Talk:Michelle Malkin/Archive 1

Malkin's Hypocrisy

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

---

MalkinWatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert explanation

Why was this sourced paragraph removed without explanation?

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

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

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

What about the prior version, posted above. It seems clearer that the version that you removed. -Willmcw 03:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

After following the links to Sullivan's comments on Malkin, I'd say that more should be added, not less. He appears to be a major critic of hers. I'd say a quote may be appropriate. This may not be the best, but it is colorful and pointed:

One sentence; four cliche-ridden, playground insults. Can you beat it? Contestants can be nominated from either right or left; but the sentence must be entirely devised to insult; it should be completely devoid of originality; it must have at least two hoary, dead-as-a-Norwegian-parrot cliches; and it must assume that readers already agree with the writer. Arbitrary mean-spiritedness wins extra points.

In any case, the material should be fixed, not deleted. -Willmcw 05:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Where we are now.post Wiki database crash

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

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

Conservative vs. Radical

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

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

You're absolutely right. It was sloppy work on my part. For now, I'm satisfied with keeping the "conservative" label. Thanks for the feedback. --AStanhope 23:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "Self-Hating Asian" Smear

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

She can be a self-hating american, just like the rest of us. Gzuckier 19:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/28/124846.shtml

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

Maybe she just doesn't like long descriptive names. From what I've seen, she certainly doesn't appear to hate herself.Al Lowe 15:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If an African American says "I'm not black, I'm American", then we would call this person self-hating. What's the difference here? Can we put the label "Twinkie" in the content? Bobbybuilder 21:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt any Black American would say "I'm not Black." But I could see one saying "I'm not from Africa, I'm from America." I would not call that self-hate. What I find odd is our insistance on hyphenating our culture. The way it's turned in a fashion to be "Irish-American" or any other variety of "-American," even if you're several generations removed. Whatever happened to just being "American?"

well, of course you can just be "American", but you don't need to deny the other identity, especially when it's as obvious as skin tone. Besides, Malkin is just a second generation immigrant. Bobbybuilder 09:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So, if she decides to call herself "American," that's self hate? I guess freedom of choice has it's down side.Al Lowe

You've missed the point. She denied her other identity, that's self hating. Bobbybuilder 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. I don't understand the point. Al Lowe

You don't understand the point, that's called "you've missed the point". What if a Jewish American says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American"? It's basically the same thing. Are we talking about whether this person is American? no, we are talking about whether this person is Asian. So, if you need me to clarify, the POINT is "is it self-hating if an Asian person denies that she is asian". Bobbybuilder 22:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If a "Jewish American" says "I'm not Jewish, I'm American." I'd suspect he's either converted to another religion, or become an athiest. It's definitely not the same thing. People who follow the Jewish religion typically refer to themselves as American Jews. That's mixing race and religion. Or in America, nationality and religion. Strictly speaking, there is no "American Race." We came from all over the world. I know an old Filipino gentleman who refuses the tag of "Asian-American," because of WWII. He has no problem with either "American," or "Filipino-American." But if you call him an "Asian-American," well, my best advice is to duck and run. Michelle Malkin was born in America, so she prefers to be called "American." Considering the number of "self-hating" Americans who have either moved out of this country (Robert Altman and Johnny Depp come to mind, I'm rather happy to see someone who LIKES to be called an "American" without all the hyphenated bull crap in front of it. But then I suppose I should be called self-hating because I don't put Irish and Cherokee, or that PC term "Native American" before just plain old "American."Al Lowe

I'll stop here, because firstly I feel like talking to a wall, and secondly, after reading more of her writings, I'm happy that she denies herself as Asian, 'cos for god sake, I don't want her to be Asian, and I doubt many Asians want to include this kind of people in their race. Here's a nice fable talking about this kind of people from Aesop, [[3]].So there you go, Al, she's all yours, just another typical American. Bobbybuilder 04:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree here too. She is anything but typical. IF she couldn't make up her mind if she was Asian, or American, Aesop's fable might have a point. It doesn't.Al Lowe

Mind you, that bat made up its mind it's a beast when beast is winning. Bobbybuilder 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It should have decided sooner. I have to apologize on this though. I have a stubborn streak that is at least a mile wide. And just don't know when to quit sometimes. Sorry.Al Lowe 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

MalkinWatch redux

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

Came here via the RFC. I don't think we should include this anonymous speculation that Malkin's husband helps out with her blog. If I get a Blogspot account, can I too level meaningless accusations against my favorite conservative columnists and get picked up by Wikipedia? It's stretching it to say that Malkin's use of the royal "we" is conclusive proof that there's another author. Maybe she's just pompous. Rhobite 21:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this allegation should not be included. Blogs are not sufficient sources. If it's true, it'll probably be exposed again in another publication. Until then it's just (juicy) gossip. -Willmcw 21:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Another RFC response: The specific allegation about her husband's role doesn't merit inclusion in the article. The blog, which seems to specialize in monitoring and commenting on Malkin's work, is worth including in the external links, though. (I'm not completely clear which of these questions is being debated.) JamesMLane

RFC response. Unsourced, even unjustified, accusations may belong in biography articles (with appropriate explanation) but only if they have had a significant impact on public perception of the subject. I hadn't heard this claim before and my searching indicates that it's a pretty small part of the public image of Michaell Malkin, hence it should not go in there. However, if it became a matter of controversy and started attracting attention outside of MalkinWatch then it should go in. Agree with JamesMLane that a link to MalkinWatch ought to be kept. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 21:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC response. Blogs are not reliable sources of anything, since there is zero editorial control, and anyone can post whatever they want. Wikipedia should not use them as sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Maiden name

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

It's relevant because this is her biography. It is as relevant as her year of birth, place of birth, educaiton, etc. Yes, every person's name or names should be included in biographies of them. Why not? -Willmcw 23:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some prominent married women have their maiden names in their articles, like Elizabeth Dole, Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton. Others, like Lynne Cheney don't. I don't see any problem with the inclusion.--Rogerd 00:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)