Talk:Heather Mallick

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Kay
This article is not about Barbara Kay. It is about Heather Mallick. In addition, Barbara Kay's comments about Quebec made several years ago are not relevant to this article and have nothing to do with the "context" in which she criticized Mallick. Finally, the use of words such as "ironically" are not NPOV.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

In addition, the comments against Kay are not from a media source. They are an original analysis by the author, and therefore, is classified as original research under wikipedia guidelines. If you have source from a mainstream media or journal that supports this, feel free to reinsert it. Your own analysis doesn't count.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Barbara Kay
This article previously contained controversial and unsubstantiated accusations about Mallick by Jonathan Kay and Barbara Kay. Some editors (me, specifically), tried to provide some historical context to the disputes between opinion columnists. Other editors deemed this context as not NPOV. But, as the articles presented as fact by Kay and Kay were also not NPOV, then all references to the articles by Kay and Kay were removed. As Hyperionsteel noted, this article is not about Barbara Kay. (Brxtux (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Brxtux to Hyperionsteel. Nicely done with your edits of '03:51, 25 September 2008'. It leaves the relevant information about the controversy and critiques, does not overplay their non-neutral points of view and hence does not require extra baggage to contextualize those points of view. Again, well done. Brxtux (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad we could work this out.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

"there was also a negative reaction in the US news media"
This comment is misleading. Please source that anyone other than Fox, which specifically does not consider itself part of the "mainstream media" picked up on this story. --The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the "right-of-centre" description of Fox News. Was it the Fox News "news" or was it the network's commentators? I ask because their actual news is pretty balanced while the commentariat is very right wing. So the right-of-centre label doesn't really help, I believe. Any thoughts? --128.233.97.77 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
Almost half the article is made up of this "controversy". Not only is that undue weight but it violates BLP. Round the Horne (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2008 incident
In his edit comments, hyperionsteel wrote "I disagree, and your summarized version whitewashes her specific comments". That's not true. I didn't actually remove one word from the excerpt of her actual comments, what I summarized was the response. The quote about HRCs and press councils being pro-liberal has nothing to do with Mallick and a lot of the other stuff was repetitive (eg two almost identical quotes from Van Susteran) and the CBC response can be summarized by referring to the outcome. The process leading to the outcome is not needed. Keep in mind this is a minor incident in her career and does not merit the amount of space or blow by blow detail the article had previously. Keep in mind BLP and Undue Weight. If you want I can take this to the BLP message board and the outcome will probably be having even less about this incident then is on the page now. Round the Horne (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What you removed were some important details about the results of the investigation done by CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin (who by the way, is a reasonably non-bias source). Specifically, the you removed the following citation: However, he noted that Mallick presented several statements as facts without any justification. He noted that "there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men" and "that type of comment, applied to any other group, would easily be seen as, at best, puerile." He also noted that Mallick's "characterization of Palin supporters as white trash lacks a factual basis." Carlin wrote that he had asked Ms. Mallick to explain the basis for these characterizations and although she explained her opinions of Ms. Palin, she "did not provide a factual justification for the statements."

The fact that the CBC's ombudsman conducted an investigation and found that her writings lacked justification is certainly relevant (keep in mind, this is not an opinion piece but an official CBC report).

By the way, your invocation of BLP does not apply. I see nothing on this page that is false or potentially libelous (and if there is, please point it out).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC))


 * (August 2011) I've trimmed down the coverage of Mallicks attack on Palin and the ensuing events. I took out details that did not seem that important at first sight; I may well have made mistakes. Further edits welcome. CWC 01:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Still writing for CBC?
I seem to recall seeing a statement that the CBC no longer publishes Ms Mallick, but our lede says she writes "an occasional column for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website". Her website, which "went on vacation some time ago", shows her last CBC column as being published 2010-07-19. The website also says she "can be reached at the Toronto Star where she works", suggesting she is an employee instead of a freelancer. Do we need to update the lede? Cheers, CWC 01:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heather Mallick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216164101/https://www.cna-acj.ca/client/cna/cna.nsf/web/NNAWinners1996 to http://www.cna-acj.ca/client/cna/cna.nsf/web/NNAWinners1996/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927143510/http://www.womenspost.ca/Oh_to_be_a_fool.asp to http://www.womenspost.ca/Oh_to_be_a_fool.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219220422/http://j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=2832 to http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=2832

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

From main article
Moved this text from main article to talk page: "Heather Mallick edited the intro on May 14, 2018 to update her resume. She knows this is not done, neither read nor altered anything else and has no Wikipedia expertise whatsoever."Oceanflynn (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Latest article about unvaccinated
Heather That’s the most uninformed article I’ve ever read … your an idiot and are causing great harm to society., stupid stupid.. 2605:8D80:605:FE82:6950:54AE:BF9E:CF90 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)