewhere. Removing the reference no longer establishes that Jesse is a student with conservative leanings, this can now be contested by a passing reader. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But Jesse was indeed a Rhodes Scholar. He just wasn't one when he was in college. Therefore, the question is not that he was or not. It's how to word it. As RCLC said, if we don't put that he is a RS, then the sentence would not make sense. Readding it with new wording. ★Dasani★ 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputes over small edits, terms and phrasing and possible BLP violation

This discussion, started by Dasani while he or she was making reversions and changes to the Michelle Malkin article, has been moved from my talk page to here as it concerns article content and improvement only. I will be adding new remarks to the bottom concerning new edits and my attempts to resolve issues raised by Dasani. KeptSouth (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in adding information to the article, but it seems very random and abrupt without much consensus or sense at all. Michelle was indeed baptized Roman Catholic. If we said "Her family was Roman Catholic", it would be awkward for two reasons: 1) It's basically saying the same thing and 2) What family? It says she is married now with two kids, and Jesse is Jewish. In order to be Roman Catholic one must be baptized. It's like saying, "John cannot be considered enrolled at the University of Los Angeles because the source does not say he enrolled." If the source says he graduated, he must of enrolled. Readding to the article. ★Dasani★ 04:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say she was baptized a Roman Catholic. The source, while discussing her growing up years says, "Like most Filipinos her family was Roman Catholic, an affiliation Michelle retains to this day." It is as simple as that. It is simply your assumption that she was baptized, and unless you can find a source which mentions that she was baptized Roman Catholic, we should try a work around rather than adding unsourced, WP:OR. Rather than fragment this discussion over the article's talk page my talk page, I believe this content discussion should be done on the article's talk page, and diffs shoud be part of the discussion-to keep it on track.KeptSouth (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you ignored my explanation. I think it really is just best we say, "Malkin's family was RC" or something along those lines. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume from the context, that you are Dasani, and just did not sign in. The dispute was about whether the article should say she was baptized a Roman Catholic, but apparently you now agree that unsourced assumption should not be in the article. That is good.KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, or if it even says he attends/is a student/anything along those lines, he must of enrolled. You cannot just become a student magically. Likewise, one does not become Roman Catholic randomly. It is a very strict religion (too strict for some, but that's besides the point) which involves a baptism as requirement of process. Additionally, many edits were abnormally formal or just unnecessary/useless. Reverting now. ★Dasani★ 04:31, 17 August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. I have never heard of "abnormally formal" as a reason to revert an edit. Again, I believe this discussion should be on the article's talk page, from this point on. I also note that your very first words here -- that you "appreciate [my] interest" in the article seem to indicate that you feel a type of ownership over the article. I hope I am mistaken, and that we can have rational discussion regarding the wordings you prefer. I have no problem with edits made consistent with WP policies - or logic - or the sources - but it does not appear that your objections and reversions of sourced material have much to do with any of the these.-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, nowhere in my words does it say I think I own the article. I said it was good that you had an interest and I'm glad someone wants to help expand Malkin's article. However, if you are really so consistent with WP policies, you wouldn't of made some of the edits (see my other comments). Some of my objections do indeed have to do with MoS. ★Dasani★ 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not expanded the article, I have only made rather small changes, some of which you reverted. One change was where I substituted "raised a Roman Catholic in place of "baptized a Roman Catholic" to conform to what the sources said.[1] You reverted this back to "baptized a Roman Catholic".[2] Rather than engage in an edit war, I added a cite needed tag. Another reversion you made was where I had changed the numeral "2" to the word "Two" [3] and you changed this back to 2.[4], but I am not bothering to object to such an insignificant change. I am glad to hear that you do not feel you own the article; my experience is that when Wikipedia "editors" quibble about very small changes, there is often a feeling of ownership involved.KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Baptized a Roman Catholic

