Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 28 November 2007

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:WPAA

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives June 2006 & prior July 2006 - Jan 2007 Jan - Jul 2007

Feel free to add new comments below.

Fake 1992 Bikini Picture

This was specifically brought up in the Doug Markwith interview she had on the O'Reilly Factor. Doug brings up the counter point that theres a photo of her posing in a bikini (found by simply googleing her name). She states the photo is fraudulent. Anyone know the status of this photo? I think a very small note could be added to the controversy section of this article, if infact the picture is legitimately her. Reference to this interview is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9QOqzz9HX8 Cannibaltom 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the photo. Her hands are bigger than her head. I don't believe there's any serious contention by anyone who has examined the incident that the picture is legitimate. Furthermore, we have the real picture from which the head has obviously been photoshopped. Thanatosimii 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I found evidence to clear this up. It was photoshopped. http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/04/original-photo-for-michelle-bikini-photoshop-located/ Cannibaltom 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For Malkin's take on this incident, see this blog post from October 2006. (The other relevant posts are "Malkin Derangement Syndrome", "The Gawker smear machine", and "College student slams Gawker Media". I've changed the heading above for clarity. Cheers, CWC 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Please leave the trivia section up. It's interesting to have information like this on people in the public eye, possibly the most interesting part of a wiki on a person. I know the anti-photogenic point is kind of PoV, but if it's something we can all agree on, then personally it's my opinion that it should be let up.Anonywiki 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Cite some sources, then you can put it back up. Otherwise, it's OR, and is being removed per WP:BLP. - Crockspot 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (EC)Exactly what I was about to say. Unsourced POV not worth having here as it is now. --OnoremDil 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is quite biased, and it seems to omit much of her past issues with truthful reporting and the issues of journalistic integrity associated with here book on internment. Someone seems to have edited this to put her in a completely positive light even the controversy section deals mostly with her "successes" in exposing already discredited people.

Stop Editing the Trivia Section

As both an unregistered user and now as a registered user, I have edited the first part of the trivia section, which talks about Malkin's views on so called "anchor babies". I have cited constitutional case law to point out that Malkin's views are just that, her opinion, and are contrary to what is the law of the land. Another user, probably the same person, keeps changing that back, despite the factual accuracy of the edit. Stop doing that.N1120A

As I said on my talk page, you misunderstand the purpose of Misplaced Pages. The problem is not the argument, the problem is that it's you who is making it. If, for instance, Janet Reno were to make this comment in regard to Malkin, and her comments were published in the Miami Herald, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But if you make that assertion on your own, without a published reference, it's original research. Videmus Omnia 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I included a published reference, the published opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The only reference that the person who reverted my edit could come up with was from a special interest group with a specific bias, not exactly NPOV. As I said, the law of the land runs contrary to what Malkin said.

It's not for us to decide what the law of the land is. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So we could report that "so-and-so says that Malkin's interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect", but we may not make that judgement on our own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is for the Supreme Court to decide, and they have already decided this. They decided it over 100 years ago and confirmed it as recently as Hamdi. As I wrote, her view runs contrary to the case law of the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate "so-and-so" in this discussion.

When the Supreme Court says that Malkin is wrong about the law then we can report that. Heck, if any reasonably notable commentator says that Malkin is wrong on the law we can report that. But we can't say Malkin is wrong on the law because of our own reading of a SCOTUS opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our own reading, it is the way the law is applied. If the Supreme Court wanted to change the reading of the 14th Amendment, they would have done it with Hamdi. They didn't.

Then find someone notable who says so in a reliable source, and cite it. Otherwise, leave it out, or you leave Misplaced Pages open to libel charges per WP:BLP. If you're really anxious to talk about your own opinion of Malkin, you can get a blog at MySpace dirt cheap. Videmus Omnia 00:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And the Supreme Court isn't notable. There is nothing libelous about using the case law of the Supreme Court to say something she published has no basis in law. I am very well aware of what libel entails, likely far more than you, and I wouldn't do that to this site.

Hmm, I'm reading that opinion at FindLaw, and I don't see anything about Michelle Malkin in there. Maybe I'm stupid because I'm a soldier and not a lawyer - could you point me to the applicable paragraph? Videmus Omnia 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The cases speak to what the law actually is, not about Michelle Malkin. Unfortunately, it seems you are allowing your conservative bias to creep in to your editing.

