Talk:Michelle Malkin

Archives Archive 1 - Archived June 12, 2006

Feel free to add new comments below.

Links removed

I see someone earlier today vandalized my edit. Please don't do that again. I think the list of anti-Malkin links is long enough, and I have removed two links. This "Malkin watch" page is not "watching" anything, it's more like a juvenile, bonehead attack page. Take a brief look at it; there is no kind of structured, intelligent analysis or criticism there, only angry, hatefull Malkin-bashing, and it is definitely not an environment for countercriticism. Wikipedia doesn't need to encourage people to visit such sites, they can find them themselves. The "ghostwrite" page is plain trash, not worthy being refered to by en encyclopedia. Medico80 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Those links have been kept in the list through general consensus for months (years?) and are indicative of intellectually honest criticism of Malkin. There have been links in the past to awful pages that accuse her of bleaching her skin or prostitution, etc. - those links clearly DON'T belong and have also been kept out through consensus. --AStanhope 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A frequent gag at Malkin-watch is video captions showing Malkin with a face expression looking very silly on a still photo. On the current frontpage is a posting commenting her skin color. Intellectually honest or not: the list of anti links was - and still is - TOO LONG. Article on president Bush doesn't contain links to all possible anti-Bush sites either. Cut it down. Medico80 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why not let our readers visit that site and decide for themselves?

Many "lefty" bloggers and their commentators hate Malkin with great passion, and a fair article on her should reflect that. On the other hand, the description of the link to "liberalavenger.com" is not completely accurate.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now there is a posting calling her "chink". Wow, that's pretty funny. Medico80 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just googled "site:malkinwatch.blogsome.com chink" and got nothing. Do you have a URL and/or a screenshot of that post?

Here http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com/2006/07/19/the-vent-derision-thread/#comments I should be fair now: the writer of that comment kindly explains why it is okay for him to speak racist slander. Enjoy the new logo with Malkin in nazi uniform. Boy that's funny - stil "intellectually honest" I guess... Medico80 08:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(Unindenting.) Thanks for the URL. (Hey, you're better than Google!) More seriously, it is astonishing to see a racist epithet which denotes Chinese people applied to someone of Filipino ancestry. But I guess all Asians look alike to some people!

And, yes, that logo is extraordinarily peurile. I would think that the logo alone would instantly discredit that site in the mind of any decent person, but maybe I'm being too optimistic again.

I just read the current main page at Malkin-watch. It has jumped the shark, along with several whales and a kraken or two. We should either delete that link, or (my preference) changes our description of it. Here's my first draft of the new text: "a blog devoted to infantile ad-hominen attacks on Malkin".

Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:167.24.104.150 has now deleted the link to malkin-watch. Cheers, CWC(talk) 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oki doki. Glad we got that straightened out ;-) I think the remaining links fully shows the diversity of opinions there may be on a personality like M.M. I regret my earlier statement about the article on liberalavanger.com, but I'm just wondering how someone can make such bold statement, that Malkin is not the author of the blog. I mean, if someone is falsifying his/her identity, doesn't it have legal consequenses..?Medico80 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove Weigel attack?

We currently have nearly 100 words about David Weigel's attempt to link Malkin to the suicide of Denice Denton. I suggest that this minor blog-scrap merits exactly 0 words in this article. What do other people think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've WP:BOLDly deleted that text. Here it is:

After Denice Denton, the chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, committed suicide[1] on June 24 2006 following months of criticism for costing the university huge sums of money for (among other things) her de facto spouse and months of demonstrations against her by left-wing students, a contrarian Libertarian, David Wiegel, criticized Malkin for her failure to acknowledge that she had once accused Denton of "sedition" and published[2] the address and phone number of Denton's office, which Wiegel connected to Denton's suicide with no mention of any of Denton's other problems. [3] [4] [5]

Anyone who wants this put back should convert the links to <ref> format first! ;-)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsupported Claims by SAW and Malkin

First, I find no support anywhere that states SAW "published the press release with the phone numbers on their own website." It's true that the press releases were available from other sites, but where's the evidence that it was on their site? SAW's "anti-semetic calls" claim has been removed for this reason. Same standard should apply here. Also, the Sentinel Article by Roger Sideman specifically states that the students contacted Malkin to remove the numbers. That's the evidence and it's been provided. I find the text uses the word "claimed" to try to cast doubt on these facts, which are well sourced. If this is the standard, nearly every positive sentence from all of Wikipedia should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riven turnbull (talk • contribs)

The next few paragraphs are a longish comment from me, in normal type, and interspersed responses from user Riven turnbull (talk · contribs), which I've put into italics. CWC(talk) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

SAW did publish the complete press release (ie., with the contact details for their "Ad-hoc Press Team") on their website. It's still there. I just downloaded it. (I wonder how long it will stay there.)