Dasani reverted a change I made removing the term baptized. I do not see where that is sourced, as I discussed above. I am leaving it, but adding a cite needed tag for the time being as a compromise. I have provided an additional source-Michelle's own words-that says she was raised a Catholic, and I believe that the "baptized" part is unnecessary, as well as original research - unless, of course, a source can be found. I would oppose, for now, a removal of the cite needed tag, as the statement is in fact not sourced.KeptSouth (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the change I made. The sentence is now fully sourced, except, of course for the "baptized" part.KeptSouth (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be sufficient to say that the subject of this article was raised, and remains, a Roman Catholic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely and believe the addition of the fact that she remains a Roman Catholic is good because there have been recent unsourced edits to the article claiming she is now an Evangelical Christian. KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Awkward and ungrammatical phrasing

Dasani complained of changes I had made, saying they were "abnormally formal or just unnecessary/useless" then introduced a new grammar error and awkward construction into the passage I had changed. I have now corrected the passage, and believe it reads a bit more smoothly again.

The result is that I have changed the passage from this: "In 2006, Malkin gave a lecture at Oberlin College. She explained that she refuted allegations that she had been insensitive to the "plight of minorities" by pointing out that racial epithets had been used against her..." To this: "In 2006, Malkin gave a lecture at Oberlin College refuting allegations that she had been insensitive to the "plight of minorities" by pointing out that racial epithets had been used against her..."

I think this should be okay with everyone, but I am explaining the change I have made here because of the unfounded or mistaken accusations made by Dasani regarding my edits. 09:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't so abnormal/formal, but in most articles, the consensus has been to write "2" and not "Two". They have the sections neatly organized and consistent. ★Dasani★ 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not objecting to your change though I believe the MOS says that numbers under ten are spelled out (e.g. one, two, three).KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done

Unfavorable implication; possible BLP violation

This change by Dasani [5], made with the edit summary "We have it in the Personal Life for a reason", can easily be read to imply that Michelle got her article in the paper because she started dating Jesse and not because the article was meritorious. I think the word "eventually" is needed here, particularly since allegations were later made that Jesse did some or all of Michelle's writing and research. In my view the current phrasing should be changed to avoid leaving a false impression, however, I will leave it as is, for a short while, pending further discussion. KeptSouth (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This part I'm actually not sure about. I had been wondering the same thing. Maybe it's best we just move the whole part about Jesse to the Personal Life section. Alternatively, this is no Jesse Malkin article anyway. It is an article about his wife, a political commentator called Michelle Malkin. Although he seems very intelligent (both for the Rhodes Scholar prize and having won Michelle over), is it really necessary we continue to blab about his life? In more notable featured and good articles, similar lines had been written up and inserted, but were quickly removed because "This is not their article" or "Nothing to do with the subject matter!" or "Poor sourcing/still irrelevant". ★Dasani★ 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dasani, your discussion seems off track. I simply believe your change removing the word "eventually" resulted in a possibly unfavorable implication about Michelle. I am re-adding the word eventually since we seem to agree on that. If you want to move material to another section, that is another, separate issue. If you do move or remove material about Jesse, please provide a short summary of your reasoning in the edit summaries. Thank you. KeptSouth (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion section—that I began—because it appears the issues are settled. Some vague unsupported accusations about me remain, but these appear to be just minor personal attacks, that I prefer to let go, and that do not really relate to article content. There is a hint, (directly above this paragraph) that sourced material about Malkin's husband is to be removed, but in my view, these future possible edits should be discussed, if at all, in a new section as this one is getting too lengthy. KeptSouth (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: BLP Violation

(It's Dasani, I'm too lazy to log in.)