Please do not make negative comments about your fellow editors on article talk pages. Don't forget to sign your comments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Useless. I didn't even say anything negative. I guess this further shows the bias of this site and those that run it N1120A

As an aside, discussing personal political tendencies is taboo in my line of work - it disrupts the mission. We follow the orders of any legal administration. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction - it seems that anyone who sees my occupation automatically assumes I am some kind of Republican drone, which is not the case for me (or for most GIs that I know). I'm not sure where this assumption comes from.

My sole concern is maintaining neutrality in the encyclopedia. The SCOTUS legal opinion has interesting implications, certainly - but it's not our job to comment on its specific application to Malkin's opinion's, unless so commented on by notable people in a reliable source. Videmus Omnia 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased in favor of Malkin. Most notably, it completely omits any reference to the controversy over her ridiculous claim that John Kerry shot himself in order to get a Purple Heart in Vietnam. It also glosses over the controversy surround her book on Japanese internment and her shoddy research methods. The article also falsely labels Asians who are oppose her views as "liberals", when in fact there are many conservative Asian Americans who disagree with her as well. OneViewHere 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia bio is the place to describe a person through his or her actions, accomplishments, and views, and to cite reputable dissenting opinions to controversial views. The article mentions "In Defense of Internment" and cites referenced criticism of it. Misplaced Pages is not the place to cut someone to shreds (left OR right) in order to serve a political bent. Zubdub 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not "cutting someone to shreds" to make mention of the controversy surrounding her claims against John Kerry. There is already a "Controversies" section of the bio and that incident should be documented there. Also, to state that only "Liberal" Asians have issues with her is outright misleading, as many Asian Americans of all political leanings have issues with Malkin.OneViewHere 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not, as you put it, state that only liberal Asians have issues with her. The article states Malkin says she has been "attacked as an 'Aunt Thomasina and a sellout and a race traitor' by liberals of Asian background". If you have references where conservative Asians call her an Aunt Thomasina, a sellout, or a race traitor, then by all means present them. It should be obvious that there are plenty of people of all ethnicities that dislike her. No secret there. What is notable is the assertion that all Asians should possess certain political beliefs, and those that don't are "traitors". Now, it's possible that somewhere there are some non-Asians that consider her a "race traitor", but I doubt there are very many of them. "Race traitor" is a term generally reserved for members of one's own race. Zubdub 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Geraldo becoming "unhinged"

People who edit a page on someone should know about their body of work... If people bothered to read her book titles, they would find Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild Discpad 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

People writing a neutral encyclopedia article about a subject should expect that people reading the article won't be experts on the subject, and shouldn't make cute plays on words that can easily be misunderstood. --Onorem♠Dil 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Denice Denton

User 141.150.206.25 (talk · contribs) recently added a sentence about Denice Denton, which now reads:

The Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz at the time of this controversy, Denice Denton, committed suicide soon after this controversy moved out of the headlines, reportedly due in part to the stress from her academic position.<ref>"Denton's apparent suicide shocks community", Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 25, 2006</ref>

I notice that neither our article on Denton nor the cited Santa Cruz Sentinel news item mention Malkin, so I've deleted the sentence as required by WP:BLP.

Does anyone have a Misplaced Pages:Reliable Source that connects Malkin directly to Denton's suicide? (A claim that strong would require a very strong source, preferably more than one. Stuff like "Noted commentator X suggested ..." won't do.) Cheers, CWC 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy started by Malkin + Suicide Related to Work Pressures + Verified and Reputable News Source = Legitimate Addition to Malkin's Page. Does the Santa Cruz Sentinel have to include Malkin's name in the article for the reference to be pertinent and important? No....why would you risk having your website crashed and your editorial page's personal information splashed across Malkin's page. It makes sense to include the reference, as Malkin's actions seem to be at least a proximate cause of Denton's suicide, and note the edit didn't say "Malkin caused her to kill herself." It simply stated that she committed suicide due to work pressures and part of that pressure came from Malkin's actions. Bluefield 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The connection you are making above from Malkin to Denton's suicide is original research (no published reliable source has made the connection from Malkin to Denton) and isn't neutral (it could clearly be disputed that Malkin had any involvement, proximate or otherwise, with Denton's suicide) ... which makes it inappropriate for inclusion. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Frost