What on earth are you talking about? I had checked it as well (saw.revolt.org), does SAW have another site I don't know about or something? I seriously object to your willfull misrepresentation of the situation. First, you say, you "downloaded them." What do you have to download? It's a website! The Press Release in question is here. You must be talking about the previous press release, where one person's phone number is listed in a PDF file, and another two emails listed in the same PDF file. But none of those people are the 3 people that Malking outed on her site, something your own "carefully worded" message above avoids. It should be easy enough for anyone to verify that they were there with archive.org or other mechanisms. If that's your claim, back it up, show some facts. Otherwise, there is no proof at all, as I said. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That Sentinel article does not state "that the students contacted Malkin to remove the [details]". It says "When students called Malkin to request she remove the student information, Malkin reposted the names and numbers several more times." Even if the "when students called" bit is true (the "several more times" bit is false), there is nothing here saying that the students whose details Malkin posted ever contacted Malkin. Now read what Malkin wrote:

Oh, and for the record--not that the facts matter to the unhinged--not one of the three SAW students whose contact information is still publicly accessible across several websites has e-mailed me [*or phoned me or contacted me in any other way*] as of 12:30am EDT 4/18 [*as of 10:00am EDT*] to request that I remove anything.

How exactly do you know that the "several more times" bit is false? Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note her careful wording here.

Yes, OK. So she claims none of the actual 3 people contacted her. This is indeed "careful wording" so she can avoid saying other students contacted her. We should at least mention the FACT that "students" did contacted her as the NEWS STORY reports. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Having followed this incident fairly closely, I do not recall SAW ever claiming to have received anti-semitic abuse. Does anyone have a link for such a claim? I doubt very much that Malkin's followers would be anti-semitic.

I used "claim" when summarizing Malkin's posts, so I used "claim" for summarizing SAW's statements as well. Interestingly, the claims and counter-claims could well all be true! How often does that happen?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, when something is published in a source like a newspaper, we generally do not put "claimed" before it, otherwise all facts should be preceeded "claimed". You can change it to the "Sentinel Reported" if you want. Malkin's blog is her own words, so "claimed" is correct. There is a presumption that newspapers would not just make up facts and unless you can show otherwise, what is reported in the Sentinel is enough to remove the word "claimed" from the whole "who contacted who" subplot. Please don't be abusive. Riven turnbull 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

My responses to Riven's comments of 02:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) follow, each preceded by an excerpt from the comment by Riven to which it applies.
Riven has replied separately to each of my responses (09:18 UTC), and now I've responded to him. I've talken the liberty of adding numbers and putting Riven's replies into italics. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) What on earth are you talking about? [...]

I thought what I wrote was fairly clear, but let me try again. I downloaded the Press Release from saw.revolt.org yesterday, and got a version that contains the phone numbers and email addresses of the 3 students. That is proof that SAW posted the complete press release, despite all the claims to the contrary.

Riven, you probably should retract that "willful misrepresentation" bit. For one thing, it's a violation of Wikipedia rules.

I will retract and fully apologize if you're indeed telling the truth, or give me a reasonable explanation that you made a mistake. Now please try to follow me here: I'm looking at the website. There are TWO relevant entries near the bottom, both are press releases. One is a press release available in multiple formats, that is time-stamped at 8:30AM, April 11. That's NOT the press release that Malkin is talking about. There are names on this press release, but not the same names that Malkin outed. This entry is entirely irrelevant, but I suspect you are confusing it with the real one which was posted at 1:37PM April 11. THAT's the one that Malin is talking about and that one has no names anywhere. If you can show me (and everybody else) where these names are on the site, it would clear everything up, but you have posted no links. If the press release that you "downloaded" is not the same one Malkin is talking about, than please accept that I am correct and there's no evidence of these names on SAW's site, other than what Malkin "claims." Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See http://saw.revolt.org/node/49 and go to the "PDF" or "DOC" links for the April 7 press release. SAW edited the HTML version, but forgot to fix up the .doc and .pdf versions. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris, seriously, I'm at my witts end right now. I'm now repeating the same facts 3 times. You have not only failed to read my commentary, but also the press releases themselves. This link that you just posted is not the press release that Malkin published on her site. Look at Malkin's own screenshot http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004999.htm. The headline of this press release (the one we care about) is "Students Kick Military Recruiters Off Santa Cruz" stamped 1:37PM. The headline for the one you just linked to is "SAW to protest Military Recruiters on April 11." The one you linked to is a pre-action press release stamped 8:31AM. Malkin was talking about this press release which is still on SAW's website, but does not contain the names that Malkin outed: http://saw.revolt.org/node/50 dated 1:37PM Look at it, it matches Malkin's screenshot. This press release is the one that was distributed with the three names + three phone numbers that Malkin outed. The one you just link to in PDF and WORD forms has three other names and only one phone number. These are not the same names. None are the ones that Malkin outed are on your press release, since it's not the right press release. This means that you have no proof that the three names were on the website. At this point, I'm not going to repeat this again. It's here for everyone to see. I trust you to do the right thing restore my changes. Either provide some proof that these names were on the site, or take off that claim. It's not an unreasonable request and if you don't do it after three explanations, I'm left with no choice but to conclude that you're being abusive and try to escalate this issue with wikipedia. Now, I'm not sure about what aveneues there are here for that, but I will research it and do whatever it takes. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: I just checked, and the press release is still there.