I don't see how my comment is off the track. You originally mentioned that it looks strange to put all of that in the early life. Well, if it's strange, why don't we just remove it or move all of it to the personal life section? I think I'll do that tomorrow. And I don't understand why you would explain that Oberlin is a liberal arts college when anybody can click on the link and see that. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article no longer seems as effective as it used to be. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dasani, Your discussion here does not seem to be about a BLP violation, so maybe you can point out where you are seeing one.
• Regarding the rest of your comment here, I don't see where said anything about something looking "strange"—but whatever.
• I did ask you to please provide edit summaries, explaining your reasoning. Looks like you didn't feel like doing that.
• I don't know what you mean about the article no longer seeming as "effective as it used to be." It seems to me I removed some POV, some borderline BLP violations, some bad grammar, some poor or unreliable sources, and that I did some small re-writes to make the article text conform better to what the sources say. If you think that makes the article less "effective" then please specify what you mean.--KeptSouth (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)KeptSouth KeptSouth (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am no longer discussing a BLP violation, but the article itself. I'm mentioning that it looks strange to include so much about Jesse but you seem obsessed with a BLP violation. As for the edit summaries, forgot about that. But some of the stuff you've added has definitely added even more bad grammar. For example, why would we say all this fluff about Malkin dating Jesse again? And why does it matter if they were even dating? It used to read, "At Oberlin, she began dating" but I remember in one edit, you changed it to something like, "She began dating at Oberlin". And the part about them having two kids, I remember writing something like that in one of my college English classes and one of the peer editors said, "Yeah, I think it's wasting space. It's like saying, 'They had an animal that was a dog.' But why can't you just say they had a dog?" Same goes for here. ★Dasani★ 19:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• You started a section here called RE: BLP violation, so it is a fair and logical question to ask what BLP violation you meant.
• I have not added any facts or "fluff" about Jesse. To the contrary, I have removed some unsupported material and rephrased, which generally has shortened the article somewhat. This is easily seen in the article's edit history.
• I have no idea what you are saying about dogs and kids, and the quotes are not from me.
• Regarding your changes of "Michelle began dating Jesse Malkin while the two were in college" to "At Oberlin, she began dating Jesse Malkin" diff-it's a little awkward, especially for the beginning of a section, but it's all right with me. As for your other changes - putting the year at the beginning of the sentence, and changing "The couple" to "They" they are insignificant and okay with me too.
• However, in the same edit, you have re-added unsourced material with an edit summary that appears to do just the opposite.diff Please try to write edit summaries that reflect what you have done, and please stop adding unsourced material. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you go. If you don't understand that example, it's not something I could explain. Nowhere in my posting does it say my quotations are attributed to you. I think it's best I just not discuss these article issues with you. ★Dasani★ 03:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is time to end this discussion --but you have made some remarks in the next section and I will be responding to them. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Michelle and Jesse Malkin moved

(Dasani again.) I noticed in one edit summary you mentioned, "Nowhere in these sources does it say they moved from MD to CO." Well, "Malkin is a graduate of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. She lives with her husband in North Bethesda, MD." in the first article. It was quite a frenzy for some months on her blog that her kids had been followed and exploited in MD private schools and she had to move them to CO. 75.4.235.91 (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you possibly could have noticed this because I never wrote such an edit summary. Please stop making things up. This is the at least the third time you have made up quotes from me or said have I done something that I did not do. This is what my edit summary said, and the edit I made. diff and here is another edit summary of mine which completely contradicts the false assertion you are making.[6] -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC) KeptSouth (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not making things up. I'm sorry we're in such dispute over something so trivial. Oh, wow - you're pointing out that ONE cite does not say that. Well, I'm sorry, but a lot of lines are supported by more than just ONE citation. Besides that very small and unnecessary point, the fact of the matter remains: Malkin was indeed a resident of Maryland and was forced to remove to Colorado. Read her biographies. Google her. Read her blog. I'm sure it'd be easy to find another source if necessary. ★Dasani★ 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never disputed that Malkin once lived in N Bethesda MD and moved to CO Springs nor have I changed that text. diff The Personal life section of the preceding diff shows that I found that 2 of the cites did not support the statement, and I removed them -- but 2 other cites do support the statements and they remain. This should be non controversial. In your latest remarks, you indicate you might like to add new info that Malkin was forced to move to Colorado in Nov 2008 to protect her children. If you have a RS that says this, why not add the statement and the source? -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a final consideration, we might want to remove a tiny bit of info on the kids particularly if they were indeed so continallly harassed that the family had to move 2000 miles away. With that in mind, here is the change I made [7]-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)