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?em&ex=1192161600&en=434864696362576b&ei=5087%0A — goethean ॐ 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this has received enough attention to warrant a new section under controversies. Bbrown8370 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —comment restored by Guyzero (talk • contribs)

I agree with this... It would be important to keep up to date with this current situation. rmosler 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. JMarkievicz2 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published" sources

Crockspot, I replaced the cite you deleted with a cite to the original CSPAN transcript. However, I suggest you look up the definition of "self-published" sources before you claim that a webpage that contains nothing but a transcript of a CSPAN interview is "self-published." YOU should know better than that. --EECEE 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• This blog certainly qualifies as a self-published source, being published by one guy, with no editorial oversight. The CSPAN transcript is fine, and I am glad you were able to find it. It doesn't matter if the guy is publishing a public domain copy of the US Constitution, we shouldn't be linking to his copy of it. It's a matter of verifiability and editorial oversight. - Crockspot 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crock. I saw and responded to your other post over at my talk page. As I said, I disagree with your take on what constitutes as "self-published" source, as I think the Wiki definition goes to the content itself. In addition, there are many, many examples throughout Misplaced Pages - including at articles you edit, I believe - where the only available link is to a secondary publishing of an original source, such as a newspaper article contained at a blog. However, as I was able to find the original C-SPAN transcript, I went ahead and linked to that. I do appreciate your vigilence on behalf of the Wiki community. --EECEE 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Original Research"

Crockspot, a review of the Wiki rules on original research (synth):

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Misplaced Pages article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Misplaced Pages article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages.

This article, like most other bios on Wiki, contains information that reflects in one way or another on the subject's own views. This is another example - MM says one thing in one published source, and says something that reflects on that point in another published source. It is not original research, it is not synthesis of published sources. --EECEE 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR, and you're right, wikipedia bios are chock full of it. For it to not be OR, there would need to be a reliable secondary source pointing out this discrepancy of statements, and the hypocrisy that is inherent. To juxtapose two sources and lay them out for readers to see "the hypocrisy" is the very essence of original research/synthesis of thought. It would take a lifetime to remove it all from wikipedia, but we have to start somewhere. Are you sure there is not an editorial by a notable reporter that points this out? Where did you twig on this info? I'm betting it came from a blog originally. If you can find a RS that makes the observation, then it isn't OR. If it came from a blog, it's non-notable, and OR on the part of the blogger. - Crockspot 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, what is giving me a problem, and making it OR, it where it appears in the article. This is under "viewpoints", but it isn't a viewpoint. Why is it there? It's there to advance a position, the position being that she is a hypocrite, because she was born to Filipinos who were legally in the country on a visa, but is opposed to automatic citizenship for babies born to illegals. It just isn't relevant to her position on the topic, and it's a misuse of Misplaced Pages to take a jab at her. Now if the information about her parents being on a visa was tacked on to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the intro, then it would be sourced background information, and would not be attempting lead the reader to any conclusion vis a vis her position on "anchor babies". In fact, I am going to make that so right now. - Crockspot 00:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After checking the source, I adjusted the wording a bit. It isn't clear whether, at the time of Malkin's birth, her father was still on a work visa, or already had his Green Card. So I just said that they were recent immigrants to the US at the time of her birth. It's really rather sad that the typical playing out of the American Dream ended up twisted into a counterpoint to her opposition of automatic citizenship for the children of illegals. An attempt at a cheap shot, but falls far short. Not a proud moment in wikipedia history. - Crockspot 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want in the intro, but I am returning the information about the circumstances of her birth in the "Viewpoints" section. Please quit arbitrarily removing stuff that you know people are discussing.

She was born the same year her parents arrived; it is physically impossible to get a green card in that short amount of time. In addition, her comment was specifically in response to what kind of visa her parents had. And in any case, it doesn't change the fact that she herself gained the automatic citizenship which she so strenuously objects to.