Read above please. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(2) How exactly do you know that the "several more times" bit is false?

Because I read everything Malkin posted on her blog during the relevant time. IIRC, she posted the details exactly once more, as a screenshot from the Sydney Indymedia site.

So your source is your personal recollection? What part of "unsupported" does that contradict? Second, even if the screenshot is from Sydney Indymedia, how does that show that it was published on SAW's site? That's the question here, and there is still no proof for it. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, being as how Malkin's blog is a blog, all the posts are still there. Plus I saved copies of all her relevant posts (I don't think I missed any), and read them yesterday.

What? I'm supposed to take your word for it that she hasn't changed anything, yet you basically take it as a given (with no evidence) that SAW did change things? SAW is also a blog. Look at it for yourself. This is Malkin's word against that of Santa Cruz Sentinel and this needs to be reflected in the entry. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it published at saw.revolt.org? Well, yes. How do we know? It's still there. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The names are not there, you are mistaken. Just read the damn text. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(3) Yes, OK. [...] We should at least mention the FACT that "students" did contacted her as the NEWS STORY reports. [...]

Well, Malkin has never denied that SAW contacted her, or that their request to remove the details was polite, so we might as well remove the "claim"s. (Clearly the politeness, if any, was too late: "SAW has removed the contact information from its press release and is now lying about the fact that it made the info publicly available on the Internet. I am leaving it up." See the first update to this post.) I'll de-weasel-word that sentence.

Fine. All I'm saying is that what Malkin says or what SAW says are"claim"s and what is written in the Santa Cruz Sentinel is not a "claim." As far as apologies being too late? That's another unsupported assumption on a fact that doesn't even need to be in this entry. Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the apologies-too-late thing is also WP:OR or very close to it, and must not go in the article. CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) Please don't be abusive.

I don't see anywhere I've been abusive in this discussion. But I would like Riven to stop calling me a liar.

Considering you just called me a racist, I think that makes us even. I have offered to do a full apology and retraction as soon as you actually support what you're saying with facts.

I did not call you a racist. I asked whether you are one, because we have had Racist Right people editing their POV into this article before. I am very glad you're not one of them. (I bet you're glad too!) CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, as I write, every single one of Riven's contributions is to this article or it's talk page — including the one where he removed the information that the people who removed Malkin's address etc "includ[ed] at least one White Power activist". Hmm. Is Riven a left-winger, or from the Racist Right?

Please... don't play games. I said several times now that I erased stuff that had no support. You presented no support for that the email was from a "white power" activist. You have no idea who wrote the email. SAW also has many nasty emails, does that mean we can post claims made in those emails as fact? For example that "At least one of the emailers to SAW was retired military"? No, that's absurd. People can make up anything in hate-mail, and frankly this discussion does not belong in an encylopedia. If you do insist on characterizing what these emailers are in real life provide some proof, or say "they calim to be X or Y". Also be prepared to have similar nasty emails sent to SAW included as well. Lastly, I didn't realize it was against the rules to contribute to only one article. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Everyone starts out contributing to just one article. Why is this important? Riven turnbull 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Riven, I'm not sure which email you mean, sorry.

The White Power activist is named Michael Crook. That name may be false; he's an inveterate liar. Wikipedia once had article on him, but it was deleted in May. He is best known for running a website called "Forsake the Troops". Malkin once called him a "white supremacist sicko".[6]

Yes, if you can show that this is the guy who wrote the email to Malkin, in response to the SAW affair just put that evidence into the entry. As it reads right now, there's no evidence for that claim. Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Crook" posted Malkin's address, phone numbers, aerial photos of her house, and other details on one his blogs, at http://www.mcomike.com/michelle_malkin_at_it_again. He's since deleted the blog, but it's still in Google archives (minus the photos — Google only saves the text). Then he and/or his followers posted comments to zillions of blogs linking to one of those images. Most bloggers deleted those comments ASAP, regardless of their politics. IIRC, dailykos.com handled it especially well. See Talk:Michelle_Malkin/Archive1#Malkin_vs_SAW for more details.

