Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Malkin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.8.220.209 (talk) at 23:03, 5 January 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Husband and where she lives

I removed a dead link and used "ce" as an edit summary, sorry. Did the whole family move and does she/they have multiple residences?I removed some trivia and redundant material about the husband as well. --Tom (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citation of her being a pro-life activist

Just because a person is pro-life and may have offered her opinion about a topic does not make her an activist. MM has not campaigned or attended pro-life functions as a speaker. You can call here pro-life, but not an activist of pro-life issues. Any way if someone has a citation of her being a pro-life activist then it would be proper to list her in that category. Activist: an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilowattradio (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Michelle Malkin has written numerous columns regarding the life issue and is a member of Feminists for Life. Furthermore she has received awards from the organization. Advocacy does not require protests. Some websites: http://www.prolife.com/celeb.htm, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0019.html
Boromir123 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I was not aware of any of her PL activities except for writing a few columns. Reverted page to original Kilowattradio (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda driven nonsense

I removed some poorly sourced nonsense from the article. --Tom (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this material is (per your edit summary) "poorly sourced non notable nonsense introduced by agenda driven bad faith POV editors". While we should not editorialize about the possible hypocrisy of Malkin's views vs. her own origins, it is perfectly appropriate to include a comment of this sort. I understand how you feel — and I've made it pretty clear how I feel — but hopefully we can get some other people to comment and try to reach a consensus. Richwales (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote and comments are not POV, but factual. I don't think she is hypocritical. All people have no choice on where they are born and what laws apply to that birth in a country. If MM as a foreigner had a baby that became a USA citizen then she advocated that children born in the US to foreign born parent(s) not become USA citizens that would be hypocritical. I want to use the term ironic, but that is not the appropriate term to use to describe this situation. Kilowattradio (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... this edit removed text asserting that Malkin was "... born in the United States to alien parents who were legally, temporarily in the U.S. at the time" (italics added), citing this source, which says that she was "... born to Filipino immigrants ...". It looks to me as if the cited source does not support the removed assertion. Also, she was born to legal immigrants, and is described as having taken a position opposing citizenship for illegal immigrants. I don't see anything either hypocritical or ironic about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This point may be well taken, depending on exactly what her parents' US immigration status was at the time of her birth. If her parents were lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) when she was born, then the suggestions of her positions being hypocritical may indeed be without merit — though a related suggestion that her immigration-reductionist stance would have prevented her own parents from coming to the US could be in order. If, on the other hand, her parents were in the US in some temporary (albeit still legal) status — such as a student visa or non-immigrant work visa — then Malkin is arguably one of the very group of "children of . . . temporary workers" whose claim to jus soli citizenship she opposes. I haven't been able to find anything definitive yet on her parents' exact status at the time of her birth; perhaps I (or someone else) can find a verifiable statement on this subject, which would be relevant to this article in either case. I will say that I've found one source saying Malkin's parents had immigrated (presumably with "green cards", though this is not explicitly stated) to the US in the wake of liberalized immigration legislation from the mid-1960's, but this particular source appears to be a blog or other self-published source, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use here. Other sources I've read that say her parents were "immigrants" or had "immigrated" didn't seem to be specific enough to be reliable; remember that many writers on "immigration" do not show a clear understanding of the difference between temporary residence in the US, permanent residence (a "green card"), and US citizenship, so you have to be very careful when evaluating material on this subject. Richwales (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop using the term hypocritical since no one is arguing that since there isn't any regardless of her parents "status" at the time of her birth. I would call it more of an "oddity" ect. --Tom (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have an inordinate amount of her critics statements

I keep noticing that after almost every statement or book that Malkin has written, this article includes heavy criticism of those statements and books. Why can we not just report Malkin's views, and possibly any potential major altercations that Malkin herself has responded to? Her statements should be critiqued by Wiki's readers, not by the inclusion of the rantings of certain individuals that disagree with her every single time. Bladerunner100 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner100 (talk • contribs)

The section on Malkin's books is a complete joke. In describing her book about Japanese internment camps, the author of the entry seems to be writing his own book review by claiming that Malkin is minimizing the internment camp experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newark murders

I've removed a parenthetical remark reading " (The person since convicted of the murders is an illegal immigrant with a history of violent felonies.)" from the Immigration enforcement section. The person in question, Rodolfo Antonio Godinez Gomez, is the first convicted out of six persons charged in the case and, according to this source, is a Nicaraguan national who was brought to the United States when he was 9 and obtained permanent residency in 2001. I don't know what his status was prior to 2001, and I don't know the status of the other five persons charged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(←) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Malkin&oldid=406172407"