By the way, the term "immigrant" refers to persons who are living or working in the US on a green card, so I am going to change the intro to just say that her parents had recently arrived. --EECEE 09:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

People are discussing? Where? I was discussing, and there was silence. Or are you talking about some blog where you dragged this off of? I know you didn't come up with this yourself, because you almost never edit outside of Kerry-related articles, and are usually pretty well within policy. But if you want, I'll call an RfC, and let outsiders express their opinion. - Crockspot 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You and I have been discussing it.

I removed a critical remark I'd posted earlier because you went out of your way to explain things on my user talk page. It's always a good idea to  ::refrain from speculating on people's motives for posting. --EECEE 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you even read the JWR piece? She's talking about visitors who have no intention of staying, and who leave after their children are born. Her parents came here with the intention of becoming Americans, and did become Americans. Do you not see how sorry and sad the comparison you are advocating for is? It doesn't make the political position you are trying to make, and if it does, it is incorrect anyway. Also, your logical conclusions about whether it was possible to have a green card at a certain time is also an original research process. That's not what the source says, and the source actually says that they had green cards at some time, it just doesn't say when. You really need to read WP:OR very carefully. - Crockspot 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that and other pieces. Her objection overall is to the granting of automatic citizenship, and people on tourist visas are an extreme example. By the way, her reference to the term "anchor babies" had to do with people who were here illegally.

My comments about the time it takes to get green cards would be "conclusions" and maybe even OR if I had posted those comments at the article. I didn't. The fact is that you were proposing language based on some idea that her parents could have had green cards, which is a conclusion of your own and is in fact incorrect. --EECEE 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The source does not state how her parents were in the US (work visa, etc), other than that they were "recent immigrants." Is there a source that says work visa? Juxtaposing the situation around her birth next to her viewpoint of "anchor babies" is synthesis, we need find a source that makes this connection, we cannot make it on our own. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I undid your edits until they could be discussed here, per Wiki etiquette for controversial articles. First of all the Booknotes article does not say anything at all about her parents being "recent immigrants." In addition, the term "immigrant" denotes permanent residence via green card status or ultimate citizenship. That was not the case with her parents at the time she was born. The Booknotes source makes clear from her own telling that her parents were here on visas...there really is no other way to state it. The juxtaposition would only be synthesis if a third point were being made; it's not, hence the "although." --EECEE 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy.. OR should be removed from WP:BLP articles per BLP policy, but sorry for not joining the conversation before my revert (I did join immediately after tho! =) ... The booknotes article does not state specifically that her parents were in the US on a visa, green card, etc. It does specifically state that they were immigrants. Booknotes also does not mention anchor babies. As I stated, my view is that the created synthesis is derived from the juxtaposition of her birth situation (booknotes) and her view of anchor babies (jwr) == WP:SYN. We need a RS to make this connection -- I'm surprised one does not exist. --guyzero | talk 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for participating here. The Booknotes interview actually does say her parents were here on a visa; that is the question she was asked, and she responded. The fact that her father was sponsored by his employer is her elaboration on the circumstances. In addition, it is impossible to obtain a green card in the timeframe Malkin describes; that is not original research, that is not including an assumption that is not supported in any way by the source, ie, that her parents had green cards at the time of her birth, or even that they could be described as "immigrants" at that time. See my prior note on that - the term "immigrant" has a specific meaning, and only applies to permanent alien residents or naturalized citizens.

And also as I stated before, Malkin's reference to "anchor babies" had to do with children born to illegal immigrants, and I think it should be described and sourced as such. I don't think it appears in the Booknotes interview. --EECEE 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the point I have been trying to make. There is a position being advanced. It just isn't a stated position. It's an implied position. And the inference that I get is she is a hypocrite for opposing something that she benefited from. But it isn't even a correct implication, because her parents' situation is not the kind she refers to in the JWR article. She uses a specific example of a Saudi person. It is an extreme contortion to even compare the two situations, and to word it as "Even though she is blah blah blah, she opposes blah blah" is extremely POV. It is advancing an assumption that the two concepts are in conflict. The booknotes source also characterizes her father as being "sponsored" by an "employer", and that they did have green cards at some point, and I believe that they are now citizens. So obviously their intent was to become American from the start. Unlike the Saudi person who is her main example in the JWR piece. "Recent immigrants" seems like a fair characterization to use. I had intended to have an RfC on this question up by now, but I have been busy. - Crockspot 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Further: I'm also not sure we should be relying on the Booknotes source so strongly. This is a television interview with a source close to the subject (the subject herself, can't get any closer than that). There is not an editorial oversight or fact-checking process at work here. We are relying on her words directly without independent verification. - Crockspot 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted this thread to WP:BLPN#Michelle Malkin. - Crockspot 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Crock, I have no problem with saying something like "Malkin has stated that ..." etc. In addition, I would have no problem saying that she has been criticized for her remarks about the automatic granting of citizenship to babies born in the U.S. given her statement that her parents etc. etc. I think this information is important to a discussion of Malkin and her views and should be included in the article.