I agree that we should not reproduce any of those hate emails. (We have links to both samples of the hate email that both SAW and Malkin got. That's appropriate. It lets interested readers see the death threats to SAW.)

It's quite OK to contribute to one article, but we do get some undesirable editors who do that. Riven's long and detailed comments on this page show that he is not that sort of editor. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering what you have put me through with a small set of verifiable facts, (that the names are NOT on SAW's site) I don't think you have any room to speculate about my being "undesirable editor." Riven turnbull 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 05:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) who also added the "Anti-semitic abuse of SAW" heading below.

Reply to Riven's comments of 19:46 UTC

Well now I'm very angry ... at myself. Somehow, back in April, I got the idea into my head that there was only one Press Release re the April 11 action, when there were two. There is no version of the April 11th Press Release ("A11PR" for short) on SAW's website which contains those contact details. I apologise to Riven.

I accept. I haven't reported you to anyone or anything. However, I'm still disappointed that even after all this, You still maintain -as a matter of FACT- that these numbers were "posted by SAW on public web." But nothing you've said has proven this. I am justified in removing this unsupported piece of information. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But I still say that the original A11PR included the contact details. At least one hard-left blogger copied the unedited PR onto the web: http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/2006_04_09_oreaddaily_archive.html#114486852444640068. See also http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=18037, with the annotation "[perth imc editor note: changed as per request]" where the contact details used to be; c/f the much cleaner update at http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/36508/print. Why did the websites remove the contact details? Because someone from SAW asked them to do so, in this email. What did they remove the details from? A duplicate of SAW's A11PR.

Obviously the press release sent to the media did contain the names and the numbers. Some of the media may have chosen to put the full release on their own sites. If so, "SAW" did not post them. Some of the media may have and some of the media certainly did not. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It could (and, I predict, will) be argued that SAW might have put a cleaned-up version of the A11PR on their website, while accidentally sending the complete version to Indymedia etc. However, we have a citeable statement that SAW put the complete A11PR on their website, from someone whose claims must be taken seriously in this article: Malkin herself. See this important new Wikipedia Policy.

OK, so this is Malkin's "claim" and it should be cited as such, not as fact. As a matter of fact she made other claims about this particular issue that should be cited. I will do that with full citation. Indymedia is still a news organization, so the most likely scenario is that SAW sent the full release to some news organizations. Take a look here: SAW said on crooksandliars.com: "She REPRINTED the numbers. The death threats have started again with a vengeance.” She’s basically blaming the victim, saying “we asked for it.” But we only sent the contact info to the PRESS (not her site) along with our press release and then we specifically asked HER to remove them, when there were death threats (we’ve published some on our site), she’s refusing.” " Source: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/04/17/malkin-crosses-the-line-santa-cruz

As you can see it says "we only sent the contact info to the PRESS." Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But wait, there's another twist. I don't see that it particularly matters to our article which website she got those details from. I'll edit the article accordingly.

That leads me to a question we should have answered back in April: do we have an citeable, reliably-source claims that SAW never put the full A11PR on their site?

This is absurd. Why would someone claim they "never" posted them. You don't prove a negative. You just state what evidence you have for your claim. Just because someone else hasn't denied it doesn't make it true. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My responses to some of Riven's other comments:

(2) Riven: I'm supposed to take your word for it that she hasn't changed anything.

Actually, indeed you are, Riven. Read WP:AGF. Note that it is a "policy", not just a "guideline". However, we do make allowances for inexperienced Wikipedians.

More concretely, I already told you that I saved all the relevant posts from MichelleMalkin.com.

But I was wrong, and Riven was right, about the relevant press release.

Fine. There are still two seperate and verifiable instances where she published the numbers and I tried to reflect this and you erased it. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(4) Riven: Yes, if you can show that this is the guy who wrote the email to Malkin, in response to the SAW affair.

Um, I'm not claiming that "Crook" wrote any email to or re Malkin. He did post Malkin's home address and other details, as Google cache will show you.

Another clarification: I wrote above that "he [Crook] and/or his followers posted comments to zillions of blogs". That's an educated guess on my part. The commenter(s) used "themole" and "killthebitch" as screen names. See this and this for some good background. Afterwards, I came to the conclusion that "Crook" probably did the spamming himself, or else got a follower to do it. My left-wing friends at parrotline wondered if "themole" could be a nut from their side of politics, but to me the nuttiness seems consistent with the far right, not the left. (Of course, none of this Original Research should go in the article.)

Interesting perspective. The main point nevertheless remains: You make a claim in the article. The claim is that "at least one White Power activist" published the personal information. I believe you. But you have no citation for it. Put in a citation, a link to where this happened (where it's presumably obvious that this guy is a "White Power" activist), or some other kind of credible evidence that can be put in the article to corroborate this sentence. That's all! If you have it put it in. If you don't, it's not acceptable to make the claim. A secondary point is that is this kind of "background" characterization of peripheral personalities necessary in this paragraph. Maybe you should just make a page for this guy and mention this speculation there. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And now I'm going to do a "full disclosure": I think Malkin was wrong to post the email addresses, very wrong to refuse to take them down (no matter how angry she was with SAW) and really wrong to post them again. Worse still, posting the phone numbers was blatantly wrong. I hope that having expressed this POV does not disqualify me from editing this article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you owning up to that mistake. But I'm puzzled as to why my suggestions are still not reflected in your latest edits. I will make a number of changes. Every one of them will be directly supported. I trust you to no reverse them frivolously. Riven turnbull 09:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic abuse of SAW

Maybe I'm just missing it but I can't find any reference to "anti-semetic calls" in the article history. Can you point out when that was? Lawyer2b 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was added back in May. I removed it a few hours later. My apologies for forgetting to sign my talk-page note about that. — An embarrassed CWC(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Having re-read WP:EL recently, I suspect that some of the anti-Malkin links should be deleted. (Remember that WP:EL is a style guide, not a WP:Policy.) See also #Links_removed above.

Here's the current list, numbered for reference:

1. MalkinWatch, a blog devoted to insulting Malkin
2. MichelleMalkinIsAnIdiot.com, another blog devoted to criticising Malkin
3. A series of blog posts by professors Eric Muller and Greg Robinson critiquing In Defense of Internment
4. Michelle Malkin: The Radical Right's Asian Pitbull, at a website for Asian Americans
5. Know Your Right-Wing Speakers: Michelle Malkin, from a Center for American Progress website
6. One of many claims by Malkin's more energetic detractors that she lies about the authorship of her blog and columns
7. Is Michelle Malkin a Journalist? - left-wing journalist David Neiwert says no

My comments:

1 and 2 are blogs, full of peurile insults and "unverified original research". They have to go.

3 is from a blog, but by a notable academic (see the recently-created Eric Muller article) with substantive comment. It should stay.

4 reports Malkins biography (in more detail than we do) as well as criticising her, and is now somewhat dated. It also carries advertising. I'm undecided about it.

5 is anti-Malkin propaganda designed to destroy her reputation. It has to go.

6 represents an unsubstantiated and defamatory claim which "LiberalAvenger" has been energetically promulgating for quite some time: that Michelle Malkin is just a front for Jesse. (Don't her Vents put the lie to this?) Keeping 6 makes it easier to keep this claim, which would be a clear violation of the WP:BLP policy, out of the article. I vote to keep 6.

7 is another blog posting, but by someone who once worked with her. I vote to keep it.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of those links staying. I do have a problem with how many of them stay. Three or four is enough. Six is unnecessary and imbalanced, especially when only three "pro-Malkin" sites are shown. There are currently seven. Lawyer2b 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am removing #s 2 and 4. --AStanhope 11:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed #1, at least for the time being. Its depicts Malkin as a uniformed Nazi (a stunningly stupid ploy), and makes damaging but unsubstantiated claims about her in almost every post. Anyone wanting to restore the link will need to make a convincing case for disregarding large slabs of WP:EL. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Links (again)

look http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com/2006/08/11/wikipedians-unite/ The owner of the site in question is very unhappy about not getting free publicity for his site on WP and encourages people to put it back on, regardless of any discussion or consensus. No matter what your opinion of Malkin is, anybody should be aware of such soapbox abuse of WP. Medico80 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate tag to put on users talk pages that spam the article with this self-serving blog link is: {{subst:spam-n|Michelle Malkin}} - It will look like this:

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Michelle Malkin. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

If it continues, progressive spam warning can be added until the user is blcoked. --Tbeatty 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That site (Malkinwatch) has been around for a couple of years criticizing Malkin. It has its ups and downs, but overall I think it is fair and is certainly valuable as a link here. Is it not a primary resource for criticism of Malkin? I don't understand any reasoning to remove it other than political expediency by particular editors here. I'm sorry to have to have drawn that conclusion, but I must. --AStanhope 02:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)