I also think there should be more sources included for her views on immigration in general. For instance, as I pointed out before, her comment about "anchor babies" was actually made in a differenct context and should be described and sourced that way. --EECEE 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Michele's Daily Vent

Unfortunately, as Michele has become more busy, her "Daily Vent" hasn't been happening for at least the past six months. I'd say now she might do it once a month. A few days ago, I noted that, only to have someone else undo my revision. I happen to like both the Hot Air site and MM, but the fact of the matter is that she no longer is doing Daily Vents. To pretend that she still is, just because you might like her, is inaccurate. Asc85 22:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability (or: lack thereof)

Is this person really notable enough to warrant an article this extensive? Perhaps it'd be a good idea to cut it down to a more fitting size (or delete it). Bloggers are a dime a dozen and I don't really see why this one is worthy of inclusion in the almighty Misplaced Pages. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.190.7 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article and you can see she's more than just a blogger. Jauerback 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is MM is more than just a blogger, she's notable purely as a blogger, by hit-count and influence (especially if you count HotAir.com).

On the other hand, this article is too long, IMO. There's an entirely-understandable tendency to mention each fresh controversy as it happens, but we probably should remove or trim coverage of the more transient controversies. (Deciding which controversies are "more transient" is left as an exercise for this discussion page.) Many Misplaced Pages articles about controversial people have the same problem. CWC 12:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Malkin is notable in several respects, and an AfD would be a snowball keep. I do think that many articles of this type go into way too much detail documenting every little thing that could possibly make the subject look bad, or seem hypocritical. - Crockspot 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Severe issues with this article

This article is nearly entirely referenced using her own website. Clear violation of Misplaced Pages rules in almost every way. The only other sources that appear in this article come from sources that are neither RS nor talk about her extensively. Out of the 62 sources on this article well over half are MichelleMalkin.com. This is completely absurd and this article either needs a complete rewrite or I'll simply start removing entire sections lacking any sort of proof. If you care about this article start fixing it because as it stands now it almost warrants deletion. JRWalko (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that MM is notable as a columnist, blogger and TV pundit, none of which generate much in the way of Reliable secondary sources. So we've tended to rely on MM herself as a primary source, which is legitimate up to a point. (This is a common problem with articles about bloggers.) Have we gone too far in using primary sources? I'm not sure, and I'd be interesting in other editors' thoughts on that issue.

Having said that, let me reiterate two points from the preceding section:

1. MM clearly meets Misplaced Pages's notability standards, so this article won't be deleted.
2. This article is too long. An encyclopedia article about someone like MM should summarize her career and viewpoints, instead of being a long list of controversies involving her. We should winnow out the less notable stuff. For instance, IMO her strong opposition to illegal immigration is notable, but her feud with Geraldo is not.

Cheers, CWC 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she is notable but there are assertions in this article which are essential to her viewpoints (like the immigration status of her family) that simply can't be confirmed by citing her blog. This article should not lend her credibility by citing her own blog, obviously that's asinine. Statements here talking about how she does this kind of investigating reporting or that are sourced from her blog...well, you know I could start a blog and call myself the best conservative blogger in the whole world, right? Criticism from actual sources should stay, praise from her blog should not. That's not because I dislike her, rather because that seems to be the balance of references on here. As suggested the article needs to be kept but shortened to reflect encyclopedic facts and not an advertising campaign. JRWalko (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Critiques of Malkin

What place do blog opinions of a person have on their Misplaced Pages bio? Would people object if I posted a blog entry of my own that was favorable to Malkin (not that I would...I realize it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.1.138